GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff(reuters.com)
reuters.com
GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous-layoffs/gm-self-driving-tech-unit-cruise-laying-off-about-8-of-staff-idUSKBN22Q34W
295 comments
Almost 40 percent of those in households making less than $40,000 a year had lost a job in March. Tech sector has had it easy so far.
It's going to be a bit weird because a lot of those should come back because the underlying business didn't suddenly become nonviable.
> the underlying business didn't suddenly become nonviable
They may have. We don't know when or if things will go back to the way they were before March 2020 and how consumer and employer behavior will change.
For example, maybe movie theaters are completely screwed. Except as a novelty, the big business chains may not survive. Universal Studios is already pushing back on theater release windows and no live-action movies are being filmed right now, and who knows for how long that lasts. Will the public feel safe enough to go back into theaters all at once before theaters run out of money as if nothing happened? I imagine some of those jobs at least are permanently gone.
Employers will probably maintain work from home and cut back on office space. All those jobs that support maintaining offices may not come back either.
I don't think the restaurant business will jump back either, people can't just restart their failed restaurant as if they didn't lose all that money they needed to keep their already slim margin business open before the pandemic.
They may have. We don't know when or if things will go back to the way they were before March 2020 and how consumer and employer behavior will change.
For example, maybe movie theaters are completely screwed. Except as a novelty, the big business chains may not survive. Universal Studios is already pushing back on theater release windows and no live-action movies are being filmed right now, and who knows for how long that lasts. Will the public feel safe enough to go back into theaters all at once before theaters run out of money as if nothing happened? I imagine some of those jobs at least are permanently gone.
Employers will probably maintain work from home and cut back on office space. All those jobs that support maintaining offices may not come back either.
I don't think the restaurant business will jump back either, people can't just restart their failed restaurant as if they didn't lose all that money they needed to keep their already slim margin business open before the pandemic.
Things are going back to how things were in March 2020 very quickly [1] [2]
As an aside, I’ve stopped being surprised with how out of touch and in a bubble HN posts are. There’s so much understanding of human nature out there that is missing here.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/14/...
2. https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/carnival-swamped-with-bookings...
As an aside, I’ve stopped being surprised with how out of touch and in a bubble HN posts are. There’s so much understanding of human nature out there that is missing here.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/14/...
2. https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/carnival-swamped-with-bookings...
> I’ve stopped being surprised with how out of touch and in a bubble HN posts are.
I step away from the site every few days to help stay centered.
I hope things return to normal as quickly as possible, our economy depends on it. Very few people can afford to weather this without a strong economy.
In the US when you lose your job you lose your healthcare too. Healthcare can’t be fixed in a hurry but we can all agree to be reasonable and keep as many people working as we can.
I step away from the site every few days to help stay centered.
I hope things return to normal as quickly as possible, our economy depends on it. Very few people can afford to weather this without a strong economy.
In the US when you lose your job you lose your healthcare too. Healthcare can’t be fixed in a hurry but we can all agree to be reasonable and keep as many people working as we can.
Have you watched Powell’s most recent remarks? He doesn’t seem to agree with your assessment.
These types of people predict the worst so that they are never wrong on the downside. That’s why the initial death projection was 2m people. Imagine if they instead predicted 1000 deaths.
Same stuff happens with global warming preds. You’re getting the worst case, x100, every time.
Same stuff happens with global warming preds. You’re getting the worst case, x100, every time.
Who are "these types of people"? Fed Chairmen are usually pretty level-headed.
Do you have an academic source for the global warming claim?
Do you have an academic source for the global warming claim?
Right - we saw a lot of businesses lose 80+% of their customers before any shelter in place orders were mandated. In low margin places like bars and restaurants, it's highly unlikely many can survive with even 75% of their normal level of business.
That just means prices will go up. Nothing is certain, of course, but those prices are low mostly because of high competition, not because people are unable to pay.
There will certainly be a bit of both, but it's not like you won't be able to find a restaurant after the pandemic.
There will certainly be a bit of both, but it's not like you won't be able to find a restaurant after the pandemic.
Some businesses' fixed costs mean raising prices won't prevent bankruptcy.
Restaurants will remain available, but will movie theaters? They were already being disrupted by streaming services.
Restaurants will remain available, but will movie theaters? They were already being disrupted by streaming services.
> Employers will probably maintain work from home and cut back on office space. All those jobs that support maintaining offices may not come back either.
I think there will be a greater demand for office real estate because suddenly everyone needs double the space and (spacious) cubicles or standalone offices will make a comeback.
That is, unless every company goes full remote.
I think there will be a greater demand for office real estate because suddenly everyone needs double the space and (spacious) cubicles or standalone offices will make a comeback.
That is, unless every company goes full remote.
You maintain a location with a handful of dedicated offices together with hoteling and conference rooms for people to come in a day per week or so.
[deleted]
It will be a long and slow ramp. I don't expect to sit inside a restaurant or go to the movies for the rest of this year, possibly most of 2021.
Theaters were on the way out before any of this started. Movie ticket sales have been declining for years. That trend will only get worse.
Theaters were on the way out before any of this started. Movie ticket sales have been declining for years. That trend will only get worse.
Personally I'm not so sure if movie theaters are nonviable. Nerdy stuffs are generally safer.
> Will the public feel safe enough to go back into theaters all at once before theaters run out of money as if nothing happened?
the need for theatres and cinemas have not disappeared. They will come back once the virus situation is under control (in say 2-4 yrs time, when vaccine is available). Therefore, the jobs will come back in 2-4 yrs time.
The companies will have been different - the old incumbents will have bankrupted by then. But that doesn't matter - as long as there is new investment, new companies will spring up to soak up the demand.
Same with office spaces. It's not like the need for office space will disappear indefinitely.
the need for theatres and cinemas have not disappeared. They will come back once the virus situation is under control (in say 2-4 yrs time, when vaccine is available). Therefore, the jobs will come back in 2-4 yrs time.
The companies will have been different - the old incumbents will have bankrupted by then. But that doesn't matter - as long as there is new investment, new companies will spring up to soak up the demand.
Same with office spaces. It's not like the need for office space will disappear indefinitely.
>Same with office spaces. It's not like the need for office space will disappear indefinitely.
There is an arguable difference here, a lot of people were willing to WFH before the crisis, but most businesses didn't allow it. A crisis like this, forcing businesses to accept WFH, has the side benefit of doing a large experiment where business owners see whether WFH works for them, maybe even has good sides to it, but also what's negative about it.
Before, many employers were just apprehensive and would only think about this in theory. Many now see in practice what they were afraid about, and maybe they're not as afraid anymore.
So maybe office space will rebound, but maybe not. I'm quite sure in my city most office jobs are doable from home, however for meetings we might get back to some balanced level of WFH + office work. But it may never rebound to pre-crisis levels.
There is an arguable difference here, a lot of people were willing to WFH before the crisis, but most businesses didn't allow it. A crisis like this, forcing businesses to accept WFH, has the side benefit of doing a large experiment where business owners see whether WFH works for them, maybe even has good sides to it, but also what's negative about it.
Before, many employers were just apprehensive and would only think about this in theory. Many now see in practice what they were afraid about, and maybe they're not as afraid anymore.
So maybe office space will rebound, but maybe not. I'm quite sure in my city most office jobs are doable from home, however for meetings we might get back to some balanced level of WFH + office work. But it may never rebound to pre-crisis levels.
The demand is there, say for food, but the capital has evaporated and the restaurant no longer exists. To start a new one you would need investors to pay for up front costs, labor, food, and commercial rent, and who is feeling bullish enough to start a business notorious for it's razor thin margins at the start of a recession?
This kind of thing is why it's so confusing to me that more commercial landlords haven't been willing to play ball with their tenants on rent breaks through this crisis. Like, what do you have to gain by throwing out a restaurant or other business that is ready to start right back up the moment the lockdown lifts, vs sitting on an empty unit for months and months while the economy remains in turmoil, getting nothing from it. I guess it's maybe a play for some deep-pocketed franchise operator to grab it on spec? Seems risky.
I read somewhere on HN that commercial real estate is financed differently from residential real estate, and in particular, financing costs are related to what a building could earn rather than what a building does earn. If you keep rents the same but have vacancies, your funders apparently don't count that against you, while if reduce rents, suddenly the earning potential of your building has dropped and it will cost you, even if the building is actually earning more in cash flow than if it were vacant.
Seems like a bit of a misincentive here, and a recipe for lenders to go bust too. Then again, it seems like commercial real estate has periodic financial crises, so this seems to reflect reality. Get ready for the next one.
Seems like a bit of a misincentive here, and a recipe for lenders to go bust too. Then again, it seems like commercial real estate has periodic financial crises, so this seems to reflect reality. Get ready for the next one.
This is 100% true and this actually does affect residential as well. Many real estate investors make more money from the appreciation of the asset as opposed to current rents. Reducing rent reduces the value of the property on paper because the projected earnings over time decrease.
There's not enough downward pressure on rents in general.
Tax unoccupied space, and not a little. 10x property taxes for vacant units with real standards for what counts as occupied.
Tax unoccupied space, and not a little. 10x property taxes for vacant units with real standards for what counts as occupied.
That might deter the creation of new housing supply.
Vancouver's been doing a 5x property tax for vacant units for the past few years, and it does seem to be putting some pressure on owners to get them occupied:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6523554/empty-homes-tax-results-2...
Vancouver's normal property tax rate is just 0.26%, and the vacancy surcharge is 1% per that article.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6523554/empty-homes-tax-results-2...
Vancouver's normal property tax rate is just 0.26%, and the vacancy surcharge is 1% per that article.
[deleted]
Jobs may come slowly back, but fraction of people and families will be permanently damaged in the process. People are not like rubber bands that return to where they were.
The effects can be generational when families have children.
The effects can be generational when families have children.
I get that and am personally for way more support than the paltry 1200 ea that has been sent out so far. I'm just saying the loss of jobs here was artificial where every other depress/recession it's come out of systemic reactions and problems. As this goes on longer it starts to act more like a normal one though I'll admit since businesses start to fold and go under based on their fixed costs meaning the jobs are actually lost.
Looking at past economic studies, there is a long run hysteresis effect after depressions and while the jobs should come back it may be on a time frame of a decade or longer.
My grandparents spending habits were permanently affected by growing up during the great depression. They talked about their frugality in the context of the depression often. It anchored their entire concept of money. My parents were deeply affected too and often talked about their own childhood and how they were taught to handle money. I feel like I was brought up with a vestige of that great depression mentality and often actively challenge myself to be less frugal. That's 90 years of long run hysteresis right there.
People might very well use it as a reason to automate and layoff without the guilt that would have been stronger before Covid
I doubt the consumer confidence will be the same. Not to mention that some people will be staying at home much longer.
And some people will cook more. For example, we have a lovely little neopolitan pizza joint a block away, but two days ago I received an Ooni Koda 16 and have discovered how easy it is to make my own neopolitan pizzas. That's basically a permanent reduction in my spending on pizza if/when it does reopen.
My guess is when you're tired and just want dinner now-ish, you'll learn to value that nearby restaurant. It's not like restaurants are only viable because people don't know how to cook themselves.
You can quibble about a specific food, but I think the general point stands. Habits are powerful and they can change. Every adult in the country (world?) is now forcibly learning how to cook or practicing a few new recipes. It turns out that some of those recipes are delicious, dead simple and once you know how to do it, having someone else do it for you looses it's convenience factor.
For myself:
I love cappuccino and bought several per week from cafes near me. I was missing them, so did a bit of research into home espresso and bought a nespresso and semi-automatic milk frother. My homemade cappuccino is excellent. It takes 2 minutes to make with just about zero cleanup. I have had better cappuccino, but seriously the extra time, money and hassle are no longer worth it for me. I will make it at home. It's also 6x cheaper.
I like to treat myself to steak every now and then, but only ever at a restaurant. I recently bought a package of strip steaks and did some trial and error on a George Foreman grill I found in the back of the cupboard I hadn't used in years. I figured out a process that works with that piece of equipment, and now I can knock out an amazing steak in exactly 4 minutes. It's cooked exactly how I like it. Why bother with the hassle and expense of going out for one? Plus it's 4x cheaper.
I doubt I'll completely stop going out or getting delivery, but if I reduce by 10% and everybody else does too, we're talking a lot of businesses that will close.
For myself:
I love cappuccino and bought several per week from cafes near me. I was missing them, so did a bit of research into home espresso and bought a nespresso and semi-automatic milk frother. My homemade cappuccino is excellent. It takes 2 minutes to make with just about zero cleanup. I have had better cappuccino, but seriously the extra time, money and hassle are no longer worth it for me. I will make it at home. It's also 6x cheaper.
I like to treat myself to steak every now and then, but only ever at a restaurant. I recently bought a package of strip steaks and did some trial and error on a George Foreman grill I found in the back of the cupboard I hadn't used in years. I figured out a process that works with that piece of equipment, and now I can knock out an amazing steak in exactly 4 minutes. It's cooked exactly how I like it. Why bother with the hassle and expense of going out for one? Plus it's 4x cheaper.
I doubt I'll completely stop going out or getting delivery, but if I reduce by 10% and everybody else does too, we're talking a lot of businesses that will close.
I'll do you one better on the steaks. Buy a Beville Joule and a vacuum sealer. Season the steaks with salt and pepper and vacuum seal it. Heat with the sous vide to 110F for a 1" thick ribeye. 120F for a 1.5" cut. Preheat grill to 500-600F. Remove steak from water and bag, pat dry and re-season (most of the original season was absorbed into the steak). Then toss on the grill for 1-2 minutes each side depending if you like it done rarer or better cooked.
Adjust accordingly to your liking, but in general, you can easily achieve premium steakhouse quality with this approach with 30 min to 1 hour, start to finish. Mostly the sous vide as used here is about bringing the internal temperature up so that the steak cooks quickly and more evenly than a steak pulled right out of the fridge. This is even less cleanup than a foreman since the only thing getting dirty is the surface you season on (usually the paper the steak is wrapped in) and the grill you just need to brush with a wire scraper.
I recommend a VacMaster VP215, but I understand if that's way outside your budget. I personally use mine daily for lots of things besides sous vide like storing food, saving sauces
Adjust accordingly to your liking, but in general, you can easily achieve premium steakhouse quality with this approach with 30 min to 1 hour, start to finish. Mostly the sous vide as used here is about bringing the internal temperature up so that the steak cooks quickly and more evenly than a steak pulled right out of the fridge. This is even less cleanup than a foreman since the only thing getting dirty is the surface you season on (usually the paper the steak is wrapped in) and the grill you just need to brush with a wire scraper.
I recommend a VacMaster VP215, but I understand if that's way outside your budget. I personally use mine daily for lots of things besides sous vide like storing food, saving sauces
I already knew how to make coffee and cook already and I still went to to coffee houses and restaurants.
That’s like saying because I can drink at home I’m not going to bars.
Let me guess: everyone in the world is ditching Microsoft WORD for Emacs too.
That’s like saying because I can drink at home I’m not going to bars.
Let me guess: everyone in the world is ditching Microsoft WORD for Emacs too.
Supporting example: WE are making bubble teas with boba at home, takes about 10 mins and they are amazing and much cheaper and convenient than $5-6 that bubble tea places here charge.
Counter example: We basically rarely ordered delivery and preferred take-outs. However, due to the increased delivery usage recently we figured that since delivery costs are similar for a restaurant 5 miles or 15 miles out, we are getting food from restaurants further out than we would normally not go to as they were too much of a drive.
Counter example: We basically rarely ordered delivery and preferred take-outs. However, due to the increased delivery usage recently we figured that since delivery costs are similar for a restaurant 5 miles or 15 miles out, we are getting food from restaurants further out than we would normally not go to as they were too much of a drive.
They may have. Movie theaters and night clubs for example.
Meet retail
Tech sector had it easy because it is still early and exec suite is desperately clinging to a belief this will be a V recovery rather than a slow and painful crawl down followed by the same kind of slow and painful crawl up.
These are completely unrelated. The former worry was that eventually AI would take over menial labor jobs. As you know, many AI divisions are basically in R&D right now with no tangible replacement for menial labor jobs. When a crisis hits, the jobs that are non-essential are the first to go.
the layoff includes staff at an engineering team in Padasedna, California, that works on Lidar
> Now we're worried about all the AI jobs disappearing.
I work in the space, and I'm not[1] worried about that at all. For what it's worth, anyone who knows what they're talking about also wasn't worried that all menial jobs would be taken by AI: fine motor control is really difficult, so paradoxically, janitors are safer than many middle-skilled white collar jobs are. More broadly, my model of AI is one of slow but inexorable progress: the dirty secret of tech eating the world is that most industries are run obscenely inefficiently. This doesn't suggest that Google et al can just jump into any random industry with both feet and have immediate success, but this is largely due to inertia (and in some case, regulatory barriers slowing transitions of any kind[2]), both of which are short- and medium-run concerns.
The Cruise announcement in particular is a bit of a strange one to choose to make this point:
> The layoffs represent about 8% of Cruise’s workforce. The losses were mostly in business strategy, product development, design, and recruiting. The company also dismissed staff working on Lidar engineering in Pasadena, Calif.[3]
Cruise has >2 years of runway in the bank right now[3], is a financial entity separate from GM (no longer wholly owned), and is shifting their resources away from "close to market" towards "investing in the research problem", just like other SDC companies like Waymo. The Covid downturn, like most downturns, is just a useful pretext to engage in this restructuring.
I usually tend towards taking the pessimistic view of uncertainty that affects me personally, I guess because I'm relatively risk-averse. But all the signals I've seen from the economic impact of Covid indicate that AI jobs are going to be affected by the general economic downturn but be in much _better_ relative shape than many other jobs: while shelter-in-place won't last forever, the more-lsating effects will likely include things like increased inshoring of manufacturing and an increase in demand for delivery and logistics (both central applications for robotics). The trend of people spending more time online is only increasing too, and the applications of AI there are self-explanatory from the last decade (people really do underestimate what ML specialists do: "decreasing Google's datacenter cooling costs by 40%" isn't the central AI problem most people think of, but it's the kind of things that creates massive amounts of value.
Possible longer-term trends that pose challenges for autonomous vehicle companies in particular (not AI eng in general) potentially include a) some deurbanization and b) less theoretical demand in shared transportation methods; but the latter may be somewhat mitigated by the refugees from transit to robotaxis (esp given that sharing an air pocket is so much more dangerous and hard to control than sharing surfaces).
[1] With caveats, I guess; I and most of my friends in the field have been in or adjacent to AI for a lot longer than the current boom, so we're seeing a very different picture than people who did a Tensorflow tutorial two years ago.
[2] Since I know this will be misinterpreted, I'll clarify: This isn't a suggestion that regulations are bad and should be run rough-shod over, just an acknowledgement that even good regulation tends to slow large shifts in the way industries run, just by introducing complexity and barriers to entry due to tribal knowledge of regulatory compliance. This isn't a criticism of regulation, just a well-known downside.
[3] https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/gm-cruise-lays-off-8-of-staff...
I work in the space, and I'm not[1] worried about that at all. For what it's worth, anyone who knows what they're talking about also wasn't worried that all menial jobs would be taken by AI: fine motor control is really difficult, so paradoxically, janitors are safer than many middle-skilled white collar jobs are. More broadly, my model of AI is one of slow but inexorable progress: the dirty secret of tech eating the world is that most industries are run obscenely inefficiently. This doesn't suggest that Google et al can just jump into any random industry with both feet and have immediate success, but this is largely due to inertia (and in some case, regulatory barriers slowing transitions of any kind[2]), both of which are short- and medium-run concerns.
The Cruise announcement in particular is a bit of a strange one to choose to make this point:
> The layoffs represent about 8% of Cruise’s workforce. The losses were mostly in business strategy, product development, design, and recruiting. The company also dismissed staff working on Lidar engineering in Pasadena, Calif.[3]
Cruise has >2 years of runway in the bank right now[3], is a financial entity separate from GM (no longer wholly owned), and is shifting their resources away from "close to market" towards "investing in the research problem", just like other SDC companies like Waymo. The Covid downturn, like most downturns, is just a useful pretext to engage in this restructuring.
I usually tend towards taking the pessimistic view of uncertainty that affects me personally, I guess because I'm relatively risk-averse. But all the signals I've seen from the economic impact of Covid indicate that AI jobs are going to be affected by the general economic downturn but be in much _better_ relative shape than many other jobs: while shelter-in-place won't last forever, the more-lsating effects will likely include things like increased inshoring of manufacturing and an increase in demand for delivery and logistics (both central applications for robotics). The trend of people spending more time online is only increasing too, and the applications of AI there are self-explanatory from the last decade (people really do underestimate what ML specialists do: "decreasing Google's datacenter cooling costs by 40%" isn't the central AI problem most people think of, but it's the kind of things that creates massive amounts of value.
Possible longer-term trends that pose challenges for autonomous vehicle companies in particular (not AI eng in general) potentially include a) some deurbanization and b) less theoretical demand in shared transportation methods; but the latter may be somewhat mitigated by the refugees from transit to robotaxis (esp given that sharing an air pocket is so much more dangerous and hard to control than sharing surfaces).
[1] With caveats, I guess; I and most of my friends in the field have been in or adjacent to AI for a lot longer than the current boom, so we're seeing a very different picture than people who did a Tensorflow tutorial two years ago.
[2] Since I know this will be misinterpreted, I'll clarify: This isn't a suggestion that regulations are bad and should be run rough-shod over, just an acknowledgement that even good regulation tends to slow large shifts in the way industries run, just by introducing complexity and barriers to entry due to tribal knowledge of regulatory compliance. This isn't a criticism of regulation, just a well-known downside.
[3] https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/gm-cruise-lays-off-8-of-staff...
[deleted]
I would think that even at an AI company only a very small minority actually do AI.
It’s crazy how it creeps-everyone wants to be in AI so suddenly you have project managers with AI in their job title. I bet crisis was just a good excuse to get rid of some of that cruft.
I don't think anyone was/is really worried about either one of those. Additionally the majority of these cuts were administrative/non-engineering positions and of the cuts that were engineering most were not AI related.
Vast number of menial jobs will still be automated, and if anything, the quarantines are going to speed up the process.
It's still keeping the self-driving unit thought, even though there's a good chance it won't ever be successful. I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all. I bet if you did a study and ran the numbers, it would be cheaper to put down rail on existing roads and make them rail-car only, automate those and subsidize rail cars.
I feel in the minority in thinking self driving tech will ever be viable. I've worked in computer vision startups and know how powerful the tech can be, but it still can't account with even a fraction of challenging driving conditions. I don't think anything short of general purpose AI could handle it. We are some pretty big discoveries away from general AI.
I also don't think they solve any real transport issues compared to traditional mass transit: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/self-driving-cars-will-not-so...
I feel in the minority in thinking self driving tech will ever be viable. I've worked in computer vision startups and know how powerful the tech can be, but it still can't account with even a fraction of challenging driving conditions. I don't think anything short of general purpose AI could handle it. We are some pretty big discoveries away from general AI.
I also don't think they solve any real transport issues compared to traditional mass transit: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/self-driving-cars-will-not-so...
There will be a large market/human-lives-saved benefit from the tech though, even if we never reach 100% self-driving autonomy
E.g. it is pretty standard now that pretty much every car on sale has automatic emergency braking that tries to avoid running over pedestrians even if the driver does not see them, many (but not all I admit) cars have lane-keeping assist that automatically keep the car in the lane, and will automatically adjust the speed to match the car in front and so on (right down to slamming on the brakes to avoid a rear-end shunt if needed). Then there are the self-parking cars, the ones with synthetic overhead 360 degree camera viewpoints, ones that prevent "unintended acceleration" in car parks, ones that read the road signs to let you know the speed limit etc. And these are "normal" cars that a common joe can afford, not high-end six-figure Mercedes/BMW/Lexus/Tesla etc
This sort of tech was science fiction not so long ago, yet now it is literally standard-fit.
There will be a slow but steady "encroachment" of more and more automation into cars as the years go by - you can guarantee that companies like Cruise are churning out the patents at the least for this sort of thing, even if not outright directly licensing technologies. It feels like a land-grab phase right now, even if there is no real intention to reach L5.
E.g. it is pretty standard now that pretty much every car on sale has automatic emergency braking that tries to avoid running over pedestrians even if the driver does not see them, many (but not all I admit) cars have lane-keeping assist that automatically keep the car in the lane, and will automatically adjust the speed to match the car in front and so on (right down to slamming on the brakes to avoid a rear-end shunt if needed). Then there are the self-parking cars, the ones with synthetic overhead 360 degree camera viewpoints, ones that prevent "unintended acceleration" in car parks, ones that read the road signs to let you know the speed limit etc. And these are "normal" cars that a common joe can afford, not high-end six-figure Mercedes/BMW/Lexus/Tesla etc
This sort of tech was science fiction not so long ago, yet now it is literally standard-fit.
There will be a slow but steady "encroachment" of more and more automation into cars as the years go by - you can guarantee that companies like Cruise are churning out the patents at the least for this sort of thing, even if not outright directly licensing technologies. It feels like a land-grab phase right now, even if there is no real intention to reach L5.
I’ve always been extremely dubious about the “self driving to save lives” angle for one very specific reason: we already know how to save lives. Slow. The. Cars. Down. Oslo managed to get their car deaths down to 1 in 2019. 1, in a city of 600,000. Los Angeles killed 240 that year, or 36x more per capita.
And yet, we don’t actually apply any known techniques to reduce fatalities. If we really cared about saving lives, we’d implement these measures today rather than banking on a long term tech solution.
I believe that self driving is about a fantasy world in which we can ignore all the negative consequences of a low density, car centric world. Pedestrian deaths? AI magic will solve it. Long commutes? Just eat breakfast in your car! Emissions? Why well just switch over to EVs! Never mind that half of this tech is either not real, or orders of magnitude less efficient than the transit that Europe has used for almost half a century!
The truth is we can fix all of these things right now, but it would involve sacrifices for those whom the system is already benefitting. So instead we’ve made up a fantasy world where we can have our cake and eat it too.
And yet, we don’t actually apply any known techniques to reduce fatalities. If we really cared about saving lives, we’d implement these measures today rather than banking on a long term tech solution.
I believe that self driving is about a fantasy world in which we can ignore all the negative consequences of a low density, car centric world. Pedestrian deaths? AI magic will solve it. Long commutes? Just eat breakfast in your car! Emissions? Why well just switch over to EVs! Never mind that half of this tech is either not real, or orders of magnitude less efficient than the transit that Europe has used for almost half a century!
The truth is we can fix all of these things right now, but it would involve sacrifices for those whom the system is already benefitting. So instead we’ve made up a fantasy world where we can have our cake and eat it too.
It's a cost benefit calculation. Sure we can make everyone go 25mph, but how much does that slow down commerce? It's a tradeoff people aren't willing to make. They'd rather sacrifice a few lives than take three hours to get 75 miles.
But the self driving tech allows us to get much safer while still going at normal speeds. Or maybe allows us to be equally safe at higher speeds.
Either way it's a win.
But the self driving tech allows us to get much safer while still going at normal speeds. Or maybe allows us to be equally safe at higher speeds.
Either way it's a win.
First, we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present. It’s not like cities with low pedestrian fatalities are stuck in the Middle Ages. Places where pedestrians are separated from cars can and should go faster.
Secondly I find it disturbing that discussions around acceptable traffic fatalities focus on unnamed and unspecified people as the apparently acceptable fatalities in pursuit of shorter commutes. I think this let’s a lot of people push off that moral calculus as something that happens to other, lesser, people. See: the reactions once people realized that Uber’s self driving car had killed a homeless woman. A better question is “what is the acceptable level of risk for you and your family to accept in return for faster commutes?”
Finally, don’t underestimate the feedback effect. High speeds are only economically necessary, if they even are, because we’ve chosen to design cities in a way that assumes high speed car traffic. Continuing to focus on keeping traffic going just puts off very necessary and politically difficult discussions about public transit and housing density. We could setup a society where 25mph in the cities works just fine, but we’ve made the explicit choice not to, and continue to reinforce that.
Secondly I find it disturbing that discussions around acceptable traffic fatalities focus on unnamed and unspecified people as the apparently acceptable fatalities in pursuit of shorter commutes. I think this let’s a lot of people push off that moral calculus as something that happens to other, lesser, people. See: the reactions once people realized that Uber’s self driving car had killed a homeless woman. A better question is “what is the acceptable level of risk for you and your family to accept in return for faster commutes?”
Finally, don’t underestimate the feedback effect. High speeds are only economically necessary, if they even are, because we’ve chosen to design cities in a way that assumes high speed car traffic. Continuing to focus on keeping traffic going just puts off very necessary and politically difficult discussions about public transit and housing density. We could setup a society where 25mph in the cities works just fine, but we’ve made the explicit choice not to, and continue to reinforce that.
> we only need to slow down cars to 25mph where pedestrians are present.
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would wager to guess that a good chunk of road injuries and deaths happen not just between drivers and pedestrians, but between drivers and other drivers.
Also, most areas in the US where pedestrians can be present are already limited to 25mph/35mph.
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I would wager to guess that a good chunk of road injuries and deaths happen not just between drivers and pedestrians, but between drivers and other drivers.
Also, most areas in the US where pedestrians can be present are already limited to 25mph/35mph.
60% of the 2019 road fatalities in Los Angeles were non-drivers. So drivers represent a good chunk, but not even a majority. Of course this statistic is going to very wildly based on which city we’re talking about.
To be fair to my original point, we can also reduce driver fatalities by slowing down highways and offering non-car transit options. The lowest hanging fruit in this area is probably shifting cargo transit from road to rail as much as possible, which might actually save the public money, since interstate highway companies receive billions of dollars in subsidy via subsidized road maintenance.
Secondarily would be high speed rail between major metropolitan areas, which would potentially save both road miles (and deaths) but drastically shorten the commute for some citizens.
To be fair to my original point, we can also reduce driver fatalities by slowing down highways and offering non-car transit options. The lowest hanging fruit in this area is probably shifting cargo transit from road to rail as much as possible, which might actually save the public money, since interstate highway companies receive billions of dollars in subsidy via subsidized road maintenance.
Secondarily would be high speed rail between major metropolitan areas, which would potentially save both road miles (and deaths) but drastically shorten the commute for some citizens.
It kills me that we give such huge hidden subsidies to the trucking industry. Every time this discussion comes up, at least on Reddit, someone always comes out of the woodwork claiming that truckers pay a bunch of fuel tax and registration fees and that proposals to increase taxes on trucking is going to drive up the costs of all goods. For anyone who isn't already aware, the "billions of dollars in subsidy" is in reference to the substantial amount of damage large trucks do to the roads. My Honda Civic going down the road does basically no damage to it at all and it doesn't appreciably damage the road. A large truck going down the road at 80,000 lbs is going to cause far more damage to the road than the fuel tax and registration fees that they paid. Road wear scales to the fourth power of axle weight, so aside from road age itself the vast majority of wear is solely from trucking.
https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-roa...
https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-roa...
>60% of the 2019 road fatalities in Los Angeles were non-driver
Non-driver != pedestrian. Non-drivers include car passengers.
Non-driver != pedestrian. Non-drivers include car passengers.
In this case the statistics specifically refer to pedestrians and cyclists, I just shortened it to “non driver” here, which wasn’t an accurate way to summarize the stats.
> I think this let’s a lot of people push off that moral calculus as something that happens to other, lesser, people
The main person I put at risk when driving fast is me. Others too, sure, but mostly me.
So it's not at all bout killing "other lesser people". People mostly just think some risks are worth the reward.
The main person I put at risk when driving fast is me. Others too, sure, but mostly me.
So it's not at all bout killing "other lesser people". People mostly just think some risks are worth the reward.
Where I am, Los Angeles, that is simply not true. 60% of the people killed here by a car in 2019 weren’t in a car. And that’s not even accounting for drivers who were driving reasonably and were killed by someone who was not.
I think it is especially relevant in the time of coronavirus to also consider the idea that maybe you just don't need to go into work all the time (or even at regular times) for a large percentage of workers. Just have less cars on the road by running society a little differently.
Because the costs of those measures are not worth the gain.
If you have a million commuters on the streets, each taking a total of an hour a day for their commute, 20 days per month, increasing the average commute time by just 1% effectively costs >300 lives per year.
The basic rule of any change you want to make to the system is that speeds need to go up, not down. Better AI assist systems help speeds go up, therefore they reduce the cost of commuting in human lives.
If you have a million commuters on the streets, each taking a total of an hour a day for their commute, 20 days per month, increasing the average commute time by just 1% effectively costs >300 lives per year.
The basic rule of any change you want to make to the system is that speeds need to go up, not down. Better AI assist systems help speeds go up, therefore they reduce the cost of commuting in human lives.
A car going at 5mph is still going to kill or main a pedestrian if it hits them.
I agree that speed and general "cars forever!" approach is not great, but there is always room for improvement ... e.g. could tech have saved that 1 person who died in Oslo? Why just stop at "the Oslo model"? Why not do that and autonomous tech? It would be worth it if it saved just a handful of lives a year.
I agree that speed and general "cars forever!" approach is not great, but there is always room for improvement ... e.g. could tech have saved that 1 person who died in Oslo? Why just stop at "the Oslo model"? Why not do that and autonomous tech? It would be worth it if it saved just a handful of lives a year.
Obviously cars and pedestrians should be separated, but you are dramatically understating the impact speed has on pedestrian survival rates.
At 5mph your chance of surviving a collision is extremely high. Heck, you have a 93% chance of surviving a 20mph crash, depending on your age. Survival rates drop off quickly with speed however, with only 80% surviving at 30mph, and 45mph being a 50/50 chance for most of the population.
The effect is that slowing cars down from 35mph to 20mph in areas where pedestrians are close to cars could potentially double the chance of a pedestrian surviving a crash. And that’s not even accounting for how much less likely a collision is to happen at 20mph than 35mph.
Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds
Edit: of course, we can and should add more tech to make cars safer. That’s why backup cameras and seat belts are mandatory, and that’s a good thing. But as an argument for self driving cars, I think that they really come up short when there are tons of effective strategies available right now that we aren’t applying. And that’s my point.
At 5mph your chance of surviving a collision is extremely high. Heck, you have a 93% chance of surviving a 20mph crash, depending on your age. Survival rates drop off quickly with speed however, with only 80% surviving at 30mph, and 45mph being a 50/50 chance for most of the population.
The effect is that slowing cars down from 35mph to 20mph in areas where pedestrians are close to cars could potentially double the chance of a pedestrian surviving a crash. And that’s not even accounting for how much less likely a collision is to happen at 20mph than 35mph.
Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds
Edit: of course, we can and should add more tech to make cars safer. That’s why backup cameras and seat belts are mandatory, and that’s a good thing. But as an argument for self driving cars, I think that they really come up short when there are tons of effective strategies available right now that we aren’t applying. And that’s my point.
that makes sense given kinetic energy is mass * velocity^2. That squaring of velocity means every mph as they get higher is even more significant than the ones before.
> I agree that speed and general "cars forever!" approach is not great, but there is always room for improvement ... e.g. could tech have saved that 1 person who died in Oslo? Why just stop at "the Oslo model"? Why not do that and autonomous tech? It would be worth it if it saved just a handful of lives a year.
The problem is twofold:
1. Cruise and co. may very well run out of money before they develop tech reliable enough to save people en masse. One proposal decades ago to solve the cars vs people problem was to physically grade separate them entirely, but as it turns out building multistory streets doesn't scale very well.
2. People and politicians, today, are using self driving cars as the magic bullet to avoid spending money on other solutions and changing bad habits. Why spend money on rail or buses if the second coming of Jesus for cars is around the corner? And to a degree, there is an opportunity cost to spending money on unproven X rather than proven Y.
The problem is twofold:
1. Cruise and co. may very well run out of money before they develop tech reliable enough to save people en masse. One proposal decades ago to solve the cars vs people problem was to physically grade separate them entirely, but as it turns out building multistory streets doesn't scale very well.
2. People and politicians, today, are using self driving cars as the magic bullet to avoid spending money on other solutions and changing bad habits. Why spend money on rail or buses if the second coming of Jesus for cars is around the corner? And to a degree, there is an opportunity cost to spending money on unproven X rather than proven Y.
> A car going at 5mph is still going to kill or main a pedestrian if it hits them.
what?
what?
I think this happens fairly often in Manhattan. There's lots of box trucks simply making turns at 5mph and pedestrians crossing obliviously with headphones on or looking at their phones.
Do you realize how slow 5 mph is? There's no way it could kill anyone, even if they're completely not paying attention.
Vehicle weight has a large impact on survivability, but not all the way down at 5mph. Plus, vehicles are easy to avoid at 5mph, the majority of the human population can out walk cars at that speed.
That being said, vehicle size is another uncomfortable subject when it comes to road deaths. If we really cared about not killing people on the road, we’d take a long, hard look at what cars we allow to operate on our roads.
Delivery trucks have the benefit of being obviously necessary; I am glad that trucks exist to deliver my food from the train depot (ideally) to my grocery store. But what’s the argument for Suburbans? SUVs not only drastically increase the risk for pedestrians, but they also make the roads more dangerous for other drivers to. For what? Status? A false perception of safety?
That being said, vehicle size is another uncomfortable subject when it comes to road deaths. If we really cared about not killing people on the road, we’d take a long, hard look at what cars we allow to operate on our roads.
Delivery trucks have the benefit of being obviously necessary; I am glad that trucks exist to deliver my food from the train depot (ideally) to my grocery store. But what’s the argument for Suburbans? SUVs not only drastically increase the risk for pedestrians, but they also make the roads more dangerous for other drivers to. For what? Status? A false perception of safety?
Since I can't edit this:
It is not just the energy involved from 5mph - not every accident is a cut and dry collision. A car doing 0.5mph still going to crush your skull when you go under the wheels.
People are killed frequently in London (and I am sure other places) when they are crushed by slow moving vehicles turning left or right and the driver just did not see the person there and they are either slowly run-over and pinned between the vehicle and something else and crushed.
It is not just the energy involved from 5mph - not every accident is a cut and dry collision. A car doing 0.5mph still going to crush your skull when you go under the wheels.
People are killed frequently in London (and I am sure other places) when they are crushed by slow moving vehicles turning left or right and the driver just did not see the person there and they are either slowly run-over and pinned between the vehicle and something else and crushed.
Yes, people do get crushed under the wheels of slow moving cars. But the statistics are extremely clear about what your relative chances of survival are based on vehicle speed. To a first order approximation your chance of being killed by a 5mph car is 0%.
Should we add tech to prevent these accidents? Of course. But let’s not kid ourselves about the actual numbers of where and why cars kill people.
As a means of comparison; back up cameras are mandatory to prevent children from being backed over at slow speed. This is an obvious improvement, but numerically quite small, with estimates being that it saves about 50-70 lives nationally per year. This is far less than the number of pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed in Los Angeles per year alone.
Should we add tech to prevent these accidents? Of course. But let’s not kid ourselves about the actual numbers of where and why cars kill people.
As a means of comparison; back up cameras are mandatory to prevent children from being backed over at slow speed. This is an obvious improvement, but numerically quite small, with estimates being that it saves about 50-70 lives nationally per year. This is far less than the number of pedestrians and cyclists struck and killed in Los Angeles per year alone.
A car doing 0.5mph will be stopped by the driver unless the driver is unconscious.
5MPH is roughly as fast as a brisk walk... it should not kill anyone.
There is also the value of your time back when you travel.
> I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all.
...
> I feel in the minority in thinking self driving tech will ever be viable.
Take out "cars" from that phrase and I think there might be a different answer to it, sooner or later.
Specifically I liked Otto's original proposals and it sounded almost viable. The idea of having a Sacramento -> Chicago or Houston to Dallas routes for trucking with autonomous vehicles, with the last mile routes covered by normal container trucks sounded like it would work in the near term.
The fact that these are big rig trucks ensures the unit volume cost of the hardware isn't going to be a big problem (a 25k computer in a 35k car vs a 120k one in a 800k truck), the servicing can be legally mandated (patch upgrades or cleaning cameras), the power supply management can also be handled if they want to go electric with a container + rig model.
There are fewer questions about a long haul highway only self-driving route, maybe even something which will change the economics of shipping stuff through the panama canal vs going over land in a hub-spoke model without a train depot style unloading/inventory station.
Take out "cars" from that phrase and I think there might be a different answer to it, sooner or later.
Specifically I liked Otto's original proposals and it sounded almost viable. The idea of having a Sacramento -> Chicago or Houston to Dallas routes for trucking with autonomous vehicles, with the last mile routes covered by normal container trucks sounded like it would work in the near term.
The fact that these are big rig trucks ensures the unit volume cost of the hardware isn't going to be a big problem (a 25k computer in a 35k car vs a 120k one in a 800k truck), the servicing can be legally mandated (patch upgrades or cleaning cameras), the power supply management can also be handled if they want to go electric with a container + rig model.
There are fewer questions about a long haul highway only self-driving route, maybe even something which will change the economics of shipping stuff through the panama canal vs going over land in a hub-spoke model without a train depot style unloading/inventory station.
The idea of having a Sacramento -> Chicago or Houston to Dallas routes for trucking with autonomous vehicles, with the last mile routes covered by normal container trucks sounded like it would work in the near term.
Sure, we have that ... right now. Called trains. Train even carry trucks. Trains are vastly more fuel efficient than trucks.
The advantage trucks have over trains is their flexibility, their any point to any other point ability. Take that out and it can be automated but that automation isn't to be more efficient than ... 19th century technology. Ha.
Sure, we have that ... right now. Called trains. Train even carry trucks. Trains are vastly more fuel efficient than trucks.
The advantage trucks have over trains is their flexibility, their any point to any other point ability. Take that out and it can be automated but that automation isn't to be more efficient than ... 19th century technology. Ha.
I completely agree. I don't think the only value in AI is to totally replace humans, but rather automate the boring and costly parts that don't require a ton of thinking.
In my field of AI in radiology, I see a lot of people trying to completely automate things that don't have to be, and thereby fail to innovate on the particularly hard parts. Sometimes it's better to just have a human somewhere in the loop to make the harder judgement calls.
In my field of AI in radiology, I see a lot of people trying to completely automate things that don't have to be, and thereby fail to innovate on the particularly hard parts. Sometimes it's better to just have a human somewhere in the loop to make the harder judgement calls.
Ho would this provide significant benefit over a rail freight system?
It won't - if the idea is to keep it confined to specific overland routes, it is economically absurd vs. trains.
But that's not the idea. It is the camel's nose under the tent.
The goal is to get them on the road somewhere, and then gradually expand use as they can re-legislate at the cost of pedestrians.
There's a template for doing this - when cars were first commercialized, pedestrians had to be kicked off the roads, so they invented "jaywalkers", and launched a huge propaganda campaign to make it a thing[1].
Too much money and priming has been dumped into self-driving tech to abandon, so they'll try to create markets by pushing the squishy slow things that complain when they get smooshed out of the way.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
But that's not the idea. It is the camel's nose under the tent.
The goal is to get them on the road somewhere, and then gradually expand use as they can re-legislate at the cost of pedestrians.
There's a template for doing this - when cars were first commercialized, pedestrians had to be kicked off the roads, so they invented "jaywalkers", and launched a huge propaganda campaign to make it a thing[1].
Too much money and priming has been dumped into self-driving tech to abandon, so they'll try to create markets by pushing the squishy slow things that complain when they get smooshed out of the way.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
I think Peleton (not the exercise company, but the trucking one): had an even better intermediate stage plan to get trucking to fully autonomous.
I think we're very far away from general-purpose self-driving that can drive in all locations, conditions, and handle all scenarios. But we don't necessarily need an all-or-nothing solution - I think we could be reasonably close to a self-driving system that can handle a whitelisted set of roads and highways, especially if those roads were augmented to accommodate that self-driving in some way.
Regardless of road quality, weather conditions are unpredictable.
When the rain or snow or haboob kicks in, I guess your car will pull over to the side of the road and you'll need to drive manually until conditions improve. We'll need to keep the steering wheel around for the foreseeable future.
When the rain or snow or haboob kicks in, I guess your car will pull over to the side of the road and you'll need to drive manually until conditions improve. We'll need to keep the steering wheel around for the foreseeable future.
Does anyone know what Waymo does when a haboob happens? Those are at least relatively common in the Phoenix area.
Yeah, I've always understood that to be the big initial play— get all those long-haul trucking miles autonomous, relegate human drivers to handling the in-city miles and cargo yards. I think Ottomotto (remember them?) might have even made a video years ago which pitched this exact scheme.
Of course, the environmentalist in me is saddened by the thought of further driving down the cost of that shipping mode which might be most compatible with being switched to rail freight.
Of course, the environmentalist in me is saddened by the thought of further driving down the cost of that shipping mode which might be most compatible with being switched to rail freight.
> I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all.
How do you explain actual self-driving cars on the road? I find this attitude confusing as it seems to not jive with empirical reality.
I agree that we should focus on mass transit, but Waymo drives hundreds/thousands of miles without driver intervention.
How do you explain actual self-driving cars on the road? I find this attitude confusing as it seems to not jive with empirical reality.
I agree that we should focus on mass transit, but Waymo drives hundreds/thousands of miles without driver intervention.
More important than simple probability is the “expectancy value”, which is roughly spoken (and cumulatively) the probability multiplied by the effect when the probability comes to pass.
I'm confused what this comment is saying - are you just trying to say that someone getting killed by a car is really really bad? If so, I agree.
I've never heard of "expectancy value" in my life - it's definitely not a standard probability term.
I've never heard of "expectancy value" in my life - it's definitely not a standard probability term.
I just translated the German term Erwartungswert wrong. The English term seems to be “expected value”, and it’s basic enough that you learn it in high school.
[deleted]
There aren't any self driving cars on the road that don't have a safety driver, and the ones that are out there get confused all the time. The Uber one had a software dev turn off the lidar sensor to test the computer vision at night and it ended up killing a woman crossing the street.
Waymo/Cruise and Uber aren't even in the same class and as I said, Waymo/Cruise cars go thousands of miles without driver intervention.
Waymo cars go 11,000+ miles without driver intervention on average.
I would encourage doing actual research into this subject, rather than relying on your gut or the news articles you read.
Waymo cars go 11,000+ miles without driver intervention on average.
I would encourage doing actual research into this subject, rather than relying on your gut or the news articles you read.
Spare me.
Most self-driving is done in warm climates, in a circle. These companies are amassing thousands of empty miles on the same streets every day to impress people who don't know any better.
I lived on a branch of the main Google circuit, and often they were the only traffic for most of the day. Even saw three Google vehicles in a line, but two were more common.
What's the value of "self-driving" with no weather, traffic or route variation? PR and regulatory filing stats.
Most self-driving is done in warm climates, in a circle. These companies are amassing thousands of empty miles on the same streets every day to impress people who don't know any better.
I lived on a branch of the main Google circuit, and often they were the only traffic for most of the day. Even saw three Google vehicles in a line, but two were more common.
What's the value of "self-driving" with no weather, traffic or route variation? PR and regulatory filing stats.
I don't understand. There are self driving cars in SF. I saw one today. It is/ was raining.
There was a driver, but I'm fairly certain that the drivers are not actively driving but are legally required to be there.
There was a driver, but I'm fairly certain that the drivers are not actively driving but are legally required to be there.
Last time cruise made a report about disengagements (where the safety driver had to take over) it was one every 5000 miles driven. That's 1 crash the car was prevented from every 5000 miles. Humans crash once per 70000 miles.
2 year old driving in Moscow after snowfall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx08yRsR9ow
I would gladly pay for a full self driving feature even if I had to drive when it was raining.
Waymo is running self driving cars without safety drivers. They also ordered 20,000+ cars and bought a factory to install the sensors on the cars.
Source on your Uber "fact"?
> I bet if you did a study and ran the numbers, it would be cheaper to put down rail on existing roads and make them rail-car only, automate those and subsidize rail cars.
Lane miles in the US are in the many millions. Each mile of track costs a million+ dollars. You're talking many trillions of dollars to railify every road in the country.
So no, there's basically no way that's cheaper than figuring out self-driving.
Lane miles in the US are in the many millions. Each mile of track costs a million+ dollars. You're talking many trillions of dollars to railify every road in the country.
So no, there's basically no way that's cheaper than figuring out self-driving.
It is so strange that people don't see what is happening at Tesla. They are driving billions of miles under AI control.
It is totally fine to dislike Musk or to think that autopilot is unsafe today, but how can you look at billions of miles and say that it isn't going to work within the next few years.
It is totally fine to dislike Musk or to think that autopilot is unsafe today, but how can you look at billions of miles and say that it isn't going to work within the next few years.
There is a long long tail of edge cases that kill people.
When drivers go a few trillion miles per year in the US, any anomaly in your driving software is going to be measured in deaths per hour. There is a built-in human sympathy for accidents caused by people which will not be at all present with accidents caused by machines. You can't sure a maker for wrongful death by a faulty human, you can easily sue a car company.
It will just take one cute kid getting killed by an errant robot car to end the dream completely. Machines don't make human mistakes, they make mistakes that are alien and frightening, things you couldn't ever a person imagine doing.
The public will get scared and automatic driving will be banned.
For Tesla and everyone else doing unattended driving, it isn't a matter of covering the last few bits left, it's a matter of increasing precision by several factors of ten, and ultimately, I'm guessing robot cars won't be a reality until their intelligence starts to reach the point where people are asking questions about sentience.
When drivers go a few trillion miles per year in the US, any anomaly in your driving software is going to be measured in deaths per hour. There is a built-in human sympathy for accidents caused by people which will not be at all present with accidents caused by machines. You can't sure a maker for wrongful death by a faulty human, you can easily sue a car company.
It will just take one cute kid getting killed by an errant robot car to end the dream completely. Machines don't make human mistakes, they make mistakes that are alien and frightening, things you couldn't ever a person imagine doing.
The public will get scared and automatic driving will be banned.
For Tesla and everyone else doing unattended driving, it isn't a matter of covering the last few bits left, it's a matter of increasing precision by several factors of ten, and ultimately, I'm guessing robot cars won't be a reality until their intelligence starts to reach the point where people are asking questions about sentience.
That's easy: recording billions of miles of data is only part of solving the problem.
I'm sure they'll get there eventually, but having a ton of data isn't a cheat code that makes rapid progress inevitable.
I'm sure they'll get there eventually, but having a ton of data isn't a cheat code that makes rapid progress inevitable.
We may never have 100% level 5 driving.
But with level 4 + remote assistance, you don't need to support all the edge cases to have a car with no steering wheel. You only need to reduce the need for remote assistance enough to make the economics work out.
We will all have been riding around happily in cars without steering wheels for decades before "true self driving" comes to pass.
It's possible that remote assistance centers will never shut down entirely, even 100 years from now, still waiting on the off-chance that a .00000000001% edge case pops up that the system still can't handle.
But with level 4 + remote assistance, you don't need to support all the edge cases to have a car with no steering wheel. You only need to reduce the need for remote assistance enough to make the economics work out.
We will all have been riding around happily in cars without steering wheels for decades before "true self driving" comes to pass.
It's possible that remote assistance centers will never shut down entirely, even 100 years from now, still waiting on the off-chance that a .00000000001% edge case pops up that the system still can't handle.
Can you explain this more thoroughly? So the AI cannot itself resolve a situation that requires resolution within a split second, therefore it passes control (reliable, latency free?!) to a remote operations center where humans get to... assess the situation in order to remotely tell the vehicle how to react in time? I must have completely misunderstood, because I don’t see how any part of that plan is working?
The idea is that such situations are non life threatening. The vehicle will pull over and wait for a human operator.
It's not crazy to imagine that computers could handle split second decisions better than humans but choose to bail out to the side of the road if there's something they can't handle.
It's not crazy to imagine that computers could handle split second decisions better than humans but choose to bail out to the side of the road if there's something they can't handle.
There isn’t always a “side of the road” tho. (think tunnels, walls, Old Towns, busy city centres...)
Tunnels are perhaps the only "no stopping" situation where there is nowhere to pull over. Luckily, tunnels are also the absolute simplest self-driving scenario.
Tunnels have to kept clear of obstacles. If an SDC would have to stop, so would a human-driven car.
For the others, stopped cars are very common.
Tunnels have to kept clear of obstacles. If an SDC would have to stop, so would a human-driven car.
For the others, stopped cars are very common.
So long as "bail to a human" doesn't take long e.g. 5 seconds to connect to an operator, it might not need to pull aside at all.
[deleted]
Why rails? With some of this self driving tech you could just put sensors in the road and have the vehicles follow pre-determined routes. I've always thought that's where this self driving tech should have first gone in the early stages. Instead of having a large bus come by once every 30 minutes you could have a fleet of small self driving vans coming by every 5 minutes. If you don't have to pay so many drivers that could be cost effective. Something like that could change public transport and would be very accessible to even small cities.
Transporting people together in a single thing is much more efficient than having a big roomy box for every person.
Agreed, I was thinking the self driving vans or mini-buses would hold maybe 10 people. They wouldn't have to be as big as a full size bus as they would come by more often, making them more convenient for the riders.
I live in a smaller city and we have full size buses that only come by every half an hour, which means if you miss a connection it could take you an hour and a half to travel a distance you could easily drive in 15-20 minutes. If the buses came by more often, more people would ride them, but that would be cost prohibitive if you had to pay all the drivers.
I live in a smaller city and we have full size buses that only come by every half an hour, which means if you miss a connection it could take you an hour and a half to travel a distance you could easily drive in 15-20 minutes. If the buses came by more often, more people would ride them, but that would be cost prohibitive if you had to pay all the drivers.
Sometimes I am speechless. You’ve just made public transport less efficient on several axis.
Speechless? Where I live we have full size public buses that are frequently only carrying one or two people. In fact if I had a nickle for every time I've seen a completely empty light rail train in the middle of the day in Denver, I'd be a rich man by now. Public transport in the vast majority of the US is a failure. In Colorado Uber and Lyft probably haul 10-100 times more people every day than ride our public transportation, that's not efficient at all. The main complaint people have is public transportation doesn't run often enough, or provide enough routes, self driving vehicles could fix that and make it economic for US cities. If you had smaller buses (sometimes called vans) you could run them more often and thus make them more appealing to the masses. Is it less efficient, yes, but if it gains more riders that's a net gain IMO.
I think the main complaint about US public transit is that it's dirty and dangerous. If it was super safe and clean in+around all stations and on all trains/buses at all times, people would definitely use it more often.
Why are you comparing your scheme to a defunct system, then? The cities in Europe I’ve lived in, and the cities in Asia I’ve visited, haven’t had that problem at all.
Because there is a market there, actual money to be made, that would be a lot more realistic for companies like Cruise and Waymo to solve than some pie in the sky self driving car. They could have been working towards a public transportation system that doesn't require millions of dollars in capital construction costs to put in place first. But that's not as sexy I guess.
It would be nice and easy just putting some sensors or special paint on the road, the problem is when those automatic vans share the same space than the rest of vehicles, you will have a crash frequently, in barcelona the light rail has crashed with several vehicles even when they don’t share the platform but on the intersections with crossing streets
Agreed, the goal isn't to replace transit in places that are well suited to it, its to provide better transportation in all the places transit isn't well suited.
It's hard to find out how much has been invested in self driving cars, but I think you're massively underestimating the cost of building rail in the US. A billion dollars a mile is a realistic figure for rail in cities. NYC spent more than double that recently.
For those costs, you're probably getting somewhere between 5 and 100 miles of rail.
For those costs, you're probably getting somewhere between 5 and 100 miles of rail.
A billion dollars per mile of rail is an excessively overpriced cost of construction that ought to have severe political pressure to explain why so much money is being wasted.
Construction cost of subways outside of places like NYC that apparently have no concept of cost control is typically about $100-300 million/mile.
Construction cost of subways outside of places like NYC that apparently have no concept of cost control is typically about $100-300 million/mile.
Lol. The reason costs are so high is because there is severe political pressure to keep them that way from contractors, unions, etc, and we're rich enough to afford it.
For context, we have 4 million miles of road in the US. So even with $100m/mile, we're talking trillions of dollars before we even get to the actual feasibility of putting rail everywhere.
Rail is great, but there's no world where it does the same thing self-driving vehicles would.
For context, we have 4 million miles of road in the US. So even with $100m/mile, we're talking trillions of dollars before we even get to the actual feasibility of putting rail everywhere.
Rail is great, but there's no world where it does the same thing self-driving vehicles would.
This isn't quite a fair comparison; many of those roads are running through areas with low land values. Comparing ground-level rail through cornfields in Oklahoma is apples and oranges to a busy, high-capacity subway underneath Manhattan.
> Construction cost of subways outside of places like NYC that apparently have no concept of cost control is typically about $100-300 million/mile.
Where within the United States is this true? (note: United States is known for high construction costs)
e: or just downvote me - but I don't know anywhere with a $100 million/mile subway system.
Where within the United States is this true? (note: United States is known for high construction costs)
e: or just downvote me - but I don't know anywhere with a $100 million/mile subway system.
A billion dollars a mile is for subways though, and I'm guessing tunnelling is the major component in that cost.
Underground stations is the majority of the cost. The tunnel boring machine is relatively cheap compared to securing enough property to build stations, and it could be said that New York's recent subways have massively overengineered their stations.
That being said, elevated railways have always been a very hard sell in dense areas, and ground level has its own host of problems.
That being said, elevated railways have always been a very hard sell in dense areas, and ground level has its own host of problems.
Self driving cars don't have to truly autonomous to be genuinely useful.
Just level 3 or 4 autonomous vehicles would probably be good enough to be worth buying.
Just level 3 or 4 autonomous vehicles would probably be good enough to be worth buying.
> I bet if you did a study and ran the numbers, it would be cheaper to put down rail on existing roads and make them rail-car only, automate those and subsidize rail cars
Guess what, these people have run the numbers
> solve any real transport issues compared to traditional mass transit
I think that's thinking small. Why can't self-driving be applied to mass transit.
Let's take out all the cars and replace them with 15 passenger self-driving vans. And set up many stops that are dynamically routed by UberPool. You can get convenience of a car, the cost of a bus and far less pollution.
Guess what, these people have run the numbers
> solve any real transport issues compared to traditional mass transit
I think that's thinking small. Why can't self-driving be applied to mass transit.
Let's take out all the cars and replace them with 15 passenger self-driving vans. And set up many stops that are dynamically routed by UberPool. You can get convenience of a car, the cost of a bus and far less pollution.
In my opinion self driving cars far exceed the capabilities of current ML algorithms. I mean I guess you can spend couple of billions and implement some sort of expert system on top of that but it won’t be as simple as just training the ML algorithm.
Much better approach would be using ML as a safety sensor helper and let people drive the cars instead. For example, ML algorithm can detect if a pedestrian is on the road even on low vision conditions and might warn the driver, or check if there a car is acting weirdly on the road and warn the driver to be aware.
I think there is a catch 22 situation going on with self-driving cars. By the time we get to self driving cars at human level, we will already have cybernetic beings at human intelligence level and that will change the entire industries and the society itself, which might actually decrease the profits expected by self-driving car companies.
Much better approach would be using ML as a safety sensor helper and let people drive the cars instead. For example, ML algorithm can detect if a pedestrian is on the road even on low vision conditions and might warn the driver, or check if there a car is acting weirdly on the road and warn the driver to be aware.
I think there is a catch 22 situation going on with self-driving cars. By the time we get to self driving cars at human level, we will already have cybernetic beings at human intelligence level and that will change the entire industries and the society itself, which might actually decrease the profits expected by self-driving car companies.
>I don't think self-driving cars are realistic at all
They said the same thing about a Computer beating a Human at Chess or Go, or Radiology, or countless other examples. I don't see why a random person on hackernews would be any more correct than any of the previous naysayers.
They said the same thing about a Computer beating a Human at Chess or Go, or Radiology, or countless other examples. I don't see why a random person on hackernews would be any more correct than any of the previous naysayers.
They also said the same thing about time travel and dragons.
This might be more like turning lead into gold, which after (at least) several hundred years of effort we can do now, with merely completely absurdly uneconomic and unpractical levels of effort and energy.
It's not getting publicized very much but they did lay off people from the core AV teams (planning, controls, perception, mapping, etc.) in addition to the otherwise cited groups.
There’s at least two success criteria for SDC tech:
1) How much safer than humans does SDC need to be before we can ethically use it?
2) When will it be legalized?
The ethics is a hard question. My preference is safety standards should be way higher than the vehicular carnage we accept today. I doubt most people think that way though.
Legalization (and commercialization, especially if corporate liability is waived), could come at any moment. Given the US government accepts 3000 daily COVID19 deaths as a reasonable baseline, it seems there would be little moral qualms. If SDCs are about as good (or maybe even no more than a little worse) than human drivers approval could be granted, ethics be damned.
1) How much safer than humans does SDC need to be before we can ethically use it?
2) When will it be legalized?
The ethics is a hard question. My preference is safety standards should be way higher than the vehicular carnage we accept today. I doubt most people think that way though.
Legalization (and commercialization, especially if corporate liability is waived), could come at any moment. Given the US government accepts 3000 daily COVID19 deaths as a reasonable baseline, it seems there would be little moral qualms. If SDCs are about as good (or maybe even no more than a little worse) than human drivers approval could be granted, ethics be damned.
That's interesting that you feel that way. Living in SF I see self driving cars all the time - how do you account for that?
"doubling down on our engineering work and engineering talent,” Cruise spokesperson Milin Mehta told Reuters.
Do these folks even try to hide their lies?
Doubling down = 2x the engineering staff. This is as they lay off in their lidar team.
Can companies be sued for these types of basically false claims or are we just stuck commenting on what lies they seem come up with. Can you imagine if your day to day life involved interacting with folks this dishonest?
Do these folks even try to hide their lies?
Doubling down = 2x the engineering staff. This is as they lay off in their lidar team.
Can companies be sued for these types of basically false claims or are we just stuck commenting on what lies they seem come up with. Can you imagine if your day to day life involved interacting with folks this dishonest?
I never hear the phrase "doubling down" used to mean "doubling", except maybe in the original usage in gambling. But colloquially it just means "increasing focus on". In that use there is no inherent contradiction in downsizing + attempting to increasing focus. In fact that seems to be what almost all companies who downsize are attempting to do.
Edit: In fact come to think of it, even in blackjack when you double down, it's as much about committing as it is the doubling of the bet. You have to take one and only one card and that ends your turn, so you're turning down all other options to do this one thing, and in exchange for taking that risky move you get to double your bet.
Edit: In fact come to think of it, even in blackjack when you double down, it's as much about committing as it is the doubling of the bet. You have to take one and only one card and that ends your turn, so you're turning down all other options to do this one thing, and in exchange for taking that risky move you get to double your bet.
doubling down is not about increasing focus. It is about increasing risk by making a BIGGER (not smaller) bet on something.
This is in the original meaning in gambling (you are convinced you are right and so double your bet) and elsewhere.
Only in PR land is a cash flow pullback and risk reduction step such as a headcount reduction called a doubling down. It goes to show how pernicious these types of intentional miswordings are.
This is in the original meaning in gambling (you are convinced you are right and so double your bet) and elsewhere.
Only in PR land is a cash flow pullback and risk reduction step such as a headcount reduction called a doubling down. It goes to show how pernicious these types of intentional miswordings are.
Amazon launched Fire Phone and Alexa months apart. They shit-canned the phone and doubled down on Alexa. It’s not just PR speak.
Many of the phone people either left the company or went to work on Alexa. They also did a massive inventory write down for the phone in their quarterly report.
Many of the phone people either left the company or went to work on Alexa. They also did a massive inventory write down for the phone in their quarterly report.
It seems to me like you are agreeing with the parent. Amazon increased their risk by closing the phone side and increasing the resources allocated to Alexa and hence the double down.
Missing information: are they downsizing elsewhere as well, and the lidar folks are being downsized by less?
The blackjack move is in fact a FOCUS of your attention, which potentially increases risk (but in fact if it increased your risk you wouldn't make that move -- you pick the focus based on expected value).
And it's pretty rare (if ever) that someone says "I'm doubling down on X" and they mean to say "I'm going to double the size of my bet across all my activities." Pretty much the opposite.
And it's pretty rare (if ever) that someone says "I'm doubling down on X" and they mean to say "I'm going to double the size of my bet across all my activities." Pretty much the opposite.
Doubling down on the tech, no matter what that means quantitatively, would mean qualitatively increasing your bet on the actual product. E.g. you’d fire every last milin if that meant you could keep a LiDAR engineer on staff.
Cruise won’t work out. GM is dead.
Cruise won’t work out. GM is dead.
This is the kind of stuff I always advise people in long term careers to be privy of. First to go always means least cared about.
Nothing wrong with it, but always know your place in a company. Don’t ever be lulled into rhetoric such as ‘doubling down on engineering’.
‘We care about code quality’ - code quality sucks at the company, ‘we care about work life balance’ - there is none at the company, ‘we value innovation’ - can’t even suggest anything to product, stay on spec....
‘We care about future tech’ — lay off r&d at the first sight of a downturn.
Just shut the fuck up already.
Nothing wrong with it, but always know your place in a company. Don’t ever be lulled into rhetoric such as ‘doubling down on engineering’.
‘We care about code quality’ - code quality sucks at the company, ‘we care about work life balance’ - there is none at the company, ‘we value innovation’ - can’t even suggest anything to product, stay on spec....
‘We care about future tech’ — lay off r&d at the first sight of a downturn.
Just shut the fuck up already.
Somewhat true.
My favorite: "We adhere to the highest ethical principles" - as they give you a 500 page ethics doc that no one reads or follows.
But I've actually found it's a good / reliable tell. You just stay away from companies like this that can't talk straight and you end up a LOT happier. I don't mean they need to be nice - but just clear relatively honest normal English language communication.
ie, "we're cutting back to reduce our burn rate." vs "we are doubling down on engineering talent." Some PR people actually get it I think and can basically be honest while adding some things you may not have thought of. Not in this case though!
My favorite: "We adhere to the highest ethical principles" - as they give you a 500 page ethics doc that no one reads or follows.
But I've actually found it's a good / reliable tell. You just stay away from companies like this that can't talk straight and you end up a LOT happier. I don't mean they need to be nice - but just clear relatively honest normal English language communication.
ie, "we're cutting back to reduce our burn rate." vs "we are doubling down on engineering talent." Some PR people actually get it I think and can basically be honest while adding some things you may not have thought of. Not in this case though!
I'm interviewing with a company that's taken a month so far with 8 different calls and still 3 phone calls to go. I keep doing it because they have never been less than honest with me. Everytime I ask a hard question, like what's the burn rate or how's the code base, they tell me the good and bad stuff, and how they're trying to fix it or if they don't even have time to fix it.
When I wasn't sure I wanted to continue, the hiring manager called me for 45 minutes to discuss why, and convinced me that I should continue without making any promises and without lying about the fact that my concerns were real and that it wasn't garaunteed that my concerns would be fixed, but I felt better because he told me about how they're trying to fix them. Contrast that with my last company which blew smoke up my ass for the whole interview process and later I found it was a very badly run company on top of badly designed tech and bad financial modeling and that anything to fix it was impossible because of the politics.
Further, I've been talking to the interviewers like they're real people rather than some god sent down to flummox me with dumb programming exercises and show off how cool they are.
I'll never do another interview the "old way" again, I like being treated as a human in a two way process rather than a one way information extraction exercise.
When I wasn't sure I wanted to continue, the hiring manager called me for 45 minutes to discuss why, and convinced me that I should continue without making any promises and without lying about the fact that my concerns were real and that it wasn't garaunteed that my concerns would be fixed, but I felt better because he told me about how they're trying to fix them. Contrast that with my last company which blew smoke up my ass for the whole interview process and later I found it was a very badly run company on top of badly designed tech and bad financial modeling and that anything to fix it was impossible because of the politics.
Further, I've been talking to the interviewers like they're real people rather than some god sent down to flummox me with dumb programming exercises and show off how cool they are.
I'll never do another interview the "old way" again, I like being treated as a human in a two way process rather than a one way information extraction exercise.
The new-speak of hypocrisy is utterly cemented in corporate and pseudo corporate businesses.
Sadly, a requisite skillet now days is having to navigate all the bullshit.
Sadly, a requisite skillet now days is having to navigate all the bullshit.
It can be funny though to take them seriously.
When I was less responsible (younger) I would do that sometimes.
Someone does a BS bunch of lines, stand up and thank them from the staff for committing to the additional resources for staff.
Follow-up with third parties unironically echoing the message with outcomes the business does not want (ie, please send in your proposals as we are doubling down on our engineering).
I make too much money to do anything like this (and have more control anyways) plus if you are more senior you are expected to understand the game.
When I was less responsible (younger) I would do that sometimes.
Someone does a BS bunch of lines, stand up and thank them from the staff for committing to the additional resources for staff.
Follow-up with third parties unironically echoing the message with outcomes the business does not want (ie, please send in your proposals as we are doubling down on our engineering).
I make too much money to do anything like this (and have more control anyways) plus if you are more senior you are expected to understand the game.
> My favorite: "We adhere to the highest ethical principles" - as they give you a 500 page ethics doc that no one reads or follows.
That's just a translation error. "To adhere" means "to stick"; while the formalized version sounds like they stick to high ethical princilples, what they meant is they stick it to them.
That's just a translation error. "To adhere" means "to stick"; while the formalized version sounds like they stick to high ethical princilples, what they meant is they stick it to them.
Honestly, I'd rather work with them than with people who wilfully misinterpret statements and just flip a shit constantly.
"I think it's time to double down on email marketing" -> my teammates understand that means I'm going to switch where I put most of my effort.
I can just imagine you saying "Yet you're not allocating 8 hours a day instead of 4 on this. I'm going to sue you"
God, that would be exhausting.
"I think it's time to double down on email marketing" -> my teammates understand that means I'm going to switch where I put most of my effort.
I can just imagine you saying "Yet you're not allocating 8 hours a day instead of 4 on this. I'm going to sue you"
God, that would be exhausting.
It’s just a weasel word that can mean anything. Avoid weasel words. In your situation, why not just say I’m going to put my current efforts and focus on X as you clearly meant.
Because human expression is cool, man. "You guys are killing it!" is way better than "You human beings are performing above average for this task. I appreciate this". Also it's not a weasel word. It's totally just an expression.
I find it truly incredible that someone feels the way you do.
I find it truly incredible that someone feels the way you do.
If someone told me I were killing it, I would feel like a 22 year old engineer again and have flashbacks to that one PM who loved my work but who came to work still tripping some Mondays. Glad to be making a key stakeholder happy, but holy fuck am I glad we finally fired that tool.
If someone told me I was doing above average and they appreciated my work, I would feel... appreciated and proud of my work.
The world where killing and crushing are used in an unironic way is tiny and occupied mostly by people under 30. Can you retire at 30?
If someone told me I was doing above average and they appreciated my work, I would feel... appreciated and proud of my work.
The world where killing and crushing are used in an unironic way is tiny and occupied mostly by people under 30. Can you retire at 30?
If you are killing and crushing it enough, then yeah, I guess.
This is like the most unimportant shit in the world, dude.
why not just say I’m going to put my current efforts and focus on X as you clearly meant.
That is literally what they said, using a colloquialism that has exactly the desired meaning.
That is literally what they said, using a colloquialism that has exactly the desired meaning.
One thing you also have to understand here (other than the replies I've read) is that you can in fact lay off people and yet increase the percentage investment you are making in something.
You have to cut your budget by 30% -- you can do this as a haircut everyone takes, or you can be selective, and ask one group to take less of a cut and other groups to take more. Your overall spend will be more heavily weighted towards groups that take less of a cut, obviously.
You can also leave your overall budget for one team unchanged, or even grow it, and simply change your focus by putting more emphasis (and budget) on one set of activities vs another.
In the Cruise case either scenario is possible. They can have decided that 3rd party LIDAR is good enough, and not strategic enough, that they should cut there. That could be the sum of it, while other groups like HR, Marketing, etc takes bigger cuts. Alternatively they could use the same logic to cut the LIDAR team and then take the savings generated to invest more heavily in (made up example) route planning or something.
You have to cut your budget by 30% -- you can do this as a haircut everyone takes, or you can be selective, and ask one group to take less of a cut and other groups to take more. Your overall spend will be more heavily weighted towards groups that take less of a cut, obviously.
You can also leave your overall budget for one team unchanged, or even grow it, and simply change your focus by putting more emphasis (and budget) on one set of activities vs another.
In the Cruise case either scenario is possible. They can have decided that 3rd party LIDAR is good enough, and not strategic enough, that they should cut there. That could be the sum of it, while other groups like HR, Marketing, etc takes bigger cuts. Alternatively they could use the same logic to cut the LIDAR team and then take the savings generated to invest more heavily in (made up example) route planning or something.
You seem to have misunderstood what the lidar team refers to.
The Lidar team laid off is not part of Cruise's essential engineering team. It belongs to a small, research/demo-focused company that Cruise bought a long time ago which claimed they would make solid-state Lidars that costs 99% less than currently available lidars, which would cut most of the cost to self-driving cars using lidars today.
They function as a separate entity from Cruise and have very little to do with Cruise's core self-driving technology team on a day to day basis.
As the article has made clear, within Cruise's engineering team, only the non-essential teams (i.e. not core self-driving technology) have been impacted by this layoff.
The Lidar team laid off is not part of Cruise's essential engineering team. It belongs to a small, research/demo-focused company that Cruise bought a long time ago which claimed they would make solid-state Lidars that costs 99% less than currently available lidars, which would cut most of the cost to self-driving cars using lidars today.
They function as a separate entity from Cruise and have very little to do with Cruise's core self-driving technology team on a day to day basis.
As the article has made clear, within Cruise's engineering team, only the non-essential teams (i.e. not core self-driving technology) have been impacted by this layoff.
What tort would you claim they’ve committed? It’s not reasonable to interpret that claim as literally doubling the amount of engineering staff. No court would consider that for even a moment. And even if you could argue that a spokesperson is lying about fuzzy concepts like the amount of focus company places on engineering, who does that wrong?
They obviously don't mean it literally in terms of headcount, but more likely in terms of focus and determination.
> They obviously don't mean it literally in terms of headcount
In what way is this obvious? Per Techcrunch[1], they moved their Pasadena lidar team to SF[2], presumably parting ways with those not willing to relocate. The linked article has a quote from the CEO saying:
> The company will “continue to hire aggressively in the most critical areas within engineering, which right now means doubling down on senior leadership and senior IC roles to further support out improving core tech objective,” Ammann wrote in the memo. “From here we expect to recruit and grow across our engineering teams for the balance of the year.”
That seems pretty definitively contradictory to the claim that they're not hiring or expanding engineering.
This is from probably thirty seconds of Googling, but apparently that's far above the effort bar for topmost top-level comments on HN... (this is in reference to GP's moronic comment, not you).
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/cruise-lays-off-8-of-workf...
[2] I wondered why they had a team in Pasadena while headquartered in SF... it was an acquisition that they hadn't consolidated.
In what way is this obvious? Per Techcrunch[1], they moved their Pasadena lidar team to SF[2], presumably parting ways with those not willing to relocate. The linked article has a quote from the CEO saying:
> The company will “continue to hire aggressively in the most critical areas within engineering, which right now means doubling down on senior leadership and senior IC roles to further support out improving core tech objective,” Ammann wrote in the memo. “From here we expect to recruit and grow across our engineering teams for the balance of the year.”
That seems pretty definitively contradictory to the claim that they're not hiring or expanding engineering.
This is from probably thirty seconds of Googling, but apparently that's far above the effort bar for topmost top-level comments on HN... (this is in reference to GP's moronic comment, not you).
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/cruise-lays-off-8-of-workf...
[2] I wondered why they had a team in Pasadena while headquartered in SF... it was an acquisition that they hadn't consolidated.
Proof is in the pudding right?
First to go.
First to go.
Then it is mostly kumbaya.
This is as they lay off in their lidar team.
There are too many LIDAR startups chasing too little market for LIDARs. The delay in self-driving cars reaching the market means automotive LIDARs are only selling in sample quantities. GM/Cruise may not need an in-house LIDAR unit.
There are too many LIDAR startups chasing too little market for LIDARs. The delay in self-driving cars reaching the market means automotive LIDARs are only selling in sample quantities. GM/Cruise may not need an in-house LIDAR unit.
[deleted]
This could just mean they aren’t developing lidar further. Because there is no retraining culture it’s difficult to tell.
[deleted]
They mean they're increasing the workload of the remaining engineers, not that they're doing something to benefit or other wise honor them.
yep - the idea that they are doubling down on their engineering talent (2x headcount or 2x salaries or 2x resources) or whatever big bet they claim to be making seems like it might be a lie.
The PR guy (Milin Mehta) used to work at Kraken Digital Asset Exchange. They are known for suing to identify ten reviewers on Glassdoor, claiming they are former employees in breach of their severance contract.
Why work at companies like this?
The PR guy (Milin Mehta) used to work at Kraken Digital Asset Exchange. They are known for suing to identify ten reviewers on Glassdoor, claiming they are former employees in breach of their severance contract.
Why work at companies like this?
Leaving aside your apparently poor reading comprehension skills ("doubling down" does not mean doubling), this explicitly contradicts an internal memo leaked to TC:
> The company will “continue to hire aggressively in the most critical areas within engineering, which right now means doubling down on senior leadership and senior IC roles to further support out improving core tech objective,” Ammann wrote in the memo. “From here we expect to recruit and grow across our engineering teams for the balance of the year.”
The worst I can say about this is that Cruise is bad at PR: the fact that people are dumb enough to so badly and confidently misread a message is something that comms people are supposed to plan for and mitigate.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/cruise-lays-off-8-of-workf...
> The company will “continue to hire aggressively in the most critical areas within engineering, which right now means doubling down on senior leadership and senior IC roles to further support out improving core tech objective,” Ammann wrote in the memo. “From here we expect to recruit and grow across our engineering teams for the balance of the year.”
The worst I can say about this is that Cruise is bad at PR: the fact that people are dumb enough to so badly and confidently misread a message is something that comms people are supposed to plan for and mitigate.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/cruise-lays-off-8-of-workf...
That's a MUCH clearer story! Folks maybe just publish their memos vs these I guess hashed news stories.
The Reuters article focused on the layoffs, lack of confirmation on number of layoffs, and PR quote etc - I wish I'd seen this article earlier.
The Reuters article focused on the layoffs, lack of confirmation on number of layoffs, and PR quote etc - I wish I'd seen this article earlier.
That’s quite incredible.
There's no better time to exploit your employees than when the job market is in the toilet.
The first amendment protects this type of speech.
First amendment only protects from government censorship, and SCOTUS has said that if the expression of the speech causes harm then first amendment doesn't apply.
Also there are plenty of individuals and private organizations who can sue if they can prove damages.
Also there are plenty of individuals and private organizations who can sue if they can prove damages.
One should question what interests we're protecting by allowing lying in various contexts vs having just a blanket "say whatever you want" default privilege.
I don’t know if anyone is consciously protecting their right to lie, but we are via inaction allowing them to construct the language of lying.
If I made a programming language that got rid a basic object maps for example, I’d eliminate the scenarios where one would use a lookup map.
These people construct their own language, and so long as we speak their language, we can’t really speak against them. The words don’t exist by design.
If I made a programming language that got rid a basic object maps for example, I’d eliminate the scenarios where one would use a lookup map.
These people construct their own language, and so long as we speak their language, we can’t really speak against them. The words don’t exist by design.
“Anyone using Lidar is doomed, DOOMED!”
Looks like GM is catching up to where the industry was a year ago, from A cofounder of Waymo.
https://youtu.be/0w1G2GyPTUM
Looks like GM is catching up to where the industry was a year ago, from A cofounder of Waymo.
https://youtu.be/0w1G2GyPTUM
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Doubling down = 2x the engineering staff. This is as they lay off in their lidar team.
Self driving will be solved with computer vision. Lidar is an unnecessary technology even for full level 5 autonomy. Most self driving companies have come to this conclusion by now.
Self driving will be solved with computer vision. Lidar is an unnecessary technology even for full level 5 autonomy. Most self driving companies have come to this conclusion by now.
Any data to back this up besides Musk saying his approach's the best?
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/07/elon-musk-calls-lidar-a...
https://youtu.be/fNgEG5rCav4
> Anthony Levandowski, former Google/Waymo engineer, now backtracks on lidar and says, ”Elon is right.”
https://youtu.be/fNgEG5rCav4
> Anthony Levandowski, former Google/Waymo engineer, now backtracks on lidar and says, ”Elon is right.”
He might not be the most trustworthy source with the waymo thing.
[deleted]
A quote from someone who stole trade secrets backtracking on the importance of said trade secrets is not exactly trustworthy.
It also, conveniently, lessens the potential value of the data he took with him, to say this.
Do you really need anything other than the divinely inspired word of St Elon of Cars?
(I think Musk's 'data' to justify this is that humans don't have LIDAR. Which is true, but irrelevant, unless he's seriously proposing AGI)
(I think Musk's 'data' to justify this is that humans don't have LIDAR. Which is true, but irrelevant, unless he's seriously proposing AGI)
I mean, when musk says this he gives data to back it up - that humans manage just fine with visual systems, and that lidar is really expensive.
> when musk says this he gives data to back it up - that humans manage just fine with visual systems
What humans do 'just fine' isn't very relevant to self-driving tech. Humans balance just fine as well and yet the state of the art for robots is quite primitive.
Airplanes also don't fly like birds.
> lidar is really expensive
Which, again, is somewhat separate to whether it is effective.
What humans do 'just fine' isn't very relevant to self-driving tech. Humans balance just fine as well and yet the state of the art for robots is quite primitive.
Airplanes also don't fly like birds.
> lidar is really expensive
Which, again, is somewhat separate to whether it is effective.
>Humans balance just fine as well and yet the state of the art for robots is quite primitive.
That's the whole point. Full autonomy will never truly happen until computers can do what human brains can with regards to driving. No amount of sensor technology will make up for that fact. It's a software problem, not a hardware problem.
That's the whole point. Full autonomy will never truly happen until computers can do what human brains can with regards to driving. No amount of sensor technology will make up for that fact. It's a software problem, not a hardware problem.
Sure. But that doesn't mean they have to do it the same way humans do, (same as airplanes don't emulate birds) - that is you can probably arrive at a similar outcome via multiple approaches, some quite different to how the human brain works.
> Which, again, is somewhat separate to whether it is effective.
Somewhat, but if lidar was really cheap it wouldn't really matter if it was also not-necessary.
Somewhat, but if lidar was really cheap it wouldn't really matter if it was also not-necessary.
Right, I just don't know we're far enough in to definitely say what is/isn't necessary at this point.
Last I checked it cost more than a $100,000 (on average, in the US) to raise a human to the point where they have sufficient control over their behavior and body that they could be trusted to safely drive a several ton vehicle.
Humans have the biology for visual systems, and constant training, and it still takes us almost a decade to fully process distance properly. (This is why children will run in front of moving vehicles--they can't actually tell how far away they vehicles are.)
Humans have the biology for visual systems, and constant training, and it still takes us almost a decade to fully process distance properly. (This is why children will run in front of moving vehicles--they can't actually tell how far away they vehicles are.)
I feel like the unbreakable window is somehow relevant here.
Sample of 1, but driving alongside a Cruise car in San Francisco last year was absolutely terrifying. It was coming up on bicyclists going the same direction, ahead of it, and kept swerving back and forth by four feet or so, depending on whether it "saw" them or not.
It was unable to either pass the bicylists or lurk back far enough that they could go about their own business. Meanwhile it disrupted the flow for all the rest of us regular drivers.
This is not the easiest roadway situation to "teach" an autonomous-driving system, but it's been a known issue for a long time. Not sure why Cruise couldn't get it right.
It was unable to either pass the bicylists or lurk back far enough that they could go about their own business. Meanwhile it disrupted the flow for all the rest of us regular drivers.
This is not the easiest roadway situation to "teach" an autonomous-driving system, but it's been a known issue for a long time. Not sure why Cruise couldn't get it right.
Cruise seems to use my neighborhood as its primary testing grounds. They drive slower than the elderly and are always braking unexpectedly due to any movement near the sidewalks.
Well, can someone explain how does a company with no product and no market get affected by the pandemic? Seems like a cop out yet again.
Generally the investors tighten their wallets and start demanding results.
Cruise is part of GM.
Correction -- Cruise is majority-owned by GM but not really a GM subsidiary after SoftBank invested in it.
I went to a recruiting event that was put on by Cruise. It was disguised as a marketing "advisory board" where they asked us questions like "What motivates you as an engineer when looking for a new job? Would changing the world help?"
"Would you like to be rewarded handsomely?"
"Which of these statements most resonate with you?"
They paid me $500 for about an hour to sit through their sales pitch. Then I finally caved and had an interview where the hardest question was how to flatten an array. I passed on that place...
"Would you like to be rewarded handsomely?"
"Which of these statements most resonate with you?"
They paid me $500 for about an hour to sit through their sales pitch. Then I finally caved and had an interview where the hardest question was how to flatten an array. I passed on that place...
I've been an interviewer at Cruise, including on panels where Kyle was part of the committee. Trust me, there are many employees who want to have a decent recruiting experience, and a lot of engineers who want to ask questions that are actually worth your time. The bullshit you experienced is 100% top-down from Kyle. For years there has been tremendous pressure to hit headcount goals and to throw money at the problem versus trying to establish quality. (why? well headcount is one of the only needles Kyle can move himself that suggests to GM that there is progress). Kyle claims (explicitly) he's trying to build a strong "brand" for Cruise resumes, but the data and employee feedback just don't support that claim. It's just one of the several areas where Kyle insists on shooting his feet off year after year and won't actually listen to feedback (yes even when he asks for "direct feedback").
This comment is really confusing for anyone who doesn’t know who Kyle is
Who’s Kyle?
Kyle is referring to the Cruise founder, President, and Chief Technology Officer Kyle Vogt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Vogt
BTW I don't have an opinion on parent comments.
BTW I don't have an opinion on parent comments.
[deleted]
Funny, as they were just a few weeks ago (even during the lockdown) certain recruiters were saying they were aggressively hiring -- and are still listed as hiring for example here: https://layoffs.fyi/tracker/
Seems like suddenly they got worried about how long they can maintain the burn rate.
Doesn't help that driving and commuting fell off the map.
Seems like suddenly they got worried about how long they can maintain the burn rate.
Doesn't help that driving and commuting fell off the map.
It's not at all uncommon for companies to simultaneously perform layoffs while actively hiring.
Sell the highs, buy the lows
Or you could see it as, they know who are the low performers. This is a good way to fire low performers in bulk without getting a lot of flak
There isn't necessarily any contradiction here. Lay off people whose work you no longer need / are not doing their jobs well, to hire people whose skills you need.
Priorities change. In 2019 people were buying into the Tesla bullshit and it wasn't a quesiton of "Will we get to driverless cars" it was "Will your driverless car be able ot make you a martini". Okay, more realistically completely autonomous driving vs autonomous busses on specific journeys etc.
It's thinking in terms of plentiful resources, versus thinkin in terms of the minimum required. You can get rid of all those guys working on the automated fur slippers, but you might want to hire a few more guys working on the automated bus doors.
It's thinking in terms of plentiful resources, versus thinkin in terms of the minimum required. You can get rid of all those guys working on the automated fur slippers, but you might want to hire a few more guys working on the automated bus doors.
Full self-driving is a long way off, but GM can use Cruise to develop new active safety systems for their current cars. I don't think GM is doing as well there as Toyota or Honda, let alone Tesla.
Cruise (the SF company) doesn't do any work related to GM's current cars, we are focused 100% on full self driving.
Note GM has another product called SuperCruise which is a totally different thing.
Note GM has another product called SuperCruise which is a totally different thing.
Huh, Cruise's work doesn't feed into Supercruise at all? That's mildly surprising
Funny thing about marketing. Tesla’s autopilot and GM’s supercruise is effectively the same thing in the scope of vehicle automation. GM is doing a poor job of showcasing it though to the general public, unless it’s by default to avoid being sued.
[deleted]
Just a note, but this is a perfect time for companies to lay off low performers without getting a lot of flak. This is usually the case when you see companies lay off people while continuing to hire as well.
Comments like this show up on all stories about layoffs. I don’t really understand your point. There’s never any reason to have layoffs unless the company deems it a good financial decision, right? And surely all layoffs would hit the lowest performers (by the company’s estimation of performance, which obviously might be flawed), right? So what is the difference between “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers due to financial pressure caused in part by the pandemic” and “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers using the pandemic as an excuse to avoid bad PR”? To me those are nearly identical scenarios.
It's true (or roughly true) that there isn't a reason to do layoffs unless the company deems it a good financial decision. But it's not true that a company will do layoffs whenever it's a good financial decision. You may know that there are low performers but choose not to let them go because you're worried about morale more generally to that other high performers will take it as a sign of trouble and jump ship. But in a bad economic environment that is less of an issue because high performers are probably more risk averse and fewer competitors are hiring anyway.
Well I think in good times, it's trickier to do a layoff. Like you said, it can appear like it's related to financial pressure. In good times, if you do a layoff, investors/shareholders will worry that you are doing it due to financial pressure or limited opportunities to use those employees to make money (growth). The way to say it isn't about financial pressure is to take the PR hit and say these are low performers. Which kind of implies you messed up by hiring them. So either way, it hurts you in good times.
Now in bad times, it's considered "prudent," because everyone is under financial pressure. Laying off people preemptively wins in both ways in that in can look like you're eliminating financial pressure when everyone is worried about it (as opposed to the good times, where you will be singled out), as well as being able to get rid of the lowest performers and reducing pay of everyone else while avoiding bad PR, and even being considered good because you're still employing the rest. As long as the business remains solvent it's a win-win for the company.
Not saying this is good or bad for the economy or the employees, but just reflecting on some of the game theory of this.
Now in bad times, it's considered "prudent," because everyone is under financial pressure. Laying off people preemptively wins in both ways in that in can look like you're eliminating financial pressure when everyone is worried about it (as opposed to the good times, where you will be singled out), as well as being able to get rid of the lowest performers and reducing pay of everyone else while avoiding bad PR, and even being considered good because you're still employing the rest. As long as the business remains solvent it's a win-win for the company.
Not saying this is good or bad for the economy or the employees, but just reflecting on some of the game theory of this.
Laying off in good times means you were bad at hiring in the first place. Laying off in the bad times means the bad things weren't your fault. It's a very good way to not have to convey to the market, your investors, your supervisors, and/or yourself that you may not be very good at hiring while also giving yourself another go at it (hopefully with better results, though probably not, unfortunately).
I think everyone is bad at hiring because hiring is hard. The problem is that companies are also bad at letting low performers go because we're human beings and public perception, conflict avoidance and empathy for co-workers influence our decisions
I don't know what world you live in where any company (beyond a tiny, tiny scale) isn't "bad at hiring". Especially not using the ludicrous bar of "never hiring low performers"
In many countries proving someone is a low performer is a high bar. They certainly can't dump 10% of their workforce without a justification like restructuring or downsizing, something a company wouldn't go through just to replace some people. A fake restructuring might hurt the business even more than some lower performing employees. And if a company does go through this phase, legally it can't just turn around and upsize by hiring other people the next day (not that this would guarantee they end up in a better position than before).
Such a crisis is a good moment to slim down the workforce since it is a legitimate restructuring and it avoids any image harm. and it's not just low performers that suffer sometimes. An average performer might get caught in the net if the pay/performance ratio is not good. Many good performers also do just because the area they worked in is not deemed profitable or necessary anymore.
Such a crisis is a good moment to slim down the workforce since it is a legitimate restructuring and it avoids any image harm. and it's not just low performers that suffer sometimes. An average performer might get caught in the net if the pay/performance ratio is not good. Many good performers also do just because the area they worked in is not deemed profitable or necessary anymore.
Layoffs don't just layoff lowest performers, they often layoff departments that the company doesn't find necessary anymore. High performers are laid off all the time.
> So what is the difference between “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers due to financial pressure caused in part by the pandemic” and “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers using the pandemic as an excuse to avoid bad PR”?
This is a confusing question, seems the answer seems embedded in the question...the former signals that there's "financial pressure" on the company over and above the reasonable baseline that every company faces, while the latter doesn't. A 100% financially healthy and secure company may choose to pay the ongoing cost of restructuring during good economic times, since layoffs in good times may have PR costs (for recruitment, for example) that outweigh the carrying costs of the low performers (or unbalanced departments, or whatever). If a downturn lowers this cost, then you'd expect companies to take advantage of it.
This is a confusing question, seems the answer seems embedded in the question...the former signals that there's "financial pressure" on the company over and above the reasonable baseline that every company faces, while the latter doesn't. A 100% financially healthy and secure company may choose to pay the ongoing cost of restructuring during good economic times, since layoffs in good times may have PR costs (for recruitment, for example) that outweigh the carrying costs of the low performers (or unbalanced departments, or whatever). If a downturn lowers this cost, then you'd expect companies to take advantage of it.
When I see a layoff story, I think two things:
1. Those poor folks losing their jobs...
2. That company must be under a lot of financial pressure
The comment above yours is basically saying: #2 might not be the case, especially with only 8% being laid off"
The comment above yours is basically saying: #2 might not be the case, especially with only 8% being laid off"
Exactly, and the nature of the layoffs in this situation only supports this: Cruise (like other SDC companies) has switched their stance from "launch is imminent" to "we have more technical work to do". The fact that business development, product, and marketing were the lion's share of the layoffs seems like exactly the strategic move that a pushed-off launch date would imply, economic downturn or no.
Evidence against this is the fact that they also laid off lidar engineering staff in Pasadena; I don't know Cruise's business, but this also seems like the kind of consolidation you'd expect a relatively healthy company to do (though "healthy" is a weird word for a pre-product R&D co).
Source: https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/gm-cruise-lays-off-8-of-staff...
Evidence against this is the fact that they also laid off lidar engineering staff in Pasadena; I don't know Cruise's business, but this also seems like the kind of consolidation you'd expect a relatively healthy company to do (though "healthy" is a weird word for a pre-product R&D co).
Source: https://electrek.co/2020/05/14/gm-cruise-lays-off-8-of-staff...
People don't want to join companies that have recently had a layoff because they're generally interpreted as a sign that the company isn't doing well financially, outside of companies that advertise firing low performers as an aspect of their culture (Netflix). In an ordinary market, losing low performing business functions might make your company more efficient but it comes with outsized PR cost that makes it harder to hire.
A broader economic crisis offers good cover for such an action. If everyone is laying employees off, it's not as bad if you do it too.
A broader economic crisis offers good cover for such an action. If everyone is laying employees off, it's not as bad if you do it too.
> So what is the difference between “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers due to financial pressure caused in part by the pandemic” and “the company did layoffs of its lowest performers using the pandemic as an excuse to avoid bad PR”?
1. Whether the company might cut deeper later
2. Whether other companies will be forced to follow suit
3. Because of 1 and 2, whether the average HN reader should worry about their livelihood.
(HN readers are, of course, 100% high performers their employers are lucky to have)
1. Whether the company might cut deeper later
2. Whether other companies will be forced to follow suit
3. Because of 1 and 2, whether the average HN reader should worry about their livelihood.
(HN readers are, of course, 100% high performers their employers are lucky to have)
One indicates the state of the company and might indicate wider issues for the industry and the other doesn't?
GM is not hiring. The auto industry is being hit hard right now. And Cruise is notorious for being a toxic mess as is.
On other forums it seems like it splits into two group. One group says that it depends on the team and that they love their current team. And the other group is how working for Cruise is the worst decision they've made in their life.
My curiosity is with, how does a company totally change their culture and do a complete 180%? From having workers completely hating their current company to completely not seeing themselves in moving to a different company. As some companies used to have employees mentioning it is the worst tech company in the bay area to one of the best in the bay area
My curiosity is with, how does a company totally change their culture and do a complete 180%? From having workers completely hating their current company to completely not seeing themselves in moving to a different company. As some companies used to have employees mentioning it is the worst tech company in the bay area to one of the best in the bay area
I'm not sure this makes Cruise particularly unique.
There are a lot of FAANG and ex-FAANG employees on this board, and you can find lots of people who love their job and feel like they are well-treated, compensated and respected and doing a meaningful impactful job, and there are plenty who felt ignored, underpaid and disrespected while working as a cog in an machine designed to sell ads.
There are a lot of FAANG and ex-FAANG employees on this board, and you can find lots of people who love their job and feel like they are well-treated, compensated and respected and doing a meaningful impactful job, and there are plenty who felt ignored, underpaid and disrespected while working as a cog in an machine designed to sell ads.
I think you'll find most FAANG developers feel quite well paid. But cog in a machine definitely describes many of the complaints.
I would recommend reading the Open Organization by Jim Whitehurst to get example of how process affects employee motivation.
From what I’ve heard about the Airbnb and Lyft layoffs, many people who were affected were actually high performers who were paid well but working on projects that were deprioritized by upper management.
Laying off these people allowed them to satisfy their budget cuts while laying off relatively few people.
Continuing to hire sounds strange, but if the offers are lower the company will still save money. Pausing the recruiting pipeline would also hurt them once things start picking up again.
Laying off these people allowed them to satisfy their budget cuts while laying off relatively few people.
Continuing to hire sounds strange, but if the offers are lower the company will still save money. Pausing the recruiting pipeline would also hurt them once things start picking up again.
I don't know how this makes any sense. Engineering is the only way to automate things to allow a business to scale sublinearly. Why layoff high performing engineers when you can reassign them to problems where the goal is to automate things enough to reduce costs to below the cost of keeping them around. Any high performer should be able to create enough value within 6 months to pay the salary for the hole year. If anything, you buy your company the optionality to further layoff non-engineers that you can't yet layoff until their job is automated.
Now this may not be possible at smaller companies but at a company the size of AirBnB or Lyft certainly has enough problems that could still be better automated to help reduce costs further.
Now this may not be possible at smaller companies but at a company the size of AirBnB or Lyft certainly has enough problems that could still be better automated to help reduce costs further.
If there isn't sufficient work available, there isn't sufficient work.
For a highly-paid employee, you sometimes just can't create sufficient other work for them to do if you eliminate the work they were originally doing and other people are already doing the work they could putatively have been assigned to.
And quite honestly, a person's understanding of non-engineering functions would have to be extremely limited to think that more than a fraction of them could be automated away. Software has been the "it" industry for decades now. Jobs that haven't been automated by now are hard for software/robotics to take over.
For a highly-paid employee, you sometimes just can't create sufficient other work for them to do if you eliminate the work they were originally doing and other people are already doing the work they could putatively have been assigned to.
And quite honestly, a person's understanding of non-engineering functions would have to be extremely limited to think that more than a fraction of them could be automated away. Software has been the "it" industry for decades now. Jobs that haven't been automated by now are hard for software/robotics to take over.
At both AirBnB and Lyft, I promise you there is sufficient work. I've had AirBnB employees ask me about joining the company to work on a large money saving problem I've got experience with that I'm certain they still have because it wouldn't be possible to have implemented since the last time I was asked.
There are definitely similar such needs at basically every company, but allocation of resources is not perfectly efficient (and often far from it).
Lyft is still hiring generalist SWEs after laying off 12% of the engineering staff.
I've seen highly paid engineers put on projects that had high visibility but had, in my estimation, zero percent chance of actually being deployed due the risk involved. These were often rewrites of huge subsystems to use some "new" technology, when they would've been better off spending their time simply optimizing existing code. I was right in all of these cases. The projects went no where. PRs sat un-merged for years. This was during good times though, so the people did stick around.
They let Rob Fuller @mubix go, which makes me lean toward the idea that they let expensive people go instead of low performers.
True, but GM and other auto makers aren't selling cars right now. They are impacted severely
"lay off low performers "
From layoffs I saw as a contractor, layoffs of this size are often not based on individual performance. Usually it's whole departments or functions that get laid off. If you have a good network you may be able to jump somewhere else.
From layoffs I saw as a contractor, layoffs of this size are often not based on individual performance. Usually it's whole departments or functions that get laid off. If you have a good network you may be able to jump somewhere else.
Last in, first out.
> Before the layoffs, Cruise had 1,800 full-time employees.
Their hiring rate has been remarkable. Less than 3 years ago (6/2017) they had 200 employees. Just over a year ago (3/2019), they had ~1000.
Their hiring rate has been remarkable. Less than 3 years ago (6/2017) they had 200 employees. Just over a year ago (3/2019), they had ~1000.
Wow that is ridiculous. There is absolutely no way to have those numbers without a major compromise in the quality of hires.
There are 7,500,000,000 people in the world. A lot more than 800 of them are good at their jobs.
800 hires a year means ~15 people starting every week. Every one of those 800 positions likely received hundreds of resumes, which needed to be sifted through. Then you need to have calls with each candidate, narrow down the pool further. Then all the onsite rounds. For an initial team of 200 that is an impossible task.
The "initial" 200 people don't hire the next 800, they hire the next 1.
Then the 201 people hire the next 1, and the 202 hire the next one, and so forth.
Then the 201 people hire the next 1, and the 202 hire the next one, and so forth.
To hire so many you have to hire a lot in parallel. Also, even once hired, probably the engineer shouldn't have "interview more engineers" as his first priority.
I don't think many people on this board comprehend that there exist professionals at most companies whose sole responsibility is to identify, recruit, and onboard new employees.
Or that most companies are willing to hire people who aren't perfect candidates because a fair amount of internal training is expected. Hiring only unicorn candidates who already have the perfect qualifications and don't need any training/onboarding is a peculiarly Silicon Valley phenomenon.
Or that most companies are willing to hire people who aren't perfect candidates because a fair amount of internal training is expected. Hiring only unicorn candidates who already have the perfect qualifications and don't need any training/onboarding is a peculiarly Silicon Valley phenomenon.
Note that the average or median “quality” of employees isn’t really that relevant if you just need more employees to do more total work.
Eh, mythical man-month and all that. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle, but I'd be surprised if most companies didn't see effects from median employee quality dropping.
That myth concerns adding more engineers to a project that is already started. Of course that doesn’t mean that 100 engineers can’t do more projects than 10 engineers.
Of course, but AV parallelization is limited by the fact that you're all working on a single, tightly-interconnected system. The reality is somewhere in between "do more (fungible, separable) total work" and "dump engineers into a single project". Onboarding costs are substantial for a fast-growing AV company.
Do people have experience of that ever being a success? Because I would ball park it and say my team can still basically be productive at 33% growth per year - for every 1 new employee you need about 3 established employees. I've got to imagine that the vast majority of those new employees don't know what they're' meant to be doing, and let's face it, they've probably got 16 different people doing the exact same infrastructure job that 16 different teams thought was essential, hired for, and didn't trust anyone else to deliver.
Sort of off topic, I've noticed news articles have been very lax with basic editing:
"Thursday, the layoff includes staff at an engineering team in Padasedna, California"
The article says "Reporting By Jane Lanhee Lee and David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and David Gregorio". Two editors missed the typo.
"Thursday, the layoff includes staff at an engineering team in Padasedna, California"
The article says "Reporting By Jane Lanhee Lee and David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and David Gregorio". Two editors missed the typo.
Padasedna, Cafilroina: The City of Roses
I noticed that too :D
I've never seen a company aggressively hire as much as Cruise did in the last 3 years.
Obviously this is a bad thing, but not entirely surprising they had to hold the brakes during this time.
Obviously this is a bad thing, but not entirely surprising they had to hold the brakes during this time.
CRUISE is a joke. These guys can't find their own ass with 4 hands and a flashlight.
So much internal overlap and fragmentation that I would not be shocked they are hiring and firing at the same time - perhaps even the same people
So much internal overlap and fragmentation that I would not be shocked they are hiring and firing at the same time - perhaps even the same people
My impression was cruise was sort of the established players efforts to throw GOBS of money at a space they were worried about. Ie, a place that measures progress in part based on just expense.
Ie, waymo's tech is interesting but we have cruise so we are OK. Or tesla's tech looks interesting, but we have cruise.
I'd love to know what the kit they use for self driving costs. It looks monumentally expensive when you see one of their cars driving around.
I'm interested in MobileEye's next version of tech - wish they'd be pushing harder or did the Intel borg swallow them? They seemed to have a practical and pretty reasonably priced approach.
Ie, waymo's tech is interesting but we have cruise so we are OK. Or tesla's tech looks interesting, but we have cruise.
I'd love to know what the kit they use for self driving costs. It looks monumentally expensive when you see one of their cars driving around.
I'm interested in MobileEye's next version of tech - wish they'd be pushing harder or did the Intel borg swallow them? They seemed to have a practical and pretty reasonably priced approach.
Waymo and Tesla have been designing a lot of their own hardware and I believe Cruise has been doing the same. Nvidia and Intel have been successful with getting start-ups into their ecosystem and attracted OEMS who want hardware for ADAS, but for FSD, you have to get the costs remarkably down, and that will need custom hardware without a middle man to pay. I doubt cruise is using anyones kit.
[deleted]
bump? bump.
https://medium.com/@rohanarun/a-better-solution-for-autonomo...
When I proposed this to nVidia engineers, fairly high up, they argued that if humans could do it with two eyes, they could do it in 3 years. It's now 5 years later.
When I proposed this to nVidia engineers, fairly high up, they argued that if humans could do it with two eyes, they could do it in 3 years. It's now 5 years later.
[deleted]
Cruise cars are constantly driving and testing in my neighborhood in SF. I can assure you, I will never step foot in one of those death machines. I see them make mistakes all the time.
There is no going back. Viruses are not going to disappear, we just lived in our urbanization bubble for a very long time. On the nature scale of things it's extremely short.
Cheap flights and ludicrous interconnectedness are not that necessary and are barely more than disease vectors.
Local food, local communities, and work in your basement on anything via the internet is a development for quite some time now.
Goods can stay transported as before, but shuffling tourists around the globe via government financing said industries out from bancruptcy every ten years is dumb, corona or no corona.
Cheap flights and ludicrous interconnectedness are not that necessary and are barely more than disease vectors.
Local food, local communities, and work in your basement on anything via the internet is a development for quite some time now.
Goods can stay transported as before, but shuffling tourists around the globe via government financing said industries out from bancruptcy every ten years is dumb, corona or no corona.
I follow infosec twitter and it seemed to me some really good security folk got laid off. Pretty eye raising. Hope they get sorted soon.
[deleted]
Hard to see this as indicative of anything other than covid19.
Now we're worried about all the AI jobs disappearing.