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.

No, look at the PR!

Both questions: I don't know.

But as an individual: I'm vesting while I work to satisfy the conditions for a GM payout.

Here is the deleted post from below, repeated verbatim. I'll put it here so it doesn't get lost.

QUOTE:

"Cruise employee here. throwaway for obvious reasons. It needs to be said that this is entirely marketing smoke and mirrors. The Cruise platform is significantly behind most other players in the market, and is having many many technical problems because of shortsighted leadership on Kyle's part, including high level people quitting (the head of planning and controls left last month because of Kyle, and more are threatening to quit) The reason I'm saying this is that this sort of public "everything is fine, we are the best" posturing leaks inwards. The opposite is very much true. Employees are very upset with Kyle because of things just like this. I make no exaggeration when I say Kyle is a mean-spirited, selfish person in private, and is very quick to publicly take credit for the work of others that he has emotionally and verbally abused. It's truly one of the most toxic environments I've ever been a part of."

Yes, I am commenting anonymously. It's necessary.

Cruise Automation can produce a good demo. Shortcuts have been taken to produce good-looking results.

Don't be deceived. No car running the current software (or any software derived from it) will ever operate reliably.

Posted below, you will find a deleted comment from one of my fellow Cruise employees. That comment is accurate in its characterization of both Kyle and Cruise's technology.

An easy question to answer. But I need to be careful about disclosing details in a public forum.

System is fundamentally unsuitable for automotive or other timing-critical applications. Engineered wrong from the beginning. It's a dead end.

How can I prove this to you without potentially harming myself?

OP made accurate statements and expressed a sentiment that's typical at Cruise. Your "alternate opinion" is not widely shared.

This is accurate.

I can confirm that Cruise Automation's software is simply not viable as the basis of a self-driving car.