Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 87 of 87

Thread: The driverless truck is coming, and it’s going to automate millions of jobs

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Matt is right about this one. We will not see it in our lifetimes for passenger air travel.
    A joke told repeatedly at aviation industry conferences puts a man and a dog in an airplane. The dog is there to bite the pilot if the man so much as tries to touch the controls; the pilot's one remaining job is to feed the dog. Many aviation veterans have heard the joke so many times that is possible to tell those in the audience new to the industry by their laughter.

    — Gary Stix, in Scientific American, July 1991



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Hit a raw nerve there didn't I?
    Ignorance and stupidity usually does hit a nerve with me, yes.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  4. #63
    How long will human driver emergency backup presence in the automated driverless trucks be required by law? Like the useless featherbed firemen on diesel rail engines.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/featherbedding.asp

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Negative... in 50 years maybe... but still unlikely.

    1- humans are NOT willing to trust computers to fly their planes any time soon. When driverless cars are ubiquitous then those attitudes will change. But it will take time, decades at least.

    2- computers can fly planes now, the technology is there, no problem. However if an emergency arises or if there is troubleshooting to be done, a human mind is still required. AI is decades or maybe a century away from being in that ballpark. That is why pilots exist, mostly to solve problems and to overcome challenges.

    3- the first thing that will happen is that they will attempt to automate 100% of the flight, and then whittle the flight crew down to 1 person. That one person will essentially be a monitor ready to take over in case there is a problem with the computer doing pretty much all of the work. But there are still problems with this...

    4- In the event of an emergency the workload required might be more than 1 person can handle. Not only that, but there is no redundancy with only one person. And, not to mention, that if the computer does 100% of the flying, then the pilot's skills will quickly degrade making them less helpful in an emergency.


    That's the world as I see it.... yes it will eventually happen, but we are still a loooooooooooong way from even dropping down to 1 pilot on the flight deck.
    Lol, airlines are already looking to replace pilots with computers..
    Pilot error is a HUGE insurance liability, soon as they can outsource that liability to a computer programing company, pilots jobs are gone.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65

  8. #66

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Ignorance and stupidity usually does hit a nerve with me, yes.
    LOL

    "Everybody who has spent a lifetime acquiring skills to effectively run a mode of transportation, is going to be out work, and that's a good thing.

    Everybody except my mode of transportation. Which is already 100 automated, but let's ignore that.

    Anybody who says otherwise is ignorant and stupid!"
    Yup, a real raw nerve.

    I've been called ignorant and stupid and paranoid by much better than you Matt.

    Of course, most of those people have been proved wrong.

    Step up your game there cappy.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyRevolution View Post
    Lol, airlines are already looking to replace pilots with computers..
    Pilot error is a HUGE insurance liability, soon as they can outsource that liability to a computer programing company, pilots jobs are gone.
    Looking to, and being able to, are very different. You will not see it for a very long time.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Matt is right about this one. We will not see it in our lifetimes for passenger air travel.
    Maybe me and you.

    Matt...more than likely.

    Our kids...no doubt about it, IMO.

  12. #70
    Technology Cannot Replace Pilots
    Apr 13, 201553,838 views883 Likes241 CommentsShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookShare on Twitter
    Last month’s tragic and horrific plane crash in the French Alps has raised an important and unprecedented question: How can we prevent a pilot from intentionally crashing a commercial flight ever again?

    Some have suggested that we eliminate the risk by eliminating pilots—and rely solely on advanced automation technology.

    Such thinking is, in part, the result of the ubiquity of technology in our lives. But more significantly, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what pilots do, and what technology can and cannot do.

    In the nearly half-century I have served as a pilot (much of that as an aviation and safety expert) I have seen tremendous changes in aviation technology. And these changes have dramatically changed the pilot’s job. We have gone from flying entire flights by manually manipulating the controls to flying them using technology for most of the flight and flying manually for only a few minutes.

    What most laypersons don’t know is that pilots are always the ones flying the plane. It is the pilots who make all the decisions about the flight, selecting the path and the altitude to fly, among many other things. We are constantly flying the airplane with our minds, even if we choose to use some technology to help us move the controls.

    Technology has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, it is superior to humans in its ability to consistently monitor conditions over an extended period of time, which is why technology is essential in screening passengers before they board a flight.

    Yet in spite of technology’s continuously improving reliability, anyone who doubts that it can fail at the most inopportune time has likely never used a computer. Technology is also limited in that it can only do what has been foreseen and for which it has been programmed.

    What this means is that there is still no substitute for what humans bring to the table—perhaps most importantly, through our ability to adapt and innovate.

    Consider what has been called “the Miracle on the Hudson” – my emergency water landing of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 after both engines failed as a result of a bird strike.

    I saw the birds that day just 100 seconds after takeoff, about two seconds before we hit them. They were just over two football field lengths away, but we were traveling at 316 feet per second. There was not enough time or distance to maneuver a jet airplane away from them.

    Last month’s tragic and horrific plane crash in the French Alps has raised an important and unprecedented question: How can we prevent a pilot from intentionally crashing a commercial flight ever again?

    Some have suggested that we eliminate the risk by eliminating pilots—and rely solely on advanced automation technology.

    Such thinking is, in part, the result of the ubiquity of technology in our lives. But more significantly, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what pilots do, and what technology can and cannot do.

    In the nearly half-century I have served as a pilot (much of that as an aviation and safety expert) I have seen tremendous changes in aviation technology. And these changes have dramatically changed the pilot’s job. We have gone from flying entire flights by manually manipulating the controls to flying them using technology for most of the flight and flying manually for only a few minutes.

    What most laypersons don’t know is that pilots are always the ones flying the plane. It is the pilots who make all the decisions about the flight, selecting the path and the altitude to fly, among many other things. We are constantly flying the airplane with our minds, even if we choose to use some technology to help us move the controls.

    Technology has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, it is superior to humans in its ability to consistently monitor conditions over an extended period of time, which is why technology is essential in screening passengers before they board a flight.

    Yet in spite of technology’s continuously improving reliability, anyone who doubts that it can fail at the most inopportune time has likely never used a computer. Technology is also limited in that it can only do what has been foreseen and for which it has been programmed.

    What this means is that there is still no substitute for what humans bring to the table—perhaps most importantly, through our ability to adapt and innovate.

    Consider what has been called “the Miracle on the Hudson” – my emergency water landing of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 after both engines failed as a result of a bird strike.

    I saw the birds that day just 100 seconds after takeoff, about two seconds before we hit them. They were just over two football field lengths away, but we were traveling at 316 feet per second. There was not enough time or distance to maneuver a jet airplane away from them.

    And then, it was like a Hitchcock film. We were upon them. I saw the birds fill the windscreen. I could hear the thumps and thuds as we struck them. And as the birds entered the core of both jet engines and began to damage them, I heard terrible noises I’d never heard before.

    Suddenly, my crew and I had just 208 seconds to do something we had never trained for, and get it right the first time.

    I knew from experience there were only two runways near us that might be reachable. But I had to be able to look out the window and, from experience on thousands of flights, realize they were a little too far. The only option was the river.

    The fact that we landed a commercial airliner carrying 155 people on the Hudson River with no engines and no fatalities was not a miracle, however. It was the result of teamwork, skill, in-depth knowledge, and the human judgment that comes from experience. To this day, I know of no technology, even on the horizon, that could have done what we did.

    But could technology have prevented the terrible Germanwings crash that killed all 150 people aboard? Perhaps. Would it also help prevent the next unanticipated event? Probably not.

    Like technology, we humans have our limitations. But a team of two professional pilots overcomes many of them because the aviation profession knows how to take a team of experts and create an expert team. By managing workloads and backing each other up, for example, we create a system that is more robust, resilient, and reliable than the sum of its parts.

    Quite the opposite is true with technology. The more layers are piled into increasingly complex systems, the more failure paths we introduce. We’ve learned that automation does not eliminate errors. Rather, it changes the nature of the errors that are made, and it makes possible new kinds of errors.

    The bottom line is this: Systems that integrate the best of human abilities and technology are the safest for all concerned. So when we design our systems, we need to assign appropriate roles to the human and technological components. It is best for humans to be the doers and technology to be the monitors, providing decision aids and safeguards.

    Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet—no one thing that will prevent all future tragedies. Flying, like life, is more complicated than that.

    Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger III is a retired US Airways captain, the CBS News Aviation and Safety Expert, speaker, author, and CEO of Safety Reliability Methods, Inc. Learn more at www.sullysullenberger.com.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  13. #71
    Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet—no one thing that will prevent all future tragedies. Flying, like life, is more complicated than that
    Unacceptable.

    No safe enough.

    All incidents are preventable.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  14. #72
    Could the trucks be "driven" like drone pilots in Nevada fly the drones in the mideast?

    Hmmm?



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Maybe me and you.

    Matt...more than likely.

    Our kids...no doubt about it, IMO.
    I don't disagree with that, but it will be decades before it even starts.

    It will probably start with moving freight aircraft down to 1 pilot... but again, decades.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Unacceptable.

    No safe enough.

    All incidents are preventable.
    It won't matter once fed-gov starts writing insurance for airlines....

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    The title should read, "... and it's going to create millions of jobs"



    I know this is a hard concept for people to grasp. Even in these forums where people ostensibly understand Austrian economics. But when all of our goods are cheaper, we will have more disposable income to spend on things that we aren't buying now. So, in the future, you will have your products AND something else. What something? Something we don't even know we wanted yet.

    (Of course, you can expect the government to siphon off nearly 100% of the benefit we should be receiving from this.)
    Your argument entirely depends on consumption increases, that's a big MAYBE. That also assumes the new products people want to consume actually hires more people than transportation has lost.

    But your view is nothing new, it's simply denial. I suspect this is because

    -You believe technology is good
    -You believe (wrongly) that jobs are good, job loss is bad
    -You can't reconcile these two, so you insist technology creates jobs

    If only you were willing to consider jobs are not inherently good (see broken window fallacy), then you'd not defend the concept of job creation so passionately (to the point of admitting you don't know what is coming in the future).

    Technology and automation destroys jobs, and that's a GOOD THING. Sadly, ironically, your criticism is much better turned on yourself, that even libertarians buy this dumb concept that "jobs are good, consumption is good" everybody in America seems to want what's "good for the economy".

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This is where I have a hard time grasping this: what income?

    If human labor, which is all most people have to trade, is worthless, what then?
    Exactly! Most people are not creative, or scientific, all they have is property they inherited, or their labor. When labor is useless or worthless, you better hope and pray that property owners will share, because they don't need poor people anymore.

    The technophiles and "free traders" have promised all this new prosperity, and more people are broke or in debt up their eyeballs.
    Anybody who promises prosperity gets to answer one question, what does that word even mean?

    And this is a not horses being replaced by trucks sort of situation.
    It's much worse, and you have denialists that actually say "But car making created more jobs!!!!"

    Humanity is rushing headlong into a future that will not need us, and will not care about our wants and needs and certainly not our freedom.
    No, people will care, they just don't do $#@! about it.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    No, people will care, they just don't do $#@! about it.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Someone has to design, build, test, maintain, and repair them.
    Go ahead and tell me how many people these robots need to "design/build/test/maintain/fix"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ttXHg5YdmU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KRjuuEVEZs

    The cheaper they become, the less they need to be fixed (and just replaced)

    This is solving a market inefficiency. There will be a slight decrease in net jobs, but the jobs that are created will be more skilled / technical in nature.
    Which sucks for people who are replaced by the machines, they will have to learn new skills to remain employed. Just like people who could only farm or hunt needed to learn new job skills to become employed when industrial revolution happened.

    In other words, you have to be able to adapt if you want to be employed. It's natural selection so to speak.
    Sure, and even then, the overall demand for jobs (opportunities of employment) will decrease. Job loss by technology is unavoidable, but some will continue to deny it.

    It's like WalMart, yes they put other stores out of business, but they also save a lot of people money on groceries.
    Yep. If people can see that Walmart destroys more jobs than it created, same with Netflix, they can't honestly deny that automation will do the exact same. (Sadly, the same people will complain that technology and social media made people less likeable or ruin people's social lives, they don't see the people who benefit from it)

    And human labor is at the lower rung.... from a hunting gathering society to an ag society to a manufacturing society to a service society to an information society to a (who knows what is next) society...
    Post employment for sure. Human labor will become nearly worthless for purposes of selling it for money.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Go ahead and tell me how many people these robots need to "design/build/test/maintain/fix"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ttXHg5YdmU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KRjuuEVEZs

    The cheaper they become, the less they need to be fixed (and just replaced)



    Which sucks for people who are replaced by the machines, they will have to learn new skills to remain employed. Just like people who could only farm or hunt needed to learn new job skills to become employed when industrial revolution happened.



    Sure, and even then, the overall demand for jobs (opportunities of employment) will decrease. Job loss by technology is unavoidable, but some will continue to deny it.



    Yep. If people can see that Walmart destroys more jobs than it created, same with Netflix, they can't honestly deny that automation will do the exact same. (Sadly, the same people will complain that technology and social media made people less likeable or ruin people's social lives, they don't see the people who benefit from it)



    Post employment for sure. Human labor will become nearly worthless for purposes of selling it for money.

    Stop tax funding those who don't or can't work before you trumpet loss of jobs for any reason.

    Government alone is keeping the market from responding as it should by shielding companies who replace workers with technology or foreign labor.

    These leaps in technology are only viable because of government intervention, technology won't stop without government intervention but those implementing it would be forced to consider ramifications beyond quarterly earnings...

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Feelgood View Post
    I wonder what the labor unions positions will be on something like this?
    As long as they still get a cut they wont care.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Stop tax funding those who don't or can't work before you trumpet loss of jobs for any reason.

    Government alone is keeping the market from responding as it should by shielding companies who replace workers with technology or foreign labor.

    These leaps in technology are only viable because of government intervention, technology won't stop without government intervention but those implementing it would be forced to consider ramifications beyond quarterly earnings...

    Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up, everything!
    sheilding? as opposed to punishing and taxing?

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    sheilding? as opposed to punishing and taxing?
    Not at all, you assume government is needed.

    I asserted that government intervention creates false markets.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Not at all, you assume government is needed.

    I asserted that government intervention creates false markets.
    how is the government shielding companies that are trying to be efficient? what else could/should it do? what is it actually doing to sheild them?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    how is the government shielding companies that are trying to be efficient? what else could/should it do? what is it actually doing to sheild them?
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Stop tax funding those who don't or can't work before you trumpet loss of jobs for any reason.

    Government alone is keeping the market from responding as it should by shielding companies who replace workers with technology or foreign labor.
    I've already spelled it out once, would different words help?

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I've already spelled it out once, would different words help?
    I don't see how taxing funding those who don't work has anything to do with sheilding automation/outsourcing.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I don't see how taxing funding those who don't work has anything to do with sheilding automation/outsourcing.
    Then I can't help you...........

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Then I can't help you...........
    because you don't know what you're talking about.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •