127 points

Relevant XKCD:

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Why not post a link to the actual XKCD comic and give the author the views instead of a random site?

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

The random site is their lemmy instance’s pictrs. Randall doesn’t care about reposting, and this is nicer since you don’t have to leave lemmy

permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points
*

In fact he doesn’t care about reposting so much that he Creative Commons licensed his whole comic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Today I learned :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Aw man I’ve been making this joke thinking I’m clever for years but I read xkcd pretty frequently. I must have inadvertently stolen the joke from Randall.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There’s probably an XKCD about that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points
*

At first I was thinking, a bit of human supervision could not be too bad. And then I got to the part where they said 1.5 workers per vehicle. My maths may be off, but to me that sounds like 0.5 more than is necessary to drive a normal vehicle.

Theranos? Maybe, but at that point, I’d compare it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk too.

permalink
report
reply
39 points
*

When I worked at Waymo, we had a ratio of about 10 cars to 1 remote human. I dunno if Cruise is being over-protective, if their tech is just that bad that they need more people than cars, or if the number is just incorrect.

Either way, it hardly matters. It’s not like these things are commercially available for a long time yet, anyway. In the testing stages - which Cruise 100% is still in - you definitely want a sturdy team of humans capable of intervening for safety reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If the cars are running all day long it might make sense to need another human to pick up later shifts. Still though, that ratio is way too high to be economical.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Chonky TL;DR because I was a little annoyed that there wasn’t one here -

Certainly no commercial product could ever work at a profit if you needed remote operators anything like that often. As Brooks points out, the term “autonomous” barely applies.

Beyond what Brooks pointed out, the story also notes “Those vehicles were supported by a vast operations staff, with 1.5 workers per vehicle”.

Fitting with this general vibe, a source (that in fairness, I don’t know well) just told me that his impression having visited with them not so long ago was that “they’re definitely relying on remote interventions to create an illusion of stronger AI than they really have”.

if Cruise’s vehicles really need an intervention every few miles, and 1.5 external operators for every vehicle, they don’t seem to even be remotely close to what they have been alleging to the public. Shareholders will certainly sue, and if it’s bad as it looks, I doubt that GM will continue the project, which was recently suspended.

As safety expert Missy Cummings said to me this morning, remote operators could well be “the dark secret of ALL self-driving.”

Human lives at are stake.

Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt essentially confirmed that their “driverless” cars need very regular human intervention:

permalink
report
reply

🤣😂

But the average Whitedude Techbro AI company CEO is looking very seriously into the camera and telling me AI is coming for my job next year…

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

1.5 operators per vehicle!?

Consider that"dumb" cars are only 1 operator per vehicle. This is somehow reverse-AI

permalink
report
reply
24 points
  1. NYT writes article
  2. Roboticist tweets about one fact in it
  3. Substack blogger turns that tweet into a sensational headline

You can just watch the different food chains interacting here from legit media to independent authority to bottom feeding headline-shagger.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

4: Insightful comments on Reddit / lemmy tearing apart the sensationalism, but getting buried under lame jokes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Unfortunately, the substack article seems to be freely accessible, while the NYT isn’t. I understand the whole supporting journalists angle, but having to sign up to read stuff so they can more easily correlate what I click on and sell usage pattern data rubs me the wrong way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m a paying NYT subscriber so I guess “supporting journalists” (why did you even put this in quotes?) is more important to me than “vague fears” of “personalized advertising” which are probably much the same on every “website” in “the world.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

why did you even put this in quotes?

IDK, it’s early morning and I felt like it was an established term. I’m sure I was thinking something, but I can’t reconstruct just what. I’ll fix that.

I have a personal distaste for login-walls. I’m fine with disabling my adblocker for sites I trust and enjoy, but I just don’t like walled-off content. I’m doing my best to avoid tracking cookies, including manually going through the cookie settings on those notifications and clearing cookies on sites I don’t need to stay logged in on. Courtesy of GDPR and judging by the variety of irrelevant ads I do get, I like to think I’m doing a mostly solid job.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Headline shagger has me in stitches

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 553K

    Comments