
GM self-driving tech unit Cruise laying off about 8% of staff - AlotOfReading
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous-layoffs/gm-self-driving-tech-unit-cruise-laying-off-about-8-of-staff-idUSKBN22Q34W
======
zelly
Remember (approx. 6 months ago) when we were seriously, unironically worried
that all menial labor jobs would be taken by AI?

Now we're worried about all the AI jobs disappearing.

~~~
nabla9
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.

~~~
rtkwe
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.

~~~
rosywoozlechan
> 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.

~~~
eanzenberg
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/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/14/wisconsin-
bars-packed-after-state-supreme-court-lifts-stay-at-home-orders/amp/)

2\. [https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/carnival-swamped-with-
bookings...](https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/carnival-swamped-with-bookings-
after-announcing-august-return/?utm_source=reddit.com)

~~~
ericd
Have you watched Powell’s most recent remarks? He doesn’t seem to agree with
your assessment.

~~~
eanzenberg
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.

~~~
ericd
Who are "these types of people"? Fed Chairmen are usually pretty level-headed.

Do you have an academic source for the global warming claim?

------
djsumdog
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...](https://battlepenguin.com/tech/self-driving-cars-will-not-
solve-the-transportation-problem/)

~~~
gopalv
> 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.

~~~
virtue3
Ho would this provide significant benefit over a rail freight system?

~~~
_jal
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](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history)

------
thoraway1010
"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?

~~~
cactus2093
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.

~~~
thoraway1010
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.

~~~
ABeeSea
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.

~~~
vaidhy
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.

------
GCA10
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.

~~~
beefalo
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.

------
jiofih
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.

~~~
jfoster
Cruise is part of GM.

~~~
rifflebutter
Correction -- Cruise is majority-owned by GM but not really a GM subsidiary
after SoftBank invested in it.

------
iamleppert
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...

~~~
throwxmlphell
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").

~~~
fingerlocks
Who’s Kyle?

~~~
sytse
Kyle is referring to the Cruise founder, President, and Chief Technology
Officer Kyle Vogt
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Vogt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Vogt)

BTW I don't have an opinion on parent comments.

------
supernova87a
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/](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.

~~~
chris11
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.

~~~
amacneil
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.

~~~
wutbrodo
Huh, Cruise's work doesn't feed into Supercruise at all? That's mildly
surprising

------
FreedomToCreate
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.

~~~
baddox
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.

~~~
cbanek
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.

~~~
im_down_w_otp
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).

~~~
arachnids
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

------
greendave
> 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.

~~~
paxys
Wow that is ridiculous. There is absolutely no way to have those numbers
without a major compromise in the quality of hires.

~~~
ISL
There are 7,500,000,000 people in the world. A lot more than 800 of them are
good at their jobs.

~~~
paxys
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.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
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.

~~~
ivalm
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.

------
ipsum2
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.

~~~
kgin
Padasedna, Cafilroina: The City of Roses

------
sdan
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.

------
Fricken
A couple years ago Cruise acquired Strobe, a Lidar start-up. It appears these
are the people getting laid-off.

~~~
jjcon
I believe the majority of the layoffs were from recruiting and design.

------
sanguy
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

~~~
thoraway1010
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.

~~~
FreedomToCreate
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.

------
GPUboy
bump? bump. [https://medium.com/@rohanarun/a-better-solution-for-
autonomo...](https://medium.com/@rohanarun/a-better-solution-for-autonomous-
cars-83f9ded6dbfb)

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.

------
anxman
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.

------
barrenko
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.

------
GEBBL
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.

------
noobermin
Hard to see this as indicative of anything other than covid19.

