Post: #1

http://blog.adamnash.com/2013/07/26/goog...teamsters/

Quote:Approximately 5.7 million Americans are licensed as professional drivers, driving everything from delivery vans to tractor-trailers.
Roughly speaking, a full-time driver with benefits will cost $65,000 to $100,000 or more a year.

In 2011, the U.S. trucking industry hauled 67 percent of the total volume of freight transported in the United States. More than 26 million trucks of all classes, including 2.4 million typical Class 8 trucks operated by more than 1.2 million interstate motor carriers. (via American Trucking Association)

Currently, there is a shortage of qualified drivers. Estimated at 20,000+ now, growing to over 100,000 in the next few years. (via American Trucking Association)

Post: #2

From the blog:

Quote:The fact is, self-driving long haul trucking addresses a lot of the issues with using human drivers. Computers don’t need to sleep. That alone might double their productivity. They can remotely be audited and controlled in emergency situations. They are predictable, and can execute high efficiency coordination (like road trains). They will no doubt be more fuel efficient, and will likely end up having better safety records than human drivers.

We'll see about that. All it will take is one accident for public histeria to ban automated truck drivers.

Post: #3

They plan to automate long-haul trucking?

Yeah, I'm skeptical. They said the same thing about automating the aircraft industry and doing away with pilots. We already have aircraft that can practically fly themselves (takeoff, landing and all) but humans are still in the loop. Why? Because for all of the advancements in unmanned technology, human piloting still results in safer operation. The average human brain is still the most powerful computer in existence. That kind of computational power will remain relevant even in the distant future when more powerful supercomputers actually exist-there are things that people will always still have to do and be able to do better than computers.

That, and there are issues of the social contract. Many would argue that welfare (together with the taxation that funds it) is one of the compromises inherent in any civilization's social contract. In short, government must help to provide a safety net for its disadvantaged in order to ensure that said masses remain in line and don't put anyone to the guillotine. The same can be said of non-essential aspects of modern civilization like art, music, and sports. Bread and circuses keep the masses occupied, and are thus worth the expense.

In time, automation may reveal another compromise to be added to this contract: the need to scale back automation even as technology enables it to reach new levels. Should automation eliminate too many lower-level occupations, we will end up in a scenario in which only a small intellectual and social elite are able to find good work and accumulate wealth while everyone else serves them. The masses won't tolerate this for long (too many idle young men = trouble), so assurances must be made for them to work somehow. That, or we'd have to institute a guaranteed minimum income to distribute the wealth produced by that automation. I think that the latter is less plausible and desirable than the former.

Post: #4

Outside of the trucking aspect, I can wait to see more self driving cars on the road, and the eventual changes that will come to cars once they are firmly established (i.e. can be designed more like mini limos, you just chill and get work done).

Probably the only part of Minority Report that's happening now that I'm excited about.

Fun scenario for a future RVF meet up: "Alright those taking the Hyperloop, we can meet at _____. Anyone else coming in Google Cars, you can start the pre-drinking early."

Post: #5

Not gonna happen anytime soon. The roads in North Jersey and NYC are tight and twisted. I doubt an automated truck can maneuver them gracefully. And what happens the first time one of these trucks runs over a kid and keeps going?

Post: #6

It's weird that we've reached the point where any new technology is seen as simply a threat to existing jobs. My sense is that something's changed in Western culture to where we've become techno-phobic except when it comes to new smart phones and social media sites.

Of course, self-driving cars will put millions out of their jobs. But they will also increase economic growth and make all of our lives more convenient and fun.

No more traffic jams. Quick same-day delivery of anything you want. No need to buy a car - purchase one-time car use whenever you want. Get driven around by your own robot chauffeur. Drunk? No need to call a cab, take the Google car home.

Post: #7

Its more a legal problem, than a technological one. There are premium models to buy with lane, distance, traffic jam and start stop assistance already.

When you drive a car, you are responsible in case of a accident. Who is responsible if a automated car has a accident?
The automotive company? The supplier delivering the safety systems? The sensor company whose product may have failed?
America might be the worst possible place for a accident/law suit.

If automated cars will come, there has to be one person in the drivers seat and is responsible in case of an accident.

Post: #8

(09-06-2013 04:19 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  It's weird that we've reached the point where any new technology is seen as simply a threat to existing jobs. My sense is that something's changed in Western culture to where we've become techno-phobic except when it comes to new smart phones and social media sites.

Of course, self-driving cars will put millions out of their jobs. But they will also increase economic growth and make all of our lives more convenient and fun.

No more traffic jams. Quick same-day delivery of anything you want. No need to buy a car - purchase one-time car use whenever you want. Get driven around by your own robot chauffeur. Drunk? No need to call a cab, take the Google car home.

I have a friend that's a manager on the docks at Port Newark. He's in charge of a lot of the union truckers and labor. Every container is accounted for manually. I asked why they don't tag everything with a GPS unit and monitor it by computer. Evidently the unions block any use of technology like that because it eliminates jobs.

Post: #9

Not to mention how easy it would be to drive down the road with a jamming system causing anarchy. That and the idiots that dream this shit up probably want to put it on a MAC system.

Post: #10

(09-06-2013 04:19 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  It's weird that we've reached the point where any new technology is seen as simply a threat to existing jobs. My sense is that something's changed in Western culture to where we've become techno-phobic except when it comes to new smart phones and social media sites.

Of course, self-driving cars will put millions out of their jobs. But they will also increase economic growth and make all of our lives more convenient and fun.

No more traffic jams. Quick same-day delivery of anything you want. No need to buy a car - purchase one-time car use whenever you want. Get driven around by your own robot chauffeur. Drunk? No need to call a cab, take the Google car home.

Sell driving cars will be cool, if they can be fully implemented.

If they can communicate with one another, then there will be fewer traffic jams (cars will optimize travel routes), far fewer car crashes (no more human error), and you will actually be able to get shit done while you driven somewhere or you could chose to take a nap.

The problem is getting widespread adoption of the technology and sorting out the legal hurdles.

Post: #11

(09-06-2013 04:50 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Not to mention how easy it would be to drive down the road with a jamming system causing anarchy. That and the idiots that dream this shit up probably want to put it on a MAC system.

Hackers already proved they could change the course of ship by broadcasting a bogus GPS signal. There are way too many variables for this to happen anytime soon.

Post: #12

(09-06-2013 03:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  They plan to automate long-haul trucking?

Yeah, I'm skeptical. They said the same thing about automating the aircraft industry and doing away with pilots. We already have aircraft that can practically fly themselves (takeoff, landing and all) but humans are still in the loop. Why? Because for all of the advancements in unmanned technology, human piloting still results in safer operation. The average human brain is still the most powerful computer in existence. That kind of computational power will remain relevant even in the distant future when more powerful supercomputers actually exist-there are things that people will always still have to do and be able to do better than computers.

That, and there are issues of the social contract. Many would argue that welfare (together with the taxation that funds it) is one of the compromises inherent in any civilization's social contract. In short, government must help to provide a safety net for its disadvantaged in order to ensure that said masses remain in line and don't put anyone to the guillotine. The same can be said of non-essential aspects of modern civilization like art, music, and sports. Bread and circuses keep the masses occupied, and are thus worth the expense.

In time, automation may reveal another compromise to be added to this contract: the need to scale back automation even as technology enables it to reach new levels. Should automation eliminate too many lower-level occupations, we will end up in a scenario in which only a small intellectual and social elite are able to find good work and accumulate wealth while everyone else serves them. The masses won't tolerate this for long (too many idle young men = trouble), so assurances must be made for them to work somehow. That, or we'd have to institute a guaranteed minimum income to distribute the wealth produced by that automation. I think that the latter is less plausible and desirable than the former.

This is coming. Automation provides far too many benefits to just give up on it because of "luddite" concerns. Automation will free a lot of people from having to work. The only question about implementing a guaranteed minimum income is this: what will we require in return for this? My suggestion is that anyone on a guaranteed minimum income must perform a certain amount of community service every month and agree to be on birth control or at least be limited to one child per lifetime.

Post: #13

(09-06-2013 03:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Yeah, I'm skeptical. They said the same thing about automating the aircraft industry and doing away with pilots.

Yeah, instead of having a crew of 8 in the plane, they can cut down to a crew of 4 or maybe a crew of 2, and the pilot will be the one serving you coffee and other brewskiis - b/c they don't serve food anymore, anyhow... and maybe these reductions in number of crew members will make more room to carry a few more paying passengers, since they really won't need a cockpit b/c no one will be in it.

And, probably they will need to charge more for all of this, so that the shareholders will receive a "fair" ROI... like more than 50% per year while we are earning less than 1%, if that, in our bank accounts.

now don't be hating technology b/c labor is so inefficient, and just trouble like having to pay for health benefits and all that.

Post: #14

Here's why your Manufacturing Job is never coming back - [1:28]





Combine that pick and place with 5-axis CNC mills, and baby you've got a stew goin'!

Post: #15

Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident Under Computer Control



This technology is still at its very early stages and 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. According to a "cursory" analysis by Bryant Walker Smith of Stanford Law School, "Google's cars would need to drive themselves (by themselves) more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles." We're still a long way away from there.

Post: #16

(09-06-2013 11:27 PM)calihunter Wrote:  Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident Under Computer Control



This technology is still at its very early stages and 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. According to a "cursory" analysis by Bryant Walker Smith of Stanford Law School, "Google's cars would need to drive themselves (by themselves) more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles." We're still a long way away from there.

Plus these cars are going on the safest roads in America I bet. How would they fare through some dirt road or some shitty inner city neighborhood where the roads have mad potholes?

Post: #17

Plus these cars are going on the safest roads in America I bet. How would they fare through some dirt road or some shitty inner city neighborhood where the roads have mad potholes?
[/quote]

a) how many 18 wheelers are driving in the shittiest neighbourhoods vs transcontinental cargo?

b) http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...-goog.aspx



What Google's auto-cars see when making a left turn. Source: Google, via engineering director Ray Kurzweil's blog



.

Post: #18

Funny because this news just went viral days ago:

Hackers find weaknesses in car computers

They can remotely slam on the breaks, accelerate, turn the wheel, etc. and that's just the computers already in cars.

Post: #19

Also, one of Google's cars was involved in a minor accident though it was supposedly being manually controlled at the time.

Post: #20

yup. a minor fender bender while parking. by a human driver. her name was Something Something Cheng

Post: #21

(09-07-2013 01:23 AM)calihunter Wrote:  yup. a minor fender bender while parking. by a human driver. her name was Something Something Cheng

I had to laugh, that immediately made me think of this:

Post: #22

(09-06-2013 02:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  We'll see about that. All it will take is one accident for public histeria to ban automated truck drivers.

I think you may be right, but if you are, it's unfortunate. The thing to realize about self-driving cars is that they don't need to be perfectly safe in order to be viable--they just need to be safer than human drivers, which is not too high a bar (there are over 5 million motor vehicle accidents a year in the US). Sadly, as you say it will probably only take one fatal accident involving a self-driving car to induce a public backlash that might lead to these things being banned. It's too bad, since even a modest improvement in safety over human drivers would save thousands of lives.

Post: #23

I think before implementing self-driving cars they should start with truly self-driving long distance trains. I know there are a few metro systems that are driverless, but haven't heard about any long distance driverless trains. Making a train driverless must be miles easier than a vehicle that needs to go on a public road. Walk before you try to run.....

Post: #24

(09-06-2013 03:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  They plan to automate long-haul trucking?

Yeah, I'm skeptical. They said the same thing about automating the aircraft industry and doing away with pilots. We already have aircraft that can practically fly themselves (takeoff, landing and all) but humans are still in the loop. Why? Because for all of the advancements in unmanned technology, human piloting still results in safer operation. The average human brain is still the most powerful computer in existence. That kind of computational power will remain relevant even in the distant future when more powerful supercomputers actually exist-there are things that people will always still have to do and be able to do better than computers.

That, and there are issues of the social contract. Many would argue that welfare (together with the taxation that funds it) is one of the compromises inherent in any civilization's social contract. In short, government must help to provide a safety net for its disadvantaged in order to ensure that said masses remain in line and don't put anyone to the guillotine.

This. We don't want any more Robespierres running around . . .

Post: #25

You can automate practically any job- I learn spanish better from online videos and rosetta stone than I did sitting in class with a teacher.

The question is - is this good for society as a whole?

I would say that it is not. People need to work and have the transfer of funds occur for our society to function.