Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cadillac's Hands-Free Driving Option Also Nags Inattentive Drivers (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the red-lights-in-the-steering-wheel dept.

Using LIDAR sensors, Cadillac mapped 160,000 miles of U.S. highways "within five centimeters of accuracy" to give its hands-free-on-the-highway cars the ability to better anticipate the roads ahead -- and to know when a human driver should take over. An anonymous reader writes: "The car can see farther than the sensors on the car with the map..." says the chief engineer for Cadillac's new "Super Cruise" hands-free driving option for highways, "so if we have a sharp curve, we can anticipate that." The system also gives Cadillac's vehicles a safety check not available to Tesla, which can't stop drivers from using Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot even when they're not on a highway. "We know where the car is because of the LIDAR map and the other data in the car," says a product communications manager at Cadillac. "Therefore we have the ability to geofence it."

In addition, The Verge reports that if drivers look away for more than 30 seconds, "the car will know thanks to an infrared camera attached to the top of the steering column. Eyes closed? The car will know and start a sequence of alerts to get the driver's focus back on the road. It can even see through UV-blocking sunglasses." While the camera doesn't record or store data, it will flash a strip of red LED lights embedded in the top of the steering wheel "if the driver is caught not paying attention."
Cadillac plans to create and transmit an updated map every year, and will also regularly update its map by "constantly" checking the database from the Transportation Department, and deploying own trucks to draw new maps of construction areas.

68 comments

  1. Good Approach Musk Ignored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See how such simple human-machine interface design eludes Tesla? It's because Musk is incompetent compared to actual car companies.

    1. Re:Good Approach Musk Ignored by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      Except that if it's successful, it will be easy for them to license the tech. Barring that option, they can just...map it themselves!!

  2. spy car, no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    u can pry my 96 civic hatch out of my cold dead hands

    1. Re:spy car, no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spam in a can.

  3. Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm waiting for the day these half assed self driving car systems cause a massive accident and some politician responds with some poor knee jerk "ban 'em" response. It's only a matter of time.

    A self driving car system where I have to pay attention while doing nothing is the worst aspect of these features.

    1. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Me, I'm waiting for the nanny-supervised driving system.

      My car already won't show me my texts unless I'm at 0 mph. It's only a matter of time before my car figures out that I drive like a douche and forces me to pull over and calls a taxi for me.

    2. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There's mounting evidence that the time/concentration required for people to 'task switch' from observing to driving is too much for anyone to actually react to a crisis. whether your eyes are on the road or not, you are NOT concentrating on the road if you aren't driving.
      I think cars should continue to have the ability to override an automated drive system for the foreseeable future, but a car that throws up its metaphorical hands in an emergency and drops control in the hands of a checked out passenger is a disaster waiting to happen.

    3. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, well, having enjoyed :| early retirement because some idiot paid more attention to a mobile phone and that green light was for going straight ahead and not turning right into on coming traffic. Well, who knew you could get concussion of the spinal cord which makes you temporarily quadriplegic, oh well, concussion kept it at a distinct mental distance, whilst those minutes ticked by, so it wasn't that bad. What can I say but bring on the nanny state on roads, now, do not delay, in fact do it yesterday and any idiot that cheats, let them 'enjoy' :| and extended custodial sentence

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody's Got To Use The Road.

    5. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think cars should continue to have the ability to override an automated drive system for the foreseeable future

      Oh they will, if only so that Google/Apple/Uber/whoever has a plausible excuse to dump accident liability onto the driver instead of assuming it themselves.

    6. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air industry with automated landing/take off already went through these emotions. Accidents will happen, and liability is a problem indeed. We accept human error, but not from machines. However, statistics have proven in air-industry that despite the computer flaws and software bugs, the accident rate did go down. For me as a cyclist, I am happy with these new cars, because it happened several times that a driver was busy with E-mail, or Facebook or whatever is more important than paying attention to the road, and moved into the bike lane. One time someone yelled at me in time, the other time it were the headlights the triggered my attention in time. Now I have a bike radar. But those self-driving Google/Waymo cars so far always gave me enough space, they are clearly better!

    7. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Imrik · · Score: 1

      In what a human would consider a crisis, it is unlikely that even if the human were paying attention that they would realize that they needed to take over in time to actually act. However, there are circumstances like construction or weather where an AI may not be equipped to perform the needed actions and would need to pull over until a human could take over.

    8. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      where I have to pay attention

      A feature brought to you entirely by ambulance chasers and insurance companies.

    9. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What can I say but bring on the nanny state on roads, now, do not delay, in fact do it yesterday and any idiot that cheats, let them 'enjoy' :| and extended custodial sentence

      If you're not going to let people steer, then using roads is beyond idiotic. We have had the technology for self-steering cars since the 1800s, and it is called rail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You cant pass grandma on a "rail" Im in vegas, You wont believe how many times old people, and not to sound racist but asians also, stopping in the MIDDLE of intersections, for seemingly no reason, or doing 40 in a 65 on the freeway.. when everybody else is doing 70. Thats the real danger, If we just didnt allow people to get a license until theyre 25, and give it up at 60, The roads would be much safer. And i think there should be a mandatory Driving Safty class every 5years. I do service work for a living, I am constantly on my phone while driving. but i dont tailgate, i pay attention when driving even while looking at or using my phone. and if it takes more than a half a second to try to see what i need i either wait or pull over and do it. I have been driving service work since i was 16, every day.. didnt get a license until i was 21. I have never been in a car accident. *knock on wood*

    11. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      If you like being nannied, maybe you and those who think like you should just move to North Korea or the western European country of your choice...oh I see, the nannying is for everyone else but you.

      I am sorry for what happened to you but that doesn't mean 'infinite safety' is owed at the expense of everyone and everything else.

    12. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats the real danger, If we just didnt allow people to get a license until theyre 25, and give it up at 60, The roads would be much safer.

      Not really. At this point you're already looking at diminishing returns because it tramples on opportunity for experience. A 25 year old who hasn't done much driving is going to be more dangerous than the 25 year old who's been driving since he was 16. At 60, you're giving up a lot of experience just to remove the risk of slightly retarded reflexes. At 75-80+, you might have a case.

      Life is about risk. At some point we enter not-worth-living status if the final say on all activity is the mob's knee jerk perception of relative safety.

      I am constantly on my phone while driving. but i dont tailgate, i pay attention when driving even while looking at or using my phone. and if it takes more than a half a second to try to see what i need i either wait or pull over and do it. I have been driving service work since i was 16, every day.. didnt get a license until i was 21. I have never been in a car accident. *knock on wood*

      I see so you one of those "it applies to everyone but me" types. When 'you' are talking on the phone, 'you' aren't distracted, it's only when everyone else does it. When 'you' drive without a license between the ages of 16 and 21, 'you' aren't doing anything wrong, yet you imply other 16yos shouldn't be on the road with or without licenses.

      Fucking christ, the level of cognitive dissonance required for this level of hypocrisy... Put the fucking phone away while you're driving.

    13. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Im in vegas, You wont believe how many times old people, and not to sound racist but asians also, stopping in the MIDDLE of intersections, for seemingly no reason,

      If you're in Las Vegas, I can believe it.

      Tourists take pictures and tourists get lost. Not to mention, some will talk on their phone while driving.

    14. Re: Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Republican is overqualified for the job. I mean maybe he was qualified once but that time is over.

    15. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      No the people I'm talking about aren't in rental cars. They're locals. Most of the time with the exception of the strip it self, tourists drive better than locals. Unfortunately

    16. Re:Mega Accident Waiting to Happen by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I see so you one of those "it applies to everyone but me" types. When 'you' are talking on the phone, 'you' aren't distracted, it's only when everyone else does it. When 'you' drive without a license between the ages of 16 and 21, 'you' aren't doing anything wrong, yet you imply other 16yos shouldn't be on the road with or without licenses.

      I never claimed i didnt do anything wrong. I was using that as a focus on how i drive. Sure i know it was illegal. Sure i did it anyways, scared shitless every day. But as i said im a better driver than most. When i do use my phone on the road, Driving somes first, I cant tell you how many times ive basically stopped talking to pay attention to other people that are driving like morons that i need to avoid. Im also not saying that makes it any safer. But my accident record says it helps. You realize there are people out there that wreck their vehicles once a year or so. Beyond repair wreck. Im talking about the bad drivers, not the good drivers. Disclaimer* I was taught to drive by people that raced a lot(not street racing). I dont race i just try to stay alive on the road these days.

  4. Liaibility game by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Really these cars should be driving without any supervision. But car vendors know they are going to get sued for every injury and fatality that occurs once we have fully autonomous cars, so they play these games so there is a human "operator" that can take the responsibility for mishaps instead of the corporation that designed the software.

    Until there is a rigorous government safety testing combined with legislation for limiting liability, we're not likely to see the end of this.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Liaibility game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're arguing that the manufacturers should assume less financial responsibility for the defective, possibly fatal products they sell? When shit goes wrong, someone's paying for it, and it's either going to be A) the manufacturer, B) the passenger, or C) the victim. If it's A, the manufacturers will go bankrupt pretty much instantly, if it's B no one will ever buy them, and if it's C there will be riots.

      Would you ever open up your laptop if you knew that every time the OS glitched out or otherwise failed to perform as expected you would be on the hook for thousands of dollars or more in damages?

    2. Re:Liaibility game by Imrik · · Score: 1

      The only way it will work out in the long run is if it is B and the insurance on the car covers all damages for less cost to the consumer than a normal car.

    3. Re:Liaibility game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars aren't like normal consumer items; it's not acceptable for them to spontaneously fail. People aren't going to tolerate that the AI might one day fail to recognize a stop sign or a semi truck or a building and kill them just to save 10% on insurance (and neither will safety regulators unless they're bought off). They'll instead opt for the risk that they have control over - and which is probably cheaper overall anyway after you factor in the sticker price.

      93% of people think they're safer drivers than average, after all.

    4. Re:Liaibility game by Imrik · · Score: 1

      People already accept that the brakes might fail causing them to go barreling into such a hazard. As long as the AI controlled cars are significantly safer, as indicated by the lower insurance costs, people will accept them. However, the difference has to be significant, a 10% reduction in insurance probably wouldn't do it, if it was 75% though, it might.

    5. Re:Liaibility game by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Would you ever open up your laptop if you knew that every time the OS glitched out or otherwise failed to perform as expected you would be on the hook for thousands of dollars or more in damages?

      Dell wouldn't make laptops and Microsoft wouldn't make operating systems if that were the case either. Car companies are not thrilled to take on a bunch of responsibility.

      My argument is that owner and victim take on the financial responsibility. But only if the cars are built and tested to a standard. Owner (or victim) mitigate the costs through insurance, primarily the owner's insurance, rather than sue the manufacture every collision. It's not so unusual of a process in a state that has "no-fault" laws. You can't initiate travel in a car without it being registered and insured should be the rule for autonomous cars. Which is very much already the case, but since you aren't driving you don't need a license of course.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:Liaibility game by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? If brakes fail on a car that's a serious issue worthy of a recall of some sort. I don't except that the brakes on my vehicles may fail, I wouldn't put my family in them then.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Liaibility game by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If it is a common problem, it would be worthy of a recall, if it is exceptionally rare and not related to the design of the brakes, it won't.

    8. Re:Liaibility game by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Brake failure is semi-dependent on the owner. If I maintain my car and test the brakes every time I drive, I can reduce the risk of the brakes failing. If I brake slowly I can reduce the risk of brakes failing and give myself more time to react in case the brakes do fail (this of course only applies to usual stopping, not emergencies).

      Can I do something to make the AI more reliable or am I completely dependent on some programmer in a different country doing his job properly?

    9. Re:Liaibility game by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      And why should that be?

      When I drive my current car, I take responsibility for my driving (by trying not to crash) and the acceptable operation of my car (by maintaining, testing it etc). Then if I cause an accident, it is my fault, I either made a mistake when driving or I neglected to maintain my car and it failed. So, my insurance pays for the damage caused to others.

      What you are proposing is to take the risk of somebody else not messing up - I cannot do anything to make sure the AI works correctly, or, in other words, if I maintain my car according to the manufacturers instructions and it still fails, then I should not be at fault.

      I do not see why the software of the car should be treated differently than the hardware. If the brake system has a design problem that causes it to fail sometimes without warning, then the manufacturer is responsible for the damage. This is also the case for current car software, so why should the AI be different?

  5. Sunglasses by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Do we know how they are able to see the eyes through sunglasses?

  6. The most bang. by atherophage · · Score: 1

    Instead of putting these safety features in some of the most expensive vehicles why not put them in the vehicles involved in the most accidents? If one can afford a Cadillac, that person might not be subject to the same time and economic stresses as some over scheduled worker bee. It's going to be the under-slept harried grunt operating a vehicle while wired on caffeinated energy drinks rushing to the next appointment - updating the next client... these are the 99% on the receiving end of an auto accident. These are the folk who could benefit most from these technolgies.

    1. Re:The most bang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://media3.giphy.com/media/1455m6M8jFgCE8/giphy.gif

    2. Re:The most bang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotted the millennial.
      Let's demand the most cutting edge, costly, new features be put on low end cars poor people drive.

      https://1800theeagle.com/brand...

    3. Re:The most bang. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Instead of putting these safety features in some of the most expensive vehicles why not put them in the vehicles involved in the most accidents?

      All automakers are voluntarily bringing AEB (automatic emergency braking) to all vehicles sold in the US... and soon. Next year, maybe? Nope, 2022. Still, pretty soon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Follow aviation's lead by PPH · · Score: 0

    Every flight crew will consist of a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job will be to feed and entertain the dog. The dog's job will be to bite the pilot should he touch the controls.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Mapping vs real-time by MrLogic17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Tesla's "on the fly" approach is the right one long term. If Caddy is depending on historical saved maps, any change at all will be a serious challenge. Road construction, parade barriers, broken down vehicles, etc. You can't rely on what a road was yesterday.

    And yearly updates? That alone tells me Cadillac doesn't get it. Tesla's algorithm updates, what, every 2 weeks or so - with major car OS updates very few months. And Cadillac thinks that a yearly map update (probably only for 2 or 3 years) is going to make them competitive. That's cute.

    1. Re:Mapping vs real-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's cute that you think tesla's parlor trick is anywhere close to the where gm is.

    2. Re:Mapping vs real-time by MrLogic17 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dunno. I can buy a Tesla today with a pretty good auto-pilot that works now. Traditional car companies have, um, cruise control? Beeping if a car is in my blind spot?

      Everyone who's anyone SAYS they have a group working on autonomous driving. Your pay-walled link (hidden nested behind 2 layers of fluffy blogs) doesn't seem to be based on anything but R&D department press releases.

      I welcome the idea of multiple competent approaches to the problem - but I stand by my original post. Humans can drive just fine without memorizing roads to within millimeters. We drive by figuring out the road as we come to it. Makes sense for technology to use a flexible approach like that as well.

      In the original article, the Cadillac rep seems to be bragging that their system doesn't work on roads in general, and has a very limited use case. Strange things to brag about.

    3. Re:Mapping vs real-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I can buy a Tesla today with a glorified cruse control that's pretty crappy.

    4. Re:Mapping vs real-time by waspleg · · Score: 1

      A major car OS update every few months sounds fucking insane for something that can literally kill you and everyone around you. That, surely, isn't enough time for rigorous testing.

    5. Re:Mapping vs real-time by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nissan is testing full auto diving at the moment on roads in the UK. I think it's sensible to go for the full no-driver-needed, but it seems that Tesla has forced their hand a bit and they are releasing a half baked auto-steering this year.

      It's rubbish even by current standards. Doesn't work at low speed, doesn't start moving again when stopped, limited to 60mph maximum.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re: Mapping vs real-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the AI also.asume that the road.is in drivable condition? There are paved roads here in upstate NY where you come around a corner and are greeted by what looks like a section of road that was cluster bombed. If you hit these stretches at the posted speed without making sure you you avoid the damage... your vehicle will hop across the road and right into a ditch/tree.

    7. Re:Mapping vs real-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mapping fails big time..

      There is new highway bypass here, start 3 years ago, and open 2 years ago. Google / Warez had it on their maps almost immediately, by noticing cars driving on it. The GMC Yukon 2017, still does know about that road in its NAV system. Nor a new on and off ramp thats been opened for 6 months.

      Yes Warez is crowd sourced mapping, but it is real time and adapts. It is way LA is fighting / working them to keep cars out of home neighbourhoods. SO Cadilacs method will keep the warez issue at bay, but also maps they NAV system as good as map and compass. .

    8. Re:Mapping vs real-time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is nothing automation-wise in current Teslas that hasn't been in a Mercedes-Benz or Audi for years, and usually without the enormous heaps of bugs that plague pretty much everything Tesla releases. Tesla may be excellent at marketing, but they are not ahead of anyone in self-driving technology. They are just more willing to release unfinished software and more likely to exaggerate and oversell capabilities than companies that have longer experience with liability and safety regulations.

    9. Re:Mapping vs real-time by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      [A few months], surely, isn't enough time for rigorous testing.

      The frequency of updates says little about how much testing each update received. Perhaps that latest update has been in testing for a year alongside several other versions staged for release over the next few quarters. Also, quite a bit of regression testing can be done with previously recorded sensor data before the software comes anywhere near an actual car.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  9. We do know by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ultraviolet is at the opposite end of the spectrum from infrared, a low frequency as opposed to a higher frequency.

    Sunglasses block UV at typically encountered energy levels because it is much more dangerous to your eyes; IR at typically encountered energies is not, and so they typically do not block IR, as there's been no need.

    That is not to say that some enterprising operation could make them block IR as well. At that point, the car would probably refuse to self-drive at all, though. Of course, you could paint on "eyes" using IR-visible, non-vision blocking paint...

    Anyway... a self-drive feature that won't self drive if you are doing anything but going through the exact motions of driving strikes me as almost completely useless. It is probably only a stopgap stage on the way to a more competent driving system.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:We do know by lucm · · Score: 1

      a self-drive feature that won't self drive if you are doing anything but going through the exact motions of driving strikes me as almost completely useless.

      Like with that Buffalo newspaper Warren Buffet bought. When they installed folding machines, because of unions they had to keep the people who used to fold newspapers, so those people were making empty gestures in the air as the newspapers went by on the conveyor belt.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:We do know by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      That is not to say that some enterprising operation could make them block IR as well.

      Rayban has you covered. One of my favourite films from my photography days was Kodak HIE and I would use it with a 920nm filter to get some seriously awesome photos. It was always fascinating taking a photo of groups of people wearing sunglasses. Most of them went completely translucent, except for the occasional one. Rayban's aviators seemed to across the board block IR light as well as UV.

    3. Re:We do know by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention, by block I mean absorb. They went dark black with no reflections.

    4. Re:We do know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god you are an idiot.

    5. Re:We do know by mikael · · Score: 1

      You can still do that now with regular smartphones. Get an IR filter like a Hoya H72 and place it over the camera lens. You'll get infra-red pictures with dark skies, brilliant white clouds and vegetation, while cars appear to have completely opaque windows.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:We do know by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And horrible shutter speed, and noise etc. Plus the R72 isn't much of an IR filter. It lets a lot of deep red through. You're battling two filters against each other since there's an IR blocking filter on the sensor.

      I modified an old DSLR to keep my IR fix going. It's quite easy in most cases to get in and remove the IR blocking filter. The trick however is to find a sheet of glass the exact same thickness that you can put back in its place. Removing an element that close to the sensor with a high refractive index will cause a lot of lenses to fail to focus if you don't. I've even had success with using toothpaste along with a flat window to very gently grind the IR cut coating off the filter and put the filter back in its place.

      It makes a world of difference having a camera sensitive to IR.

  10. Tesla can't stop off-highway use??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla's autopilot definitely knows when the car is on a highway, because it works differently when on a highway.

    In fact, until recently autopilot v2 was only enabled on highways. Now it's been enabled off highways, but is limited to 35mph. It is currently limited to 55 mph on highways (that limit inches up every few weeks).

    1. Re:Tesla can't stop off-highway use??? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      but is limited to 35mph

      I strongly suspect this is how they are getting any kind of resemblance to safety, by artificially slowing everything down.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  11. incorrect summary by jlv · · Score: 2

    "anonymous reader" writes:

    The system also gives Cadillac's vehicles a safety check not available to Tesla, which can't stop drivers from using Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot even when they're not on a highway.

    That's not correct! Tesla's system knows if you are on the highway or not. Currently cars with AP2 are strictly limited to 35MPH off a limited access highway, and 80MPH on it.

  12. Your insurance company will LOVE this by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    How many times will the trigger be stored, transmitted and then your insurance goes up. Don't think it can't happen.

  13. Uncanny Valley for AI by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    A self driving car system where I have to pay attention while doing nothing is the worst aspect of these features.

    This is the "uncanny valley" for AI. Just as we find a simulated human which is not quite right off-putting so too a car which is smart but not quite smart enough to be actually useful is extremely irritating. What I want is one of two binary states: either I drive or the AI drives. I do NOT want an AI which thinks it knows how I should drive - who wants an artificial back seat driver?

    1. Re:Uncanny Valley for AI by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I guess this is something like being a driving instructor. The student (AI) does the driving, but you have to pay attention for any mistakes the student may make and be ready to take over quickly. The difference, though, is that student drives are not allowed to drive fast.

  14. Tesla? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    The system also gives Cadillac's vehicles a safety check not available to Tesla, which can't stop drivers from using Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot even when they're not on a highway.

    Pretty sure Tesla can roll out that change to all their self-driving models if they want to. Heck, they already have the capability to geofence to raise the suspension of the car at places set by the driver (ie: a dip in your driveway).

    Hopefully Cadillac and Tesla nudge each other on to the point of completely self-driving vehicles.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  15. You paid a lot for that Caddy by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    And by golly, were going to give you a lot. Enough complication to make you sick and tired driving all together!! (Just wait till the electronics go awry! $$$$)

  16. Poor Cadillac by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

    They have been trying very hard for decades, but the truth is that Cadillac remains the car of the elderly. I know I would be embarrassed to be seeing driving one before entering my 70s.

    1. Re:Poor Cadillac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before this article, I always assumed Cadillac only made hearses.

  17. teektaak.ir by teektaak · · Score: 0

    http://teektaak.ir/

  18. So whats the actual point? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    You're presumably paying a lot extra on the car price for for the amortized R&D costs and the cost of the hardware to even do this, but then you're still driving in all but name.
    Given most cars already have a cruise control, all it seems to be capable of doing is saving you the "extreme" (NOT) effort of having to occasionally turn the steering wheel, but it cant even do that all the time.

    Personally, I'd MUCH rather do without all that crap and just drive myself thanks.