
GM's Super Cruise: Driving a 2018 Cadillac CT6 with a Full-On Auto Pilot - edward
http://www.motortrend.com/news/gm-super-cruise-2018-cadillac-ct6-with-auto-pilot/
======
aedron
Given all the restrictions it sounds like the same old adaptive cruise control
and lane assist that has been around for years. Actually less appealing, with
all the face monitoring and eye tracking, not to mention that it only works on
'vetted' stretches of road.

Also, I wouldn't be caught dead in a car that looked like that, but that's
another matter.

~~~
gambiting
I'd be super curious to know _why_ exactly American cars look so unappealing
to people on the other side of the pond. I find them bloated, full of plastic,
tacky, tastless, the lights on front are always this elongated very
unattractive shape - and yet, it _must_ be what Americans like, since these
are cars designed by them. I wouldn't be surprised if they found European cars
ugly in return - Is there any study done on this? An objective look into why
Americans/Europeans like what they do in cars?

~~~
aembleton
Coming from the UK, I've noticed this too - especially with interiors. For
example, I don't think the exterior of the GM Bolt looks too bad, but the
interior just looks so cheap [1] and that is the thing I will be looking at
and interacting with.

One European car that I find really ugly to look at is the Porsche Cayenne
[2]. Most disagree with me on this. I can't put my finger on why exactly but
all of the proportions just looks slightly wrong to me.

EDIT: I've replaced Cayman with Cayenne as pointed out in the comments.

1\. [http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-
content/gallery/2017-chevrole...](http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-
content/gallery/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-
interior-2017-naias-003.jpg)

2\.
[https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/2018-po...](https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/2018-porsche-
cayenne-prototype-spied-less-disguised_4.jpg)

~~~
namdnay
The Cayenne looks ugly because it's such a blatant "tick all boxes" concept -
We need an SUV, but we're Porsche, so let's run a halfway morph between a
Range Rover and a Carrera and call it a day. Quite like the back half of the
Panamera...

*Cayenne - as pointed out by comment above

~~~
segmondy
Dunno about that, the 1st generation Cayenne looks ugly, the later ones look
much better. The Panamera is pure ugly all around.

------
james_pm
"If none of that succeeds in returning the driver to the task of controlling
the vehicle, it will slow to a stop in the lane of travel, put the hazard
flashers on, and summon help via OnStar."

I presume they call OnStar since once the car stops in a live lane on the
Interstate, the next thing that will happen will be getting rear-ended by a
truck.

~~~
giarc
The car is likely thinking the person has already suffered a medical event,
rather than pre-calling for the impending truck.

------
kelvin0
I think 'fully' automated self driving will only become a reality once 2
things happen:

1) Inter-vehicle communications is standardized. This allows for each vehicle
to communicate to each other and signal important metrics
(speed,direction,intent...), also allows to complement each vehicles
'knowledge' and context of what is going on on the road at any given moment.
Communication only needs to happens for vehicles clustered in a given radius
(depending on speed and flow of traffic).

2) A critical mass of autonomous vehicles are on the roads.

Once you have these 2 conditions it will be easier for the 'swarm' behavior
and flow of traffic to be automated fully. It will also remove a lot of the
'unknowns' stemming from human drivers and smoothly direct traffic.

~~~
freerobby
Why? Humans drive today without any of this, and with much less sensory
perception than 360-degree cameras, radar, lidar, ultrasonics, GPS anchoring,
and digital maps. What's the limitation on being able to synthesize these
inputs and respond to them?

~~~
kelvin0
I don't think machines currently have enough contextual information to be able
to drive fully automated. Case in point: the limitations mentioned in the
article.

I don't think you can compare human cognition and driving abilities to current
AI/Hardware, since the roads and all the information to drive are geared
towards humans.

This being said: I do believe fully automated cars will come, but the 2
conditions I mentioned are prerequisites (in my opinion).

------
kozak
TL;DR: The innovation here is that you are officially not required to hold the
steering wheel. The requirement to keep your hands on the wheel is replaced by
a camera that monitors your eyes to ensure that you are paying attention to
the road.

~~~
aedron
_capacitive sensors detect the driver’s hand(s) on the wheel, eliminating the
need to wiggle it to verify control as with some lane keep assist vehicles._

~~~
kozak
Only in situations that demand manual control? I agree that the article is not
crystal clear about this detail, but this is how I understand it.

------
dsfyu404ed
An aircraft carrier can't turn on a dime but when it does finally turn around
it's a f-ing aircraft carrier and it means business. GM realized it should
care about self driving tech, bought some self driving startups, wrote some
checks, made more than a token attempt at integrating it with their products.
We'll see how it works out.

From how they've described the situation that the system needs to take effect
it sounds well thought out. Only time will tell if it makes a habit of driving
into partial lane obstructions at highway speed.

>Curve Speed Control

I seriously hope there's a user setting for how aggressive this is because
what Caddilac considers a conservative enough setting for its customers is
going to be very restricting to a lot of commuters.

~~~
falcolas
> what Caddilac considers a conservative enough setting for its customers is
> going to be very restricting to a lot of commuters.

If you're letting the computer drive for you in the first place, I doubt the
intensity of G-force in a corner is of paramount concern.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I think having it back off in a corner an then having a bunch of people cut in
front of you and then very, very slowly regaining speed (because where there
was space now there's people who moved in front of you) will annoy people.

------
mtgx
Great, more half-baked "self-driving" that will get people killed.

Use the technology where it can actually save lives, like in auto-braking
systems in case of accidents, and so on -- not in "autopilot" _entertainment
/showing-off_ systems where the driver is supposed to keep an eye on the road
at all times anyway.

~~~
0xfeba
The self-driving tech. only has to be better than humans to save lives, year
over year.

And it's been introduced in auto-braking, lane keeping, and other tech.
slowly. It's all part of a road map toward fully autonomous.

The driver "keeping their eye on the road at all times" is just a legal
requirement, since the laws are a big grey area for manufacturers, at the
moment.

~~~
ghaff
>laws are a big grey area for manufacturers

I'm not sure they're really all that grey. They're assistive driving systems
and it's the responsibility of the driver to be in full control at all times.
Now, as these systems get better and more comprehensive, it's reasonable to
ask whether that's a realistic expectation. But it is the law.

------
asah
finally - 1000s fewer drunken fleshbots behind the wheel.

(I am concerned about security/hacking)

------
tmpnam7280557
Note that Cruise Automation did not contribute in any meaningful way to GM
Super Cruise.

GM's engineers are shipping a real product.

At Cruise Automation we're writing software that is so thoroughly unreliable
and wrongly designed that it will never be the basis of a real product.

