|
Every single self-driving truck that has been tested has had a human driver who can take over if there's a problem with the autopilot. That's because laws do currently require vehicles to have a driver, and the laws would have to be specifically changed for that to be possible. Personally, I don't think a law change of that sort is particularly likely. At the beginning and end of a trip, trucks have to leave the highway and drive on city streets that are a lot less predictable, and current car autopilot systems still have trouble there. But more importantly, until privately owned battle droids become a thing, only a human can protect a truck's cargo from thieves and hijackers. That being said, a lot of the people currently working as truckers probably will lose their jobs, since babysitting a self-driving truck requires less skill and so can be done by people willing to work for less. Sucks for them, but there's really nothing anyone can do about it. On the bright side, this technology will probably be good for people working in roadside restaurants, tourist traps, and so on because once highway autopilot becomes a common feature in cars as well as trucks, road trips will become much less of a hassle and therefore more common.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:Hahahah what? Do you seriously think its part of a Walmart truck driver's contract to engage in mortal combat to save an insured trailer full of Vizio TVs? Do you have any idea what kind of legal liabilities there are for employees playing batman? No, but they can report the theft to the police. It's a lot harder for robotrucks to do that, at least in a way that doesn't lead to a bunch of false positives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:GPS, mobile data, door sensors, weight sensors, video cameras, physical locks & seals, ect make it easy as hell to solve all those problems. They already don't trust the driver, because trusting a high school educated driver to transport alone a truck full of goods worth more than their yearly salary is a recipe for theft. This is why containers are sealed, and goods inventoried prior to being sent out and after being received. If those security systems are so good, why do they worry about the drivers stealing stuff? And home security systems don't exactly have a shining track record. Guy Goodbody posted:Who said anything about subsidizing? Just ban driverless trucks. No subsidies required. You'd still need to spend money to enforce the law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Are you suggesting that the savings will be passed on to the consumer? Has that ever happened? If it never happened, every company on Earth would have a 1000% profit rate by now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Self-driving trucks aren't the end all but there's a large portion of jobs under siege. If truckers are eliminated and taxi drivers/delivery people are mostly eliminated and retail is cut by 75% and the food service industry is cut by 75% and a large portion of our tech jobs are outsourced, what happens to all those displaced people? Here's an idea: how about we take a look at what job fields are actually expected to grow the most over the next decade or so. Here are the top ten from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1. Personal care aids 2. Registered nurses 3. Home health aids 4. Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food 5. Retail salespersons 6. Nursing assistants 7. Customer service representative 8. Cooks, restaurant 9. General and operations managers 10. Construction laborers 4, 8, and 10 might end up being automated if we get some major advances in machine manual dexterity, but everything else looks pretty secure barring the Singularity, especially the nursing jobs. And that's just the jobs that are currently growing rapidly. If automation really did get going, we'd surely see a bunch of new categories popping up. Call Me Charlie posted:They got jobs in the factories that displaced them. Which goes back to my original point. We're quickly approaching the point where there's no logical next step for the jobs we lose. These jobs aren't being replaced, they're being phased out. Do you think people back then saw a "logical next step" to replace the countless lost farming jobs? Actually, we don't have to speculate, the example of the Luddites demonstrates that they didn't. But there were wrong. And that was far from the last time that that happened. Here is the introduction to a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960: JFK posted:Today we stand on the threshold of a new industrial revolution - the revolution of automation. This is a revolution bright with the hope of a new prosperity for labor and a new abundance for America - but it is also a revolution which carries the dark menace of industrial dislocaiton, increasing unemployment, and deepending poverty. Today, the US unemployment rate is 4.9%, compared to 5.5% in 1960. So they were wrong that time too. Why are you so confident that this time, the predictions are right when virtually identical predictions turned out to be wrong so many times before? INH5 fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:yes, they are called "Factories" People back thought that the factories would just make the problems worse. Since they could match the output of all of the cottage industries with a fraction of the labor, the vast majority of existing crafstmen and so on would end up starving while those lucky to have a job would continue to enjoy the same standard of living that they had before.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 18:39
|
|