Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levandowski

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/28-revealing-text-messages-between-travis-kalanick-and-anthony-levandowski

by edshiro • 9 years ago

164 119 9 years ago

spectrum.ieee.org

yohann305• 9 years ago

i don't understand how us the public are allowed to read a private conversation. Don't take me wrong i enjoyed reading it, it felt like snooping, but isn't it a blatant privacy violation?

mikestew• 9 years ago

Court documents are generally part of the public record and that's where the texts came from. Like it or not, that's the way it currently works.

empath75• 9 years ago

Anything you do that's business related could end up on the front page of the NY Times. I would be extremely careful about what you do on corporate provided phones and email.

loceng4• 9 years ago

Zuckerberg's early days of conversation released didn't seem to hurt him making $40B+ - I always wondered if FB censored/prevented the spread of that information relating to him on FB.

cm2187• 9 years ago

Published AND edited. They will delete the part of the sentence that makes it explicit you are joking about something.

jdavis703• 9 years ago

This is why you don't write down anything illegal you plan to do. If you get caught courts can demand you hand over evidence, or it'll be seized by a search warrant, and likely made part of the public record.

Sleeep• 9 years ago

They were entered into evidence for a court case. Court documents are generally public record. That's how these messages went from private to public.

koolba2• 9 years ago

7/23/2016 Kalanick: You hungry? .. Can get some Uber Eats steak and eggs.

Travis shows dog fooding at its best.

DaggerDagger• 9 years ago

Even specifies "Uber" Eats. That's a CEO right there.

koolba2• 9 years ago

Exactly. The man doesn't have an off switch. It's like Alec Baldwin talking to the sales guys: "Always be closing!"

loceng4• 9 years ago

I didn't read much of the transcript, however these guys must be intelligent enough to keep what they know to likely be illegal as a private in-person conversation without record?

ghaff• 9 years ago

Most (though not all) people are probably smart enough not to send a text or an email like "Where should we dump the body." However, the totality of a bunch of emails or texts, considered together with other evidence, can certainly be suggestive even if there's no smoking gun.

hmhrex• 9 years ago

Possibly communicated through other channels as well like Signal or Whatsapp.

loceng4• 9 years ago

"Uber Saw Tesla as a Huge Competitor

While Uber followed Google’s cars closely, it was Tesla and Elon Musk that the duo discussed most frequently.

9/14/2016 Levandowski: Tesla crash in January … implies Elon is lying about millions of miles without incident. We should have LDP on Tesla just to catch all the crashes that are going on.

9/22/2016: We’ve got to start calling Elon on his shit. I'm not on social media but let's start "faketesla" and start give physics lessons about stupid shit Elon says like [saying his cars don’t need lidar]"

Does anyone know what they're referencing here? I don't take Elon as a person to lie, his character seems too strong for that - he understands public perception and seems to deeply cares about it.

tmh79• 9 years ago

Elon has publicly claimed that he will be able to provide an L5 autonomous car without using lidar in the next few years. AL, another expert in the field, believes that claim is so ridiculous that he must be willingly lying, not just overconfident.

Fricken• 9 years ago

Musk said they'd demo L5 late this year, which is delusional.

mhmiles• 9 years ago

Musk has said on a few occassions that he can achieve full automony on a Tesla with no LIDAR setup. I think instead they use a front-facing radar and a bunch of cameras. Maybe IR?. Levandowski strongly disagrees and sees LIDAR as critical to reliably mapping the environment. This all came up when that guy drove into the side of a trailer in a Tesla.

gruturo2• 9 years ago

Tesla will do self driving without a LIDAR, just cameras (ok, 8 of those), a RADAR and some ultrasonic distance sensors: https://electrek.co/2016/10/20/tesla-new-autopilot-hardware-...

Some people believe this to be impossible for the time being - LIDAR gives you a 3d point cloud (every obstacle, with its distance from you measured), which is amazing (but currently expensive, bulky, fragile, etc) while with cameras it's way harder, and RADAR can't see some materials at all.

Tesla argues that their suite is enough (humans manage with just 2 "cameras", some even 1), but the algorithms to let you safely entrust your life to such a sensor suite are harder (i.e. more far off in the future).

Kalanick + Levandowsky disagree with Musk, and were planning on calling him out on it.

b4ux1t32• 9 years ago

I know that you were just doing a tl;dr and not necessarily trying to start a discussion about it, but wow, that seems kinda stupid to be coming out of someone who is ostensibly fairly intelligent.

A 3D point cloud is great, but with the raw computing power we have these days, image processing should be pretty reliable, at least until LIDAR becomes more. . .well, reliable and affordable.

Doesn't the HoloLens just use an IR camera to map its environment in real time?

SimbaOnSteroids3• 9 years ago

The irony is a car with LIDAR on it won't sell, it looks ugly and too foreign. Tesla is designing with asthetics in mind.

sanguy• 9 years ago

Multiple images can be used to compute a 3D point cloud. This is computer vision stuff around for many years. The challenge is this is a passive sensor in that the cameras count on light illuminating the scene. So at night; in bright light (that causes images to blow out); shadows; etc; you can have voids. If a person is in that void bad things can happen.

But cameras now cost under a $1 each in volume (thanks smartphones!) so dirt cheap. An imaging based point cloud extraction system main components are therefore cheap. Add a GPU enabled system to process (it's quite compute heavy) and you are set. OpenCV has the algorithms needed.

LiDAR is an active sensor in that the laser "illuminates" the target area. This adds cost but that is coming down quickly. Also as the sensor delivered 3D points (not images) the computational cost with images can be saved; so less CPU/GPU required.

Levandowski is a LiDAR guy. It's what he believes is the best solution for the problem.

Some feel that LiDAR is not a fit either as it doesn't work well in rain/fog/sleet/snow. There was a youtube video showing a self driving car running a test course in clear weather and again in the rain. You would not want to be a pedestrian during the rain test.

In reality this is all engineering dick waving. Prices will come down and the sensor payload will converge.

For full autonomy it is likely that cameras, LiDAR, Radar, and sonar all will be used. They all bring some advantage to the problem that addresses a weakness of one of the other sensor techs.

Oh yeah, and Levandowski is a complete prick. Someone should teach him about IP theft and give him a prison life lesson. He's going to need it.

tim3332• 9 years ago

Incidentally, Musk's take: "The whole road system is meant to be navigated with passive optical or cameras and so once you solve camera vision then autonomy is solved if you don't solve vision it's not solved so that that's why our focus is so heavily on having a vision neural net that's very effective for road conditions." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv7qL1mcxcw&feature=youtu.be...

int_19h2• 9 years ago

I'm curious as to what happens when there are two cars with active sensors at the same place - how much would they interfere with each other?

jfim• 9 years ago

Multiple images can be used to compute a 3D point cloud. [...] Add a GPU enabled system to process (it's quite compute heavy) and you are set.

It requires enough information ("features") in the images to compute a stereo pair. Flat patches of color have no features and as such, cannot be correlated between cameras. In such a case, you have a spot with no depth information.

This is exactly why you want to have other sensors, and saying that "oh humans have two eyes and they do fine" doesn't really cut it. Humans can say "hey this flat patch of color is a sign and signs are not dangerous" or "hey this flat patch of color is a really clean semi truck, and crashing into trucks is bad" but computers aren't that smart.

elmar• 9 years ago

Tesla’s new self-driving car can only make you money on the ride-sharing ‘Tesla Network’, not Uber or Lyft (2016)

https://electrek.co/2016/10/19/teslas-new-self-driving-car-c...

that is the bigest challenge for Uber if tesla decides to completely integrate vertically and as a big fleet.

philsit• 9 years ago

What does LDP stand for?

Eridrus• 9 years ago

I don't take Elon as a person to lie

But we all know he will exaggerate to the point of being misleading.

zitterbewegung• 9 years ago

Reading their exchanges its more interesting than just finding stuff about the court case. Specifically how these insiders think about their competitors. Such as how they think that Elon is the biggest competitor and how they wanted to partner with Google.

sah2ed• 9 years ago

I guess that's because of Tesla's advantage in vertical integration -- they control the entire stack unlike Waymo or Uber who have to retrofit their gear into specific car models.

Tesla's tech is generally considered weaker but Musk could still catch up and overtake by playing the "worse is better" card.

curun1r• 9 years ago

They might also realize just how important the combination of electric and self-driving is in terms of $/mi. Both lower the cost substantially, but together things start to get really cheap. When you add in the cost of a driver, internal combustion is still roughly competitive. Once you remove that cost, electric will be significantly cheaper. Tesla's investment into battery production could be difficult for Uber's suppliers to overcome.

The end game in Uber's VC-money-burning present state is an eventual future where self-driving vehicles drive the cost down to where Uber makes a profit from the same fares we pay now. But if Tesla prices their service near their own cost, Uber could get to its own self-driving service and be forced to choose between pricing their service higher than Tesla or continuing to take a loss on each ride.

Tesla also has a huge PR advantage. Competitors need to be able to capture the attention of riders as well as offering self-driving vehicles. Given how easy it is for Musk to get press, he might have the best chance of doing that without having to pay for it in the same way that Uber has had to pay.

mikeevans• 9 years ago

Simply unbelievable how much garbage is on that web page without an ad blocker (I put a box around the actual content that appears without having to scroll): http://i.imgur.com/0S2FIAW.png

captn3m0• 9 years ago

Zero text content for me (without having to scroll, and ad-blocked enabled).

JS Disabled: https://imgur.com/a/IAcXb

JS Enabled: https://imgur.com/a/TtSeg

Likely a result of my zoom/font settings, but this is ridiculous.

eridius• 9 years ago

The headline and image are also content, they're just not body text.

striking• 9 years ago

Archive.is doesn't have this issue: (http://archive.is/k7vgK)

downrightmike• 9 years ago

We've so far since 1999, and we have so much further to go.

umeshunni• 9 years ago

Here's a direct link to the texts:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3932688-TEXTS-From-AL...

spiznnx• 9 years ago

More annoying is that even with as a IEEE member with Spectrum subscription, there's no way to log in and remove the ads, only to download the magazine.

Overtonwindow• 9 years ago

I can't help but shake a feeling that all of this posting of text messages is just trying to shame Levandowski, Kalanick, or both.

TAForObvReasons• 9 years ago

Any "leak" is intended to weaken/shame some party. The unknown is whether it's an attack on Levandowski/Otto, Uber, Kalanick, or all of the above.

hyperbovine• 9 years ago

The source of these texts are unsealed court documents. Like it or not, these things can become part of the public record if you get sued.

whipoodle• 9 years ago

Maybe so. You play in dirt, you get dirty.

swang2• 9 years ago

A source close to Uber’s operations says its engineers watched the intersection where Uber’s cars were said to have run the red light, and that this text refers to them recording a number of normal, human-operated vehicles also breaking the law. Uber has never officially admitted that its software was to blame.

is the implication here that that intersection has a lot of red light runners? if so, are they so dense in not understanding how normal people running red lights is less of an issue here than a machine running that red light?

normal humans run red lights because they're either not paying attention or they're assholes. how is a machine safer or better if it can't pay attention (or even worse, is an asshole).

someone could have died because uber decided the rules didn't apply to them. it's ridiculous that they're still allowed to operate in california.

paul69874• 9 years ago

Don't forget illegally running autonomous tractor trailers in Palo Alto and on the roads of Nevada.

These guys are criminals... total disregard for human life (but their own) in every shape and way there is. From potentially killing people, too treating everyone is who not their BRO like trash; drivers, employees, customers, business partners, etc, etc, etc... GROSS!

furioussloth4• 9 years ago

Your comments come off as if you are more bitter about some company you can just choose to ignore than benchamark is about Travis.

furioussloth4• 9 years ago

weren't they suspended? Also i doubt they coded it in their software to break the signal , can't believe you just implied that. It surely was a bug in software and I hope they got fined for it and took steps to fix it. Testing self-driving cars is not trivial, pretty much everyone who is testing them have screwed up here and there. That's the reason the person behind the wheel should be vigilant.

swang2• 9 years ago

i'm not sure why you reached that conclusion but i didn't say they coded anything into their software.

also they weren't suspended insomuch as the vehicle registration of the cars they were using were revoked. at that point i'm assuming at that point uber stopped messing around with the ca dmv.

Afforess• 9 years ago

Normal humans also run red lights when the yellow-to-red light time is too short. Transit guidelines generally state that yellow lights should stay lit 1 second for every 10mph of the speed limit. When the yellow light is shorter than this, it's easy to get caught in the middle of a red.

josh2600• 9 years ago

Have you seen the video? It's way more jacked up than what you're implying:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzzQ42D9Srw

Watch that and tell me that it's reasonable or caused by a short yellow...

tannhauser23• 9 years ago

Uber is saying that this text doesn't mean Uber knew that its self-driving cars were running the red light - instead, it refers to Uber engineers recording normal, human-driven cars running the light.

revelation3• 9 years ago

Given there is no further context in the messages released I humbly submit that this "explanation" provided by the unbiased source at Uber is full and utter bullshit

Like, they are standing there taping other people running red lights? And Kalanick cares how, exactly?

No, this is them taping their own cars running red lights. Which is a very likely scenario since they are 1) testing on a small subset of streets and 2) if it makes the mistake once, bet on a computer to make it again.

aeontech4• 9 years ago

No, if their car is not running any lights under normal circumstances, but has ran it even once at a particular intersection, you bet I will send my engineers there with some cameras to tape the intersection so we can analyze it and see what is happening. If the intersection is poorly designed/timed, why would it be implausible to happen to catch human drivers make the same mistake?

stickfigure• 9 years ago

This is a cartoonishly uncharitable interpretation of "Quick update on that special intersection in SF, we taped 6 red car violations within 2 hours".

A more reasonable interpretation is: A techie pointing out that this is a really confusing intersection, and trying to ease his boss' concerns that the software isn't going to work. Surprise surprise, people have trouble with it too.

coldtea3• 9 years ago

normal humans run red lights because they're either not paying attention or they're assholes. how is a machine safer or better if it can't pay attention (or even worse, is an asshole).

Obviously a machine can be safer if it doesn't pay attention (can't recognize the light being red) on a smaller rate than humans.

I.e. if humans cross red lights 2% of the time because they don't pay attention, and a machine 1%, then the machine is safer -- despite still crossing red lights.

frubar• 9 years ago

if so, are they so dense in not understanding how normal people running red lights is less of an issue here than a machine running that red light?

I disagree. A machine might be able to completely verify that it's safe to ignore the light. I wouldn't trust a person to do that.

msh• 9 years ago

Interesting that they are using telegram. Ref the message in the end of the PDF where they complain about telegram on planes.

dgregd2• 9 years ago

So much talk about LIDAR and other sensors. Why nobody talks about obvious idea of Road Object Message Bus? ROMB is a protocol where each road object (a traffic light, a sign, a car, etc.) transmits info about itself. A car could broadcast its direction vector, intention to turn, any non ROMB moving object it sees. A traffic light could broadcast current state and when it is going to change. That information would greatly enhance overall security, especially during rain and snow conditions, when even LIDAR fails.

Self-driving is such important (just after eliminating combustion engines) that we could upgrade existing cars with cheap ROMB boxes. Vehicle GPS tracking system costs about $30. ROMB box would cost about $60. Let's say that from 2027 all cars have to have a ROMB box to enter a downtown ...

Ohtrahddis• 9 years ago

Because this would likely require a large change in city infrastructure.

Who will be building this? Who will pay for it? If it is the city how will you convince the city's taxpayers to pay for it? If it is a profit-seeking corporation, how will you convince a city to let you cause the disruption, construction, etc. to let you do this?

For other cars, what advantage does this bring to other car manufacturers and why would they agree to cooperate with competitors? Of course there is the obvious benefit that this would help all the players, but why does that marginal benefit outweigh the risk of commoditizing a brand new market / product and eliminating the chance to establish a market share lead. I am partly raising these hypothetical questions because I think companies are trying to "tough it out" and do it without such changes to city infrastructure first and see how that turns out.

I appreciate your simple approach, but you might be disregarding the societal and business factors in favor of making the engineering challenge simpler.

Edit: grammar

tim3332• 9 years ago

Also GPS tracking systems are only accurate to about 20m, not enough to avoid hitting stuff. And transmit over the cell network so don't work if you can't get signal.

Text Messages Between Travis Kalanick and Anthony Levandowski

Related Stories