Marcus argues that the frequent need for human intervention casts doubt on the autonomy of these vehicles and could potentially lead to lawsuits from shareholders and the discontinuation of the project by GM. He calls for more information about what the remote operators are doing and why, and suggests that the State of California should demand answers and share them with the public.
Key takeaways:
- Driverless car company Cruise, owned by GM, has been revealed to rely heavily on remote operators for its supposedly autonomous vehicles, casting doubt on the company's claims of autonomy.
- Each Cruise vehicle is supported by 1.5 workers, and interventions from these remote operators are frequent, leading to questions about the true level of autonomy of these vehicles.
- The author compares the situation to the Theranos scandal, where the company's claims did not match the reality of their product, and suggests that Cruise may face similar backlash from investors and customers if their claims are proven false.
- The author calls for greater transparency from all driverless car companies about their use of remote operators, and suggests that the State of California should demand answers and share them with the public due to the potential safety risks involved.