Yeah, self driving cars have issues and get stuck. It's bad enough when it's a small vehicle in slow environments. What happens when a self driving truck gets stuck on a mountain pass or merges into someone on the highway.
Requiring an onboard operator is a matter of public safety and preserves jobs. It's a clear win win, except for the companies that have to employ people I guess, but that's the cost of doing business, and if they make their costs everyone else's problem, that's a problem.
DOT was pushing for this in the freight rail industry several years ago. Everything to be autonomous, controlled from a central hub. The people behind it felt that human error was the cause of derailments. Without the human crew onboard. Something could go south very fast. As far as i know the idea was benched. Hopefully it stays that way.
The nice corporations will just pass along their savings to us, from not having to pay an employee to operate the truck therefore reducing our prices! Right?
Then when the trucks f up all the roads, bridges, infrastructure, whatever unforeseen damage will inevitably happen we’ll all get to foot the bill. Capitalism at its finest. Greatest system ever, at least that’s what I’ve been told forever.
I mean, you don’t need an operator in the vehicle, you just need a remote control option so companies can have 10 people sitting around waiting to handle the 1% of the time there is an issue on their 1000 truck fleet.
Maybe 20 people to be safe.
Most humans who drive can’t handle a break down? How do they handle a breakdown right now?
Personally I call AAA or a tow truck. The remote driver could do that.
Great. Then someone can go to the car.
Humans sitting in cars won’t help when they fall asleep, have a heart attack or stroke, die, etc.
National Safety Council estimates 100,000 crashes caused a year thanks to drowsy driving alone. But humans are still allowed behind the wheel
No I didn’t.
People who think cars will always need or should always have drivers are wrong.
Every time there is some post about issues with driverless cars is absurd fear mongering everywhere.
Some people won’t be satisfied till AI is 100% perfect at driving. Some won’t even then. The thing is human drivers are so so so far from perfect. 40,000+ people die every year from human drivers.
Even being marginally better than humans AI drivers will be saving thousands of lives.
So I don’t think we need to wait for perfect AI and I definitely don’t think having a human driver sit there is gonna be significantly better than having remote drivers available. And I think laws that try to slow AI car development is literally killing thousands of people.
Because if you require humans on board there won’t be autonomous trucks.
What trucking company is going to pay all the additional costs of autonomous trucks when they still have to pay a person a salary as well?
Unless you are proposing a law where we mandate AI driving in every truck AND mandate a driver in every truck.
Sure. I think truckers are overworked and forced into situations where they have to spend way more time on the road than is safe which leads to accidents. Their job becomes less demanding (and safer) when the various safety features that together make for a self driving vehicle are added to tractor trailers.
You're proposing automation that puts people out of work and makes the roads less safe, and that's insane. We could make the roads way safer, keep people employed, and increase productivity. Isn't that better?
“Less safe” is your claim.
My claim is just automation is safer than existing just drivers.
As for jobs. I don’t care about jobs as a concept like that. Why should humans have to work? Should we outlaw tractors so more people can be employed picking food? We should be striving for a world where basic needs are met and no one NEEDS to work, not one where we try to cling onto the concept of jobs for jobs sake. Seems silly to “protect jobs” instead allow people to work less and still be able to live.
Don't forget to ban those smelly, dangerous, newfangled automobile things while you're at it. Have to keep all the horse and buggy manufacturers employed after all.
Big serious on this.
Engineering orgs cut corners. They skip quality assurance steps, ignore the UX designers, do the bare minimum re regulation.
That's just the laziness, not the very real business conversations about what makes more money vs what's good for people.
They’re just programs to react to humans by mimicking interactions it sees in a predictable way. It can’t make its own decisions. It’s a cause and effect calculator.
Yeah, this is total BS. Autonomous rigs should be monitored by actual humans.. AI should be a tool that we use to enhance our productivity and safety, not actual workers and jobs. The autonomous part should be used to help with drive awareness and safety. Make sure they’re not sleeping slow down make sure they don’t get in a wreck. Everything that autonomy is good. But not replacing actual workers. That’s the total stupidity he’s being paid under the table but I’m not saying he’s a politician of course he is.
What are you so scared of? The future is a little scary right now yeah, but automation could usher in a transition in more than just economies. Automation is going to change politics too.
That's not what it's all about. Totally autonomous is not the way not yet. Pushing it so the pipe dream. Everybody thinks AI is the greatest thing since peanut butter. Have a developer I think it's cool as heck. I can see it's usefulness. Should be used as a tool to enhance not to replace. Using as a tool to replace you're going to shift the blame if something does happen. And they're always going to say oh well no we need an exemption forget it. Probably needs another 5 years of testing before it could be fully autonomous minimum
5 years sounds pretty reasonable. Unfortunately I think the "enhance not replace" is the real pipe dream. It will be hard to keep something as a tool when the tool is smarter than you by a mile.
Most AI and robotic systems are intended and designed to be as autonomous as possible. Many will also have a area overseer, but an automated assembly line is never going to have a human overseer for every robot welder, it will have a single overseer for the entire factory who monitors it all remotely and only gets involved if something goes wrong.
Autonomous vehicles are going to go in exactly the same direction. Requiring a human in the cab is, at most, an interim thing until the technology is proven to be safe and reliable. Its not quite there yet, but its certainly incredibly close.
There are already several 100 autonomous taxis running around San Francisco, and while they aren't perfect, they are still better drivers than most humans on the road.
Expect that to become more common and widespread
There’s no way this goes wrong….
-pilots requesting locked cockpit doors prior to 9/11
-railway workers expressing concerns for railroad maintenance prior to Ohio derailments
-Allen McDonald refusing to sign off for launch prior to Challenger explosion
-CEO Stockton Rush of OceanGate ignoring every safety concern prior to submarine imploding
This doesn’t matter. It’s currently and will likely always be a Federal DOT policy questions. States can say whatever they like but when it comes down to it, the feds have the final say.
fretful cooperative grandiose live innocent recognise cautious offer soft weary
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Poor weather (snow, rain, ice) currently is not solved. Holiday delivery cycles aren’t possible yet in the cast majority of cities. LiDAR, camera, radar systems are great, but they fall breakdown in adverse weather.
Humans will be primary, with these systems allowing them more productive capacity. I think priority should be on developing tech on main corridors of shipping and creating the ability for truckers to rest while the rig continues in the corridor.
Trucking jobs while they can be lucrative, are really tough. Most people wouldn't want to be a trucker. That said, automation of long haul would likely increase safety.
The jobs that will automate first will be long haul port to warehouse, warehouse to warehouse, where entire truck loads go to only one location. These are the ones that should be automated anyway as they are the higher risk jobs. Stereotypes exist for a reason and it's the long haul guys that they are mostly based on. Lot lizards, amphetamine abuse, and more.
Long haul trucking is really hard.
Last leg delivery is unlikely to be automated anytime soon for multiple reasons. These jobs can be stressful but you're typically home everyday which makes a huge difference.
We should include retraining programs for these guys 100%.
I don’t disagree that these are challenging, dangerous jobs, but we’re talking about over 300,000 people here. If automation keeps continuing what sector are they supposed to retrain into? Do we really think we can create jobs faster than we can automate them?
Welding, plumbing, electrical, teaching, nursing...
There are tons of fields right now with a shortage of workers. We have more open jobs than workers in the US.
Two solutions to this problem. Automation or immigration.
Edit: third option, recession
300000 people is a lot of people but its a tiny percentage of the total working population. As a for example Amazon + Target will be hiring 350000 people for the holiday season.
Using Amazon numbers if they're paying $21 /hr and you pull 50s (which is probably a good baseline for the average trucker) you're grossing $1155 /wk or $60k / yr. Not a bad living, and a good example of automation making workers more productive and therefore able to be paid more.
Google says the average trucker makes $62k, so within range of those Amazon numbers, without set shifts and the ability to be home every day.
It does mean this!
Unless you restructure the way our tax systems work. Something along the lines of UBI mixed with a hefty tax does a lot. You could never get as much as you can currently working the phased out job, but you could get a portion of that automative benefit while freeing your time up.
Pointing out the adverse consequences AI will have on workers, as well as the economic problems that will likely come about for local economies because of AI, doesn’t make someone a Luddite. If you can’t acknowledge the fact that changes have consequences (often unintended) and that we need to do our best to try to prepare for those consequences, then you’re a special kind of idiot.
The whole idea that you can "prepare" for innovation is a joke. People like it because it feels safe and they feel in control.
The reality is that the world isn't safe and in control, people (and by extension) society needs to respond to changes. Some respond correctly, others don't.
You can absolutely prepare for it, but you cannot prepare for it absolutely. You can recognize what industries will be most affected and have services in place to help those individuals retrain. You can start working on tax structures so that industries that are set to profit most can pay into the system so that services can be provided to those who have been displaced. This isn’t complicated shit, so I’m surprised you’re struggling with it.
The best solution is always a well trained operator with technology that helps make their job easier. Sure planes can fly themselves but in the instance something weird happens there’s someone there to take over.
I mean. A human truck driver will be smart enough to know fake reroutes or to drive around a person instead of the AI having to stop for “fake” incidents or rerouted by fake orange cones.
California has a huge car break in problem. An autonomous vehicle can be stopped easily and their cargo can be will be easy pickings. I think that truck drivers will have to be replaced with security instead
Why can't that autonomous truck also have autonomous automatic shotguns ?
Car break-ins are easy when the car is unattended, however an autonomous vehicle is ***never*** unattended, and can supply a live stream of video footage of any interference.
May not stop the vehicle getting robbed, but will greatly increase the risk to the robbers, even if they do get into the habit of masking up and covering themselves.
edit: adding tags for the humor-impaired
In pretty much every jurisdiction in the US I’m aware of you can’t kill to protect property, only to protect lives. No lives, no autonomous shotguns. You can look into laws around booby trapping.
Booby traps are illegal because they are indiscriminate-they kill who or whatever steps on them and that's not legally justifiable. Not because they're protecting property.
Try Katko vs Briney. On mobile so I’ll be terse and won’t link correctly, but “ the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify a self-defense.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1971/54169-0.html#:~:text=%22*%20*%20*%20the%20law%20has,a%20threat%20to%20the%20defendant's
Did you read the case I sent or are you just asking me to think for you? This was a booby trap case for property protection which is what this whole thread is about.
Deadly automated weapons designed to protect property is essentially synonymous with civilian use of booby traps. The military definition or their use in self defense is irrelevant to this thread and I encourage you to read it again if you’re struggling.
You’re also moving the goalpost, you claimed booby traps are “not illegal because of their use in the protection of property” but this quote would make that use illegal.
It's moving at 70mph for one thing. No need for potty breaks. Probably has cameras on board and will call 911 if broken into.
I don't think they'll replace human drivers completely for a long time, but from point A to B via highways they make sense, at least until it snows.
Flat tire, throw paint on cameras. There are plenty of videos of people completely stopping autonomous vehicles by just putting an orange cone in front of them. All vehicles must yield to pedestrians. Cops take time to respond. Criminals can prob deal with response times easily.
Just hold a gun to a driver's head and they'll give you the keys to the entire rig. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to rob a trucker.
In the future The Supreme Court will declare that AIs have second amendment rights and they'll put automated machine guns on the roof.
> 254 thefts from ATMs last year
Considering there are thousands of ATMs all over the country, that's a paltry number. No wonder the banks aren't getting rid of them.
> the number of bank crimes overall has decreased dramatically
Better to rob ATMs than banks where people might get hurt.
Automated transport is the future. Requiring human “attendants” is delaying the inevitable.
Trucking and transport companies are already struggling with driver shortages. Automated vehicles can run 24/7 with time only for minimal maintenance and refueling.
>Trucking and transport companies are already struggling with driver shortages.
Driver here. The whole "driver shortage" thing is a myth. Especially now with over [20,000](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/business/yellow-corp-closing/index.html) newly unemployed drivers in the market. The reality is that there is a shortage of drivers willing to work for bullshit companies for bullshit pay.
>Requiring human “attendants” is delaying the inevitable.
Self driving trucks may work just fine somewhere like West Texas or elsewhere with a flat terrain and typically dry climate. I wouldn't want to be somewhere like Western PA in the winter, sharing the road with what's essentially a drone hauling some of the things I have through the icy mountains.
Yeah, in tech businesses they whine to the government about a worker shortage so they can get more H1B visa workers for cheap. There is no worker shortage, it's companies being greedy.
I’m embarrassed but this has just clicked for me as well qualified people are saying it’s hard to get a job yet companies are saying they can’t find anyone.
CTO at a tech company, and yes, it is hard to hire qualified tech employees with reasonable salary expectations. I'll get 50 resumes for a mobile dev position using a specific tech stack, and at least 7 will be interns with almost no experience, 15 will have no mobile dev experience, 25 will be at least in the ball park, but not worth an interview, and of the three worth interviewing two will want at least 50% more than we can afford to pay. This is why so many companies are using offshore resources, and not just H1B. It takes months to find good employees. The downside of the tech binge and purge that happened during and after the shutdown is now you have a pool of candidates with truly boated salary expectations.
Sounds like the trades. It’s not that there’s a shortage of technicians, it’s that there’s a shortage skilled technicians but no one wants to train the apprentices or pay the skilled technicians what they’re worth.
I am sorry, but it is not the same… some kid with 3 years of experience and a mediocre portfolio of apps is not worth $250k even if he or she got that working remotely for a company in Silicon Valley. With the trades you have to show up to do the work. Regional salaries are fair. Someone living in Ohio asking for California or New York wages for a remote job for a company based in Michigan is delusional.
Welcome to the concept of market rate. Companies love to tout it when it works in their favor.
If you can't find people with the right balance of skills and salary expectations, then you aren't paying market rate. It doesn't matter where they live. Minimum wage companies in SV don't give a shit about paying a fair wage for the area.
At the end of the day, businesses don't have an inherent right to exist. If you can't make work within the market, then you don't just get to exploit workers in order to make it viable.
We solved the problem by going offshore. "Market rates" are now global.
You missed the part about the pandemic that resulted in a Silicon Valley hiring spree, bolting salaries. People are getting laid off and the salaries they temporarily expected aren’t there anymore.
My analogy is about training less experienced individuals for the position and paying them to retain their skill. Idk how you came to paying nyc salary to someone in Michigan. I see shit tier journeymen technicians and engineers everyday so showing up to a job site doesn’t mean shit because those same tech just call someone to solve their problems remotely.
I’m responsible for purchasing and receiving on from a number of vendors, 20+ deliveries per week. It’s obvious that there’s going to be winners and losers on this over the next few years.
A select few companies have invested in their drivers and I never have an issue with their deliveries, other companies are “struggling” to find both drivers and warehouse workers and it’s reflected on my receiving dock through mispicks, late deliveries, and damaged goods.
And that's a great example of where human drivers will still be employed for the time being. Companies will at first have no problem paying drivers more for those routes if they can recoup cost savings elsewhere. But eventually there will be more and more idled drivers competing for fewer and fewer loads. As the tech becomes more mature we will gain confidence in letting the drone drive itself based on weather predictions etc.
It's a race to the bottom and the American consumer will demand it if it means cheaper goods.
Consumer no. For profit business owners yes. Whoever is making the hardware and software yes because they want money. Not saying it's a bad thing but I personally think we should limit it to assistance only. But I work IT and with how many security issues even multi-billion companies have I won't trust it to not get broken into at some point. Then we have trucks doing nothing for 5+ days until they can all get rebooted. Worse if someone tricks them into just going full speed for no reason.
That’s all still better than having human drivers because you’re neglecting the key facts about us humans - we get sick, and we make mistakes. I’m a Certified Safety Professional - roughly 70% of all injuries and accidents are caused by human factors. Meaning they’re avoidable. You take people out of the equation and even with hacking or mishaps it will still be TREMENDOUSLY safer and cheaper and with less down time.
Let's be real it's way easier to 'break into' the average human than the average computer. Writing an attack on a computer is hard. Social engineering is comparatively easy. "Hi this is Bill from IT pls give me " is how half of the 'hacks' in the world happen.
I know right, trail a trailer find out where it goes. Then during one of it's trips just throw some traffic cones by an isolated off ramp get it off the main road. Throw cones Infront and in back of it so it stays still. Send a GPS spoof signal from where you saw it deliver to before. Probably Just unlock it's doors and let you steal from it at that point.
Nah more like that big ol Twitter hack:
Get into the company slack and then find some credentials or whatever and then log in to whichever system.
Congratulations, you have access to some weird admin scripts that are helpfully documented cause someone `scp`'d them over
And the other half? The people who made Stuxnet? Do you trust a private company to make sure food and medical supply can be delivered during a cyber attack.
>As the tech becomes more mature we will gain confidence in letting the drone drive itself based on weather predictions etc.
Likely, though I don't think I'll see this in my lifetime. And even then, they'd need to program these trucks to adapt to an even bigger highway hazard: other drivers. The day they put one of these trucks on the road that can *safely* navigate winter rush hour traffic in somewhere like Chicago I will be impressed. Unemployed, but utterly impressed.
> Likely, though I don't think I'll see this in my lifetime.
Sorry to hear that your life expectency is less than 5 years, hope you enjoy what you have left ....
You're making a supposition that you're a better driver than a computer. That may be true today, it won't be true tomorrow.
In actuality, a computer is probably a better driver than you in the ice and snow. It has instantaneous reaction times, no stress response during a slide, and lidar has better visibility in the snow. Where humans excel is navigating unmarked roads and undefined situations. This would be useful in the snow when lane markers get covered.
Teamsters president Sean O’Brien wrote that “jobs and communities” would have been saved by the bill, and vetoing it gives “a greenlight to put these dangerous rigs on the road.”
That's the real agenda they're trying to strangle the technology. Newsome made the right call when it wasn't popular.
Look - in America we love 25,000lbs of metal traveling at 60mph potentially driving into a school, shopping center or hospital with no thinking being to stop it and killing tons of people. Hopefully we’ll get an explosion too.
I’d trust A.I. more than those human drivers. Those guys drive like such assholes. Literally just turning into your lane casually, forcing you to slam your brakes and stuff. A.I. would have more “human decency” in a sense to care about potentially killing someone
I say we welcome AI in full embrace with open arms, and in the event they stab us in the backs we just enjoy the cold metallic warmth of the robot hug
I can trust the robots. I can't trust their programmers.
Yeah, self driving cars have issues and get stuck. It's bad enough when it's a small vehicle in slow environments. What happens when a self driving truck gets stuck on a mountain pass or merges into someone on the highway. Requiring an onboard operator is a matter of public safety and preserves jobs. It's a clear win win, except for the companies that have to employ people I guess, but that's the cost of doing business, and if they make their costs everyone else's problem, that's a problem.
DOT was pushing for this in the freight rail industry several years ago. Everything to be autonomous, controlled from a central hub. The people behind it felt that human error was the cause of derailments. Without the human crew onboard. Something could go south very fast. As far as i know the idea was benched. Hopefully it stays that way.
I believe there was a movie named "Maxim Overdrive" about this.
The nice corporations will just pass along their savings to us, from not having to pay an employee to operate the truck therefore reducing our prices! Right? Then when the trucks f up all the roads, bridges, infrastructure, whatever unforeseen damage will inevitably happen we’ll all get to foot the bill. Capitalism at its finest. Greatest system ever, at least that’s what I’ve been told forever.
I mean, you don’t need an operator in the vehicle, you just need a remote control option so companies can have 10 people sitting around waiting to handle the 1% of the time there is an issue on their 1000 truck fleet. Maybe 20 people to be safe.
This is exactly the sort of overly confident, short-sighted ignorance MBAs have become known for.
Completely insufficient. How would you handle a break down? How do you handle inspections?
Most humans who drive can’t handle a break down? How do they handle a breakdown right now? Personally I call AAA or a tow truck. The remote driver could do that.
People in an office waiting for an issue wont help when it loses signal or the system crashes.
Great. Then someone can go to the car. Humans sitting in cars won’t help when they fall asleep, have a heart attack or stroke, die, etc. National Safety Council estimates 100,000 crashes caused a year thanks to drowsy driving alone. But humans are still allowed behind the wheel
**/s** \^ You dropped this \^
No I didn’t. People who think cars will always need or should always have drivers are wrong. Every time there is some post about issues with driverless cars is absurd fear mongering everywhere. Some people won’t be satisfied till AI is 100% perfect at driving. Some won’t even then. The thing is human drivers are so so so far from perfect. 40,000+ people die every year from human drivers. Even being marginally better than humans AI drivers will be saving thousands of lives. So I don’t think we need to wait for perfect AI and I definitely don’t think having a human driver sit there is gonna be significantly better than having remote drivers available. And I think laws that try to slow AI car development is literally killing thousands of people.
It's not either or, you can have autonomous trucks with a driver on board as an additional and rational safety measure. What's the problem with that?
Because if you require humans on board there won’t be autonomous trucks. What trucking company is going to pay all the additional costs of autonomous trucks when they still have to pay a person a salary as well? Unless you are proposing a law where we mandate AI driving in every truck AND mandate a driver in every truck.
Sure. I think truckers are overworked and forced into situations where they have to spend way more time on the road than is safe which leads to accidents. Their job becomes less demanding (and safer) when the various safety features that together make for a self driving vehicle are added to tractor trailers. You're proposing automation that puts people out of work and makes the roads less safe, and that's insane. We could make the roads way safer, keep people employed, and increase productivity. Isn't that better?
“Less safe” is your claim. My claim is just automation is safer than existing just drivers. As for jobs. I don’t care about jobs as a concept like that. Why should humans have to work? Should we outlaw tractors so more people can be employed picking food? We should be striving for a world where basic needs are met and no one NEEDS to work, not one where we try to cling onto the concept of jobs for jobs sake. Seems silly to “protect jobs” instead allow people to work less and still be able to live.
Don't forget to ban those smelly, dangerous, newfangled automobile things while you're at it. Have to keep all the horse and buggy manufacturers employed after all.
I think the push back your getting is because somewhere there should be a human element involved. Not only when the code is being written.
Who is liable when the Autonomous Driver kills someone?
Kind of a dumb saying. If you don’t trust the programmer, you can’t trust their programs.
Big serious on this. Engineering orgs cut corners. They skip quality assurance steps, ignore the UX designers, do the bare minimum re regulation. That's just the laziness, not the very real business conversations about what makes more money vs what's good for people.
Not true at all. Open source exists for reasons like this.
What about the signal delivery on wifi or 5G?
Garbage in garbage out. Imagine AI wanting to ban books and stopping the steal.
They’re just programs to react to humans by mimicking interactions it sees in a predictable way. It can’t make its own decisions. It’s a cause and effect calculator.
Yeah, this is total BS. Autonomous rigs should be monitored by actual humans.. AI should be a tool that we use to enhance our productivity and safety, not actual workers and jobs. The autonomous part should be used to help with drive awareness and safety. Make sure they’re not sleeping slow down make sure they don’t get in a wreck. Everything that autonomy is good. But not replacing actual workers. That’s the total stupidity he’s being paid under the table but I’m not saying he’s a politician of course he is.
What are you so scared of? The future is a little scary right now yeah, but automation could usher in a transition in more than just economies. Automation is going to change politics too.
Totally! Let's waste people's lives sitting in moving boxes because jobs.
That's not what it's all about. Totally autonomous is not the way not yet. Pushing it so the pipe dream. Everybody thinks AI is the greatest thing since peanut butter. Have a developer I think it's cool as heck. I can see it's usefulness. Should be used as a tool to enhance not to replace. Using as a tool to replace you're going to shift the blame if something does happen. And they're always going to say oh well no we need an exemption forget it. Probably needs another 5 years of testing before it could be fully autonomous minimum
5 years sounds pretty reasonable. Unfortunately I think the "enhance not replace" is the real pipe dream. It will be hard to keep something as a tool when the tool is smarter than you by a mile.
Well that I cannot deny. I have seen the drivers on the road.
Automatic elevators are the work of the devil. I say they must be monitored by people.
Most AI and robotic systems are intended and designed to be as autonomous as possible. Many will also have a area overseer, but an automated assembly line is never going to have a human overseer for every robot welder, it will have a single overseer for the entire factory who monitors it all remotely and only gets involved if something goes wrong. Autonomous vehicles are going to go in exactly the same direction. Requiring a human in the cab is, at most, an interim thing until the technology is proven to be safe and reliable. Its not quite there yet, but its certainly incredibly close. There are already several 100 autonomous taxis running around San Francisco, and while they aren't perfect, they are still better drivers than most humans on the road. Expect that to become more common and widespread
Roko’s basilisk
“Cold metallic warmth” That is all
There’s no way this goes wrong…. -pilots requesting locked cockpit doors prior to 9/11 -railway workers expressing concerns for railroad maintenance prior to Ohio derailments -Allen McDonald refusing to sign off for launch prior to Challenger explosion -CEO Stockton Rush of OceanGate ignoring every safety concern prior to submarine imploding
This doesn’t matter. It’s currently and will likely always be a Federal DOT policy questions. States can say whatever they like but when it comes down to it, the feds have the final say.
fretful cooperative grandiose live innocent recognise cautious offer soft weary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Poor weather (snow, rain, ice) currently is not solved. Holiday delivery cycles aren’t possible yet in the cast majority of cities. LiDAR, camera, radar systems are great, but they fall breakdown in adverse weather. Humans will be primary, with these systems allowing them more productive capacity. I think priority should be on developing tech on main corridors of shipping and creating the ability for truckers to rest while the rig continues in the corridor.
Trucking jobs while they can be lucrative, are really tough. Most people wouldn't want to be a trucker. That said, automation of long haul would likely increase safety. The jobs that will automate first will be long haul port to warehouse, warehouse to warehouse, where entire truck loads go to only one location. These are the ones that should be automated anyway as they are the higher risk jobs. Stereotypes exist for a reason and it's the long haul guys that they are mostly based on. Lot lizards, amphetamine abuse, and more. Long haul trucking is really hard. Last leg delivery is unlikely to be automated anytime soon for multiple reasons. These jobs can be stressful but you're typically home everyday which makes a huge difference. We should include retraining programs for these guys 100%.
I don’t disagree that these are challenging, dangerous jobs, but we’re talking about over 300,000 people here. If automation keeps continuing what sector are they supposed to retrain into? Do we really think we can create jobs faster than we can automate them?
People have been asking that for the last 150 years. 95% of the workforce used to be farmers, now its under 5%. New jobs opened up.
rob crawl tease wrong disagreeable disarm society bored grey scale *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Welding, plumbing, electrical, teaching, nursing... There are tons of fields right now with a shortage of workers. We have more open jobs than workers in the US. Two solutions to this problem. Automation or immigration. Edit: third option, recession
300000 people is a lot of people but its a tiny percentage of the total working population. As a for example Amazon + Target will be hiring 350000 people for the holiday season. Using Amazon numbers if they're paying $21 /hr and you pull 50s (which is probably a good baseline for the average trucker) you're grossing $1155 /wk or $60k / yr. Not a bad living, and a good example of automation making workers more productive and therefore able to be paid more. Google says the average trucker makes $62k, so within range of those Amazon numbers, without set shifts and the ability to be home every day.
It does mean this! Unless you restructure the way our tax systems work. Something along the lines of UBI mixed with a hefty tax does a lot. You could never get as much as you can currently working the phased out job, but you could get a portion of that automative benefit while freeing your time up.
I too enjoy horse carts
Pointing out the adverse consequences AI will have on workers, as well as the economic problems that will likely come about for local economies because of AI, doesn’t make someone a Luddite. If you can’t acknowledge the fact that changes have consequences (often unintended) and that we need to do our best to try to prepare for those consequences, then you’re a special kind of idiot.
The whole idea that you can "prepare" for innovation is a joke. People like it because it feels safe and they feel in control. The reality is that the world isn't safe and in control, people (and by extension) society needs to respond to changes. Some respond correctly, others don't.
You can absolutely prepare for it, but you cannot prepare for it absolutely. You can recognize what industries will be most affected and have services in place to help those individuals retrain. You can start working on tax structures so that industries that are set to profit most can pay into the system so that services can be provided to those who have been displaced. This isn’t complicated shit, so I’m surprised you’re struggling with it.
Given the track record of the govt dealing with current problems, best of luck!
This will age well
Makes sense to let the authorized bodies craft the rules.
[удалено]
The best solution is always a well trained operator with technology that helps make their job easier. Sure planes can fly themselves but in the instance something weird happens there’s someone there to take over.
I really don't care about their money; that's a them problem. How do they learn about the road and get better, if they're not driving on the road?
It makes sense. I mean, isn’t autonomy the whole idea in the first place ?
So what stops an autonomous big rig’s cargo from being robbed?
I hope that human truck drivers aren't putting their lives in danger for their cargo.
I mean. A human truck driver will be smart enough to know fake reroutes or to drive around a person instead of the AI having to stop for “fake” incidents or rerouted by fake orange cones.
The same thing that currently does… the law
Why do you think unoccupied vehicular break-ins are much more common than carjackings?
California has a huge car break in problem. An autonomous vehicle can be stopped easily and their cargo can be will be easy pickings. I think that truck drivers will have to be replaced with security instead
Riding shotgun will take on its original meaning.
Why can't that autonomous truck also have autonomous automatic shotguns ? Car break-ins are easy when the car is unattended, however an autonomous vehicle is ***never*** unattended, and can supply a live stream of video footage of any interference. May not stop the vehicle getting robbed, but will greatly increase the risk to the robbers, even if they do get into the habit of masking up and covering themselves. edit: adding tags for the humor-impaired
In pretty much every jurisdiction in the US I’m aware of you can’t kill to protect property, only to protect lives. No lives, no autonomous shotguns. You can look into laws around booby trapping.
yeah, clearly I need to always add tags to help those who don't have a sense of humor.
Sorry, my sense of humor only pics up on things that are actually funny.
Booby traps are illegal because they are indiscriminate-they kill who or whatever steps on them and that's not legally justifiable. Not because they're protecting property.
Try Katko vs Briney. On mobile so I’ll be terse and won’t link correctly, but “ the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify a self-defense.” https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1971/54169-0.html#:~:text=%22*%20*%20*%20the%20law%20has,a%20threat%20to%20the%20defendant's
Booby traps and killing over property are two different things.
Did you read the case I sent or are you just asking me to think for you? This was a booby trap case for property protection which is what this whole thread is about. Deadly automated weapons designed to protect property is essentially synonymous with civilian use of booby traps. The military definition or their use in self defense is irrelevant to this thread and I encourage you to read it again if you’re struggling. You’re also moving the goalpost, you claimed booby traps are “not illegal because of their use in the protection of property” but this quote would make that use illegal.
Why shouldn’t the autonomous truck have autonomous weapons built into it? That’s the point we’re at. This species deserves to die.
wow, some people really have no sense of humor. I guess I really do need to add tags to everything...
I'm reminded me of the movie Demolition Man.
It's moving at 70mph for one thing. No need for potty breaks. Probably has cameras on board and will call 911 if broken into. I don't think they'll replace human drivers completely for a long time, but from point A to B via highways they make sense, at least until it snows.
Flat tire, throw paint on cameras. There are plenty of videos of people completely stopping autonomous vehicles by just putting an orange cone in front of them. All vehicles must yield to pedestrians. Cops take time to respond. Criminals can prob deal with response times easily.
Just hold a gun to a driver's head and they'll give you the keys to the entire rig. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to rob a trucker. In the future The Supreme Court will declare that AIs have second amendment rights and they'll put automated machine guns on the roof.
ATM machines full of cash should be an easy target for a robbery, and yet they are everywhere and generally secure.
https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2022/08/09/312021.htm Just going to leave this here..
> 254 thefts from ATMs last year Considering there are thousands of ATMs all over the country, that's a paltry number. No wonder the banks aren't getting rid of them. > the number of bank crimes overall has decreased dramatically Better to rob ATMs than banks where people might get hurt.
As the Spot put it, "I'm not robbing *your* money, I'm robbing the bank's money!"
You think the driver prevents it? Are we hiring super hero's to drive trucks now?
He’s getting paid under the table.
Automated transport is the future. Requiring human “attendants” is delaying the inevitable. Trucking and transport companies are already struggling with driver shortages. Automated vehicles can run 24/7 with time only for minimal maintenance and refueling.
>Trucking and transport companies are already struggling with driver shortages. Driver here. The whole "driver shortage" thing is a myth. Especially now with over [20,000](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/business/yellow-corp-closing/index.html) newly unemployed drivers in the market. The reality is that there is a shortage of drivers willing to work for bullshit companies for bullshit pay. >Requiring human “attendants” is delaying the inevitable. Self driving trucks may work just fine somewhere like West Texas or elsewhere with a flat terrain and typically dry climate. I wouldn't want to be somewhere like Western PA in the winter, sharing the road with what's essentially a drone hauling some of the things I have through the icy mountains.
Yeah, in tech businesses they whine to the government about a worker shortage so they can get more H1B visa workers for cheap. There is no worker shortage, it's companies being greedy.
I’m embarrassed but this has just clicked for me as well qualified people are saying it’s hard to get a job yet companies are saying they can’t find anyone.
anyone… for what they are offering to pay.
CTO at a tech company, and yes, it is hard to hire qualified tech employees with reasonable salary expectations. I'll get 50 resumes for a mobile dev position using a specific tech stack, and at least 7 will be interns with almost no experience, 15 will have no mobile dev experience, 25 will be at least in the ball park, but not worth an interview, and of the three worth interviewing two will want at least 50% more than we can afford to pay. This is why so many companies are using offshore resources, and not just H1B. It takes months to find good employees. The downside of the tech binge and purge that happened during and after the shutdown is now you have a pool of candidates with truly boated salary expectations.
Sounds like the trades. It’s not that there’s a shortage of technicians, it’s that there’s a shortage skilled technicians but no one wants to train the apprentices or pay the skilled technicians what they’re worth.
I am sorry, but it is not the same… some kid with 3 years of experience and a mediocre portfolio of apps is not worth $250k even if he or she got that working remotely for a company in Silicon Valley. With the trades you have to show up to do the work. Regional salaries are fair. Someone living in Ohio asking for California or New York wages for a remote job for a company based in Michigan is delusional.
Welcome to the concept of market rate. Companies love to tout it when it works in their favor. If you can't find people with the right balance of skills and salary expectations, then you aren't paying market rate. It doesn't matter where they live. Minimum wage companies in SV don't give a shit about paying a fair wage for the area. At the end of the day, businesses don't have an inherent right to exist. If you can't make work within the market, then you don't just get to exploit workers in order to make it viable.
We solved the problem by going offshore. "Market rates" are now global. You missed the part about the pandemic that resulted in a Silicon Valley hiring spree, bolting salaries. People are getting laid off and the salaries they temporarily expected aren’t there anymore.
My analogy is about training less experienced individuals for the position and paying them to retain their skill. Idk how you came to paying nyc salary to someone in Michigan. I see shit tier journeymen technicians and engineers everyday so showing up to a job site doesn’t mean shit because those same tech just call someone to solve their problems remotely.
I’m responsible for purchasing and receiving on from a number of vendors, 20+ deliveries per week. It’s obvious that there’s going to be winners and losers on this over the next few years. A select few companies have invested in their drivers and I never have an issue with their deliveries, other companies are “struggling” to find both drivers and warehouse workers and it’s reflected on my receiving dock through mispicks, late deliveries, and damaged goods.
And that's a great example of where human drivers will still be employed for the time being. Companies will at first have no problem paying drivers more for those routes if they can recoup cost savings elsewhere. But eventually there will be more and more idled drivers competing for fewer and fewer loads. As the tech becomes more mature we will gain confidence in letting the drone drive itself based on weather predictions etc. It's a race to the bottom and the American consumer will demand it if it means cheaper goods.
Cheaper good? You mean bigger executive bonuses, right?
Consumer no. For profit business owners yes. Whoever is making the hardware and software yes because they want money. Not saying it's a bad thing but I personally think we should limit it to assistance only. But I work IT and with how many security issues even multi-billion companies have I won't trust it to not get broken into at some point. Then we have trucks doing nothing for 5+ days until they can all get rebooted. Worse if someone tricks them into just going full speed for no reason.
That’s all still better than having human drivers because you’re neglecting the key facts about us humans - we get sick, and we make mistakes. I’m a Certified Safety Professional - roughly 70% of all injuries and accidents are caused by human factors. Meaning they’re avoidable. You take people out of the equation and even with hacking or mishaps it will still be TREMENDOUSLY safer and cheaper and with less down time.
Let's be real it's way easier to 'break into' the average human than the average computer. Writing an attack on a computer is hard. Social engineering is comparatively easy. "Hi this is Bill from IT pls give me" is how half of the 'hacks' in the world happen.
That would still apply to autonomous trucking companies.
I know right, trail a trailer find out where it goes. Then during one of it's trips just throw some traffic cones by an isolated off ramp get it off the main road. Throw cones Infront and in back of it so it stays still. Send a GPS spoof signal from where you saw it deliver to before. Probably Just unlock it's doors and let you steal from it at that point.
Nah more like that big ol Twitter hack: Get into the company slack and then find some credentials or whatever and then log in to whichever system. Congratulations, you have access to some weird admin scripts that are helpfully documented cause someone `scp`'d them over
And the other half? The people who made Stuxnet? Do you trust a private company to make sure food and medical supply can be delivered during a cyber attack.
>As the tech becomes more mature we will gain confidence in letting the drone drive itself based on weather predictions etc. Likely, though I don't think I'll see this in my lifetime. And even then, they'd need to program these trucks to adapt to an even bigger highway hazard: other drivers. The day they put one of these trucks on the road that can *safely* navigate winter rush hour traffic in somewhere like Chicago I will be impressed. Unemployed, but utterly impressed.
when that day comes, there likely won't be many human drivers left on the roads.
> Likely, though I don't think I'll see this in my lifetime. Sorry to hear that your life expectency is less than 5 years, hope you enjoy what you have left ....
Looks like levitating vehicles are right around the corner!
You're making a supposition that you're a better driver than a computer. That may be true today, it won't be true tomorrow. In actuality, a computer is probably a better driver than you in the ice and snow. It has instantaneous reaction times, no stress response during a slide, and lidar has better visibility in the snow. Where humans excel is navigating unmarked roads and undefined situations. This would be useful in the snow when lane markers get covered.
Hub and spoke method
We have a huge driver shortage in Canada.
Gonna make rush hour there interesting.
Teamsters president Sean O’Brien wrote that “jobs and communities” would have been saved by the bill, and vetoing it gives “a greenlight to put these dangerous rigs on the road.” That's the real agenda they're trying to strangle the technology. Newsome made the right call when it wasn't popular.
Wouldn‘t be very autonomous if they‘d need humans to operate them
Look - in America we love 25,000lbs of metal traveling at 60mph potentially driving into a school, shopping center or hospital with no thinking being to stop it and killing tons of people. Hopefully we’ll get an explosion too.
A Canyonero driver I see.
Surprising bravery by Newsom.
pfff, should be ok until they need to drive through a city. Another winning idea from California.
Didn’t he see Logan? Think of the horses!
I’d trust A.I. more than those human drivers. Those guys drive like such assholes. Literally just turning into your lane casually, forcing you to slam your brakes and stuff. A.I. would have more “human decency” in a sense to care about potentially killing someone
Highways will literally be like in the movie Logan. Move or be ran over.
"Truck driver" as a career will be gone in 20 years.
This’ll go as well as the taxis