Slashdot Mirror
GM Says It Will Put Fleets of Self-Driving Cars In Cities In 2019 (detroitnews.com)
General Motors has laid out a plan to not only mass-deploy self-driving cars on public roads in 2019, but to do it profitably. "With a driverless ride-hailing service as its framework, GM is counting on cost reductions, advancements in autonomous technologies and growth of the ride-hailing market to enable a successful self-driving car launch in 2019," reports The Detroit News. From the report: The automaker is using the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt as its autonomous mule, dovetailing Thursday's autonomous projection with GM's earlier vow to roll out a profitable electric vehicle platform by 2021. "For GM to get the benefit they're looking for, they need these cars on the road at scale as soon as possible," said Navigant Research analyst Sam Abuelsamid. "With ride-hailing services, consumers are saved from sticker shock of how much an EV costs -- and the cost of automation in early years is going to be expensive, too." GM didn't say exactly where it plans to launch its driverless ride-hailing service, but identified "dense urban environments" in the presentation. The Detroit automaker's testbeds for the self-driving Bolt are in Warren, San Francisco and Scottsdale, Arizona.
A Beowulf cluster of Bolts
Taking over the cars and forcing all their processors to mine bitcoins.
A swarm of Killbots controlled by terrorists/hitmen/hackers.
.
A Lot of Property in 2019" I especially like the part about "For GM to get the benefit they're looking for, they need these cars on the road at scale as soon as possible," Yes, because rushing code to production is ALWAYS a good idea, especially when it involves large heavy objects that can kill.
Agile Spaceport - You will never find a more wretched hive of scrum and villainy. We must be cautious.
Dear Horsebuggy Driver,
I am not sure if you are talking about the cottengin, steam engine, train, steam car, motorcycle, mainframe, corn harvester, wind farm, aeroplane, iPhone, or Pokémon Go.
Could you clarify?
Not really an apples-to-apples comparison, OS/2 flopped but only because a different brand of OS won the market while computer use itself exploded. For self-driving cars as a genre to flop it must either end up being unfeasible (cold fusion), unpractical (flying cars), too expensive for the mass market (private jets) or unwanted (3D TV) so that there is no winner just a dead end. Cars exists and are obviously all of the above. Self-driving cars would quite clearly practical and wanted. So it comes down to whether it can be done, at a cost people can pay.
While it's a bit presumptuous to assert the latter before we've solved the former it seems to me that the cost estimates for a sufficient sensor array and equipment are well within the economically feasible compared to a taxi driver, limo service, truck driver and the luxury market - whether it'll be cheap enough to become a standard feature and whether it'll work under all conditions is a topic of debate but not really necessary to address. If it'll work in downtown Phoenix, it works somewhere and it would be strange if they can't expand on that.
It doesn't mean that the first to market will be the winner in the long run though, before Google there was AltaVista and before Facebook there was MySpace. A self-driving car could be a huge game changer where "traditional" driving experience metrics don't matter because you're not driving, even taxis and such are heavily influenced by what they'd like to drive all day and it could be very disruptive for what we consider a "good car". But that's just competition, some might flop and implode like Nokia did in the cell phone market but that's because Apple and Google took over. Cell phones as such very much live on.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
In my book, that is a win. And if the glitches were avoidable, that's even better, because that means the numbers will only go down in the future.
You're totally right. This will completely fail because you have to bring your own sunglasses. I hope your message comes early enough for GM to see the huge mistake they are about to make.
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
You're forgetting to mention that without the drug, 100% of the people would have died anyway. Oh, no, greed is saving 25% of the people!
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
You're forgetting to mention that without the drug, 100% of the people would have died anyway. Oh, no, greed is saving 25% of the people!
Greed is responsible for rushing products prematurely to market, which has consequences. Consequences that are often easily avoidable. A bug in this case can end a life, not just lose the family pictures to ransomware or leak webcam video.
You're also dismissing other risks with autonomous vehicle networks coming under attack and being responsible for causing more deaths than we have today, which perhaps could have also been avoided had a half-ass solution not been rushed to market. It's very odd how we assume that autonomous solutions could never have a very dark downside. Guess that's not surprising. We once believed the housing market could never crash, and billed the Titanic as unsinkable.
Greed is responsible for rushing products prematurely to market, which has consequences.
If the products end up saving lives overall, it's not premature.
which perhaps could have also been avoided had a half-ass solution not been rushed to market
We can also avoid a bunch of accidents if we didn't rush a bunch of immature teenagers behind the wheel, after they complete some half-ass test.
You're also dismissing other risks with autonomous vehicle networks coming under attack and being responsible for causing more deaths than we have today
You haven't shown that these risks are real.