[wolverine876]

> Two months ago, Kyle Vogt, the chief executive of Cruise, choked up as he recounted how a driver had killed a 4-year-old girl in a stroller at a San Francisco intersection. “It barely made the news,” he said, pausing to collect himself. “Sorry. I get emotional.”

...

> Cruise’s board has hired the law firm Quinn Emanuel to investigate the company’s response to the incident, including its interactions with regulators, law enforcement and the media. / The board plans to evaluate the findings and any recommended changes. Exponent, a consulting firm that evaluates complex software systems, is conducting a separate review of the crash, said two people who attended a companywide meeting at Cruise on Monday.

After the first [edit: the first performative charade, about little girl in a stroller], why should we trust the second isn't also a performative charade? What independence or credibility does some hired law firm have, that the company itself does not? How about using an independent third party?

[pj_mukh]

Hmm? I saw it exactly the opposite. A lot of people in the autonomous driving industry are driven by exactly what Vogt describes (little girl in the stroller etc.). See also Chris Urmson of Waymo fame's TED talk, he talks about a similar motivation[1].

Its a fallacy everyone conveniently ignores. The woman the Cruise car ran over was actually first hit by a human driver who is still at-large, not a peep about him. The press kinda just accepts this as the "cost of doing business".

The way I see it, Vogt sincerely believes autonomous cars will make things safer from the #2 killer of Children under 19 (outside of guns) by a wide margin [2] and therefore accelerated the rollout past what was safe. I see no evidence otherwise.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_...

[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

[sroussey]

We have become so desensitized to human deaths due to cars even though those numbers are higher than violent acts of terrorism et al that actually kill far fewer people each year.

Many people have to be killed AT ONCE for it to be news worthy these days.

[wolverine876]

> A lot of people in the autonomous driving industry are driven by exactly what Vogt describes (little girl in the stroller etc.). See also Chris Urmson of Waymo fame's TED talk, he talks about a similar motivation[1].

To me, that's evidence that it's performative. First, it's a talking point; it looks, smells, walks and talks just like typical corporate/industry framing and messaging, with even a 'think of the children!' line, and the redirection (from the safety of autonomous cars, the topic, to whatabout something else). Second, its repetition by Urmson is further evidence - that's how talking points work. Third, the public's reptition of it, in surprising detail, such as in your comment, is also what we'd expect. Finally, throw in some tears, 'I get emotional' lines, etc. (per the NYT article), and I don't know how it can be missed.

Could it all be legit? Anything is possible - including fully autonomous cars!

[kelipso]

The culture of Silicon Valley dictates that any performative charade be taken completely sincerely. It is just what it is. People like Holmes and SBF naturally arising from this from the obvious incentives are just the cost of doing business is this cultural environment.

[pj_mukh]

Whether the corporate honchos are "sincere" or not is wholly irrelevant to me (and frankly unknowable).

"Think of the children" is usually a vapid misdirect, except of course in the objective measurable leading cause of death right? So in terms of issues where "something must be done", this should be objectively pretty high.

Either we drastically reduce the number of cars on the road and restructure American society around public transit (I wholly support this), or we take the humans out of the equation by making things autonomous. Or some combination of both.

I dont care if this happens under some grand socialist program if we so hate corporations/industries, but it needs to happen yesterday.

The rest is just status quo protection which is unacceptable.

[oldgradstudent]

In the US on average, there's a fatality every ~85 million miles driven, and that's an average that includes motorcyclists without helmets, old unsafe unmaintained cars, the worst roads, and adverse weather conditions.

Cruise barely drove a few million miles with new modern cars, good weather, the ability to choose optimal roads and weather, and yet it already severely injured a pedestrian.

We can argue about Cruise hitting the pedestrian, but reportedly, the major injuries were caused by Cruise, after reaching a complete stop, deciding it has to clear the road, and dragging the screaming pedestrian and ending with the axle over the pedestrian.

[pj_mukh]

I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road)

That's not even close to a fair comparison. We just have to admit that there isn't a fair comparison yet and everyone's just got an axe to grind.

[oldgradstudent]

> I'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles

Because it's not that everyone ignores road fatalities, it's just that cruise hasn't driven (in terms of miles amd conditions) nowhere near to what might result in a fatality with human drivers.

Even then, in an incident they've not initiated, they've unnecessariliy made an existing bad situation far far worse.

> (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road)

Self-driving cars have to exist in a world with human drivers, pedestrians, and the rest of reality. No one cares how well Cruise does in a sterile environment.

They should not only not cause incidents, they should also not make existing incidents far worse because of terrible decisions.

[pj_mukh]

“ They should not only not cause incidents, they should also not make existing incidents far worse because of terrible decisions.”

Just FYI, it made this terrible decision because people were mad at cruise for stopping in the middle of the road to decide if it was safe to proceed. They were asked to change that behavior and pull over and they did, this time just dragging a human along.

So yes let’s set these absurdly high standards, while we leave children to fend for themselves against human drivers that have met non-existent standards on a continual basis.

But then let’s actually leave the autonomous cars on the road to test if they’re actually meeting them.

As you agreed, some statistic they figure out in a sterile or simulation environment doesn’t actually matter. Let’s put them back on the road..

[patrick451]

This is the problem with self driving cars. A human has the awareness to pull over when it's appropriate and also is able to recognize they just ran over somebody and it's best to stop completely. But AVs seem to just have a dumb if/else statement to control this behavior (yes, I know it is actually more complex than that, I work in this space. But that is how they behave).

Driving is infinitely complex. It's becoming increasingly clear that the current approach to AVs not up to the challenge.

[oldgradstudent]

> So yes let’s set these absurdly high standards, while we leave children to fend for themselves against human drivers that have met non-existent standards on a continual basis.

Looks like Cruise was well aware they are not even close to the average human driver when it comes to handling kids.

They didn't bother to tell us about that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38170848

[wmf]

Independent third parties don't work for free and if you pay them (by your logic) they're no longer independent. The best you can probably hope for is a government investigation.

[wolverine876]

There are ways to do it. Non-profits don't need payment, always, and their mission isn't profit. For example, companies have worked with environmental non-profits on internal climate change and other issues.

[pests]

> performative charade

How is it performative?

Is it not sad that a 4-year-old girl in a stroller got killed by a car? That it barely made the news?

Or is that just not sad and is normal these days?

[minwcnt5]

It was a pretty huge news story actually (in SF). Kyle has a strong penchant for hyperbole.

[wolverine876]

Lots of sad things happen. Why is a sophisticated public communicator taking the time to tell this very self-serving story, tear up about it, etc.? It's not incidental; he prepared it.

Spare me your trolling.

[pests]

Sorry you are so desensitized.

[icedistilled]

People like to say self driving cars are safer than human drivers - but the human drivers that tend to do the most unsafe antics seem to be the humans that are least likely to make use of self driving cars.

[twoWhlsGud]

Seeing that they're the one who, if there were more alternatives (like those generated by low-cost taxi services enabled by autonomy) would be less likely to have licenses, I don't think this follows at all...

[ciabattabread]

Cruise is trying to save itself from getting shut down by GM. I guess it would look slightly better for optics if the GM board hired them instead of Cruise’s board. But it’s the same money, and it’s GM’s decision at the end.

[raldi]

Can you explain what you mean by “after the first”?

[simonw]

Presumably they meant that the first paragraph they quoted looked to them like a "performative charade".

[wolverine876]

Yes. I'll clarify.

[raldi]

What would it have looked like if it had been sincere?

[wolverine876]

The first thing? He wouldn't have mentioned it at all. He would discuss the benefits and costs, without this now cliche talking-point framing that they repeat incessently. See my other comment for some quick explanation of talking points.