The future of long haul trucking… here we go.

Ain’t just on SEE BS, I know what I speak of.

I approve of the automated trucks. Too many of the live truckers go through town at 75 in a 50 mph zone, terrorizing us locals and only slow down before they are in sight of the radar cop on the other side of town. If the ego behind the wheel can be removed I think we'll be safer.

So many of them love to play with their Jake brakes, and I think a bunch of them have exhaust cutouts that they close just before they hit the city limits a quarter mile past our house. Then the ones leaving town open them as they go by accelerating up the hill. We're mostly used to it, but I wouldn't miss the drivers that try to pretend they are on a Harley.

I am really surprised that the railroads aren’t leading the pack in autonomous transportation.

I wonder what happens if an eejit swings by too close, knocking off those sensors on the front. Will the truck stop, or will it know what to do?

Just curious, what do you consider reliable services?

If the date of the article (Aug 15 2021) is correct, why ask Elaine Chao what she thought? The Trump administration is no longer in power. Or is this done for perspective? Then why not ask the Biden administration as well? Another step into the bizarre world of press coverage, I guess.

As to the truckers, where will these folks go? Another push away from the middle class? Are there areas/times where/when technology should only be applied in degrees or for special purposes? If AI  reaches a certain level, where your job is threatened, will you think the same way? What would be the consequence then? Will we live life without purpose, feel unneeded, unimportant? At some point, does one think that the lives saved from human error, will not be lost elsewhere? Under such a scenario (If not sometime before this) , will the government  insure universal incomes ?  What do these issues and others mean as to our choices? Our freedoms? Our property? Our children? Yes one can easily overreact to these and other questions. There are also other concerns. Still what are the signs pointing towards?
For me, for now, most of this is rhetorical. Interesting points can also be made from many sides.

I just want to know who I'm supposed to sue the day I get run over by a 'driverless' vehicle.

Is it about progress being stopped or just properly applied? In the end, who knows what other opportunities/areas might open up, where previous grievances, problems (potential or otherwise) are made false and no longer exist (Like I said interesting points can made from many perspectives.). On the otherside, if technology, or should I say the lack of moral courage, damns us then so be it. We are probably living on borrowed time any way. lol

One can also read the original text like this (There are a couple of ways to read it .  ): If in the future, AI and other technologies reduce human error (be that error on the part of engineers or original labor) or brings the error to a point of minimal occasion etc. reducing suffering on that account, what other issues are at play that might promote suffering? Lets say, technologies expand beyond what is now seen in ever broadening cycles, increasing in seductive potency, leaving folks bereft of honorable work, purpose or ______, what might be the result at each turn and ultimately?  In other words, what affect will an unrestrained expansion of these technologies have on mankind? Will the costs outweigh the touted benefits (if not now then eventually)? Are there not many great ideas that later proved to be the cause of much suffering? These questions are very rhetorical and are not meant to be predictive in nature. Rhetorical questions are there to provoke thought. There are other stories and possibilities. As to the trucking business, I think it is best to approach this new technology with caution and, if viable, use it wisely.

I agree!! I do not want to see a bevy of country songs devoted to the trucks that left either . lol

^I understand, however the bit you snipped out is conditional and understood best in context. The bit was not countering your point of view per-say, but part of a larger frame of reference.

Yes technology moves the human component from one side to another. The question is can human error be reduced by moving in a different direction ? Can the engineers succeed or will they fail and what would success and/or failure mean? Truck automation did not take place immediately nor is it certain to pass. Success is also not inconceivable. Humans after all do exist on both sides, sometimes more successful in one role than another, quite different and alike and not equally funded.

Let's take a look at automation in factories, where robots imitate the eyes, arms etc of former factory workers. Even with the ups and downs of automation, starting years ago, today production costs, efficiency and quality have all benefited from automation. This has helped the consumers bottom line, made American companies more competitive and , more importantly to the immediate question, reduced physical injury at the work place etc. Now what are the problems here? Well first there are less laborers (less opportunity for injury, though by percentage it appears injuries have dropped) and people are out of work/accepting lower paying jobs etc. Families, towns and cities have therefore suffered along with other issues. There is also the truth that factory automation’s repetitive tasks are not anywhere near the level of driving a truck across the country or in town safely. Still at one time factory workers thought that automation was not equal to the task, that error is passed from the autoworker to the engineers etc. and here we are. So will the engineers succeed or fail in their current aim to automate long hall trucking? They will likely do both with the failures serving as a prohibition to success, at least for a time and on a certain scale.
Not wishing to bet against the house and with larger questions at stake, I raised questions ultimately aimed at larger issues, that of technologies potential affect on mankind with an eye to how best to manage things.

Are we creating a human being or is this new technology even up to the level of making an ant? Your point was not really about such comparisons. The principle I believe you are driving at is that in incorporating these technologies, we are conceivably way ahead of ourselves and as such misguided. In this I believe we have some common ground. Still this is a pipe forum. I am not in anyway a great or powerful person though I have enjoyed the banter for a while. Sorry if I annoyed you.

*By engineers I am referring to people in many different fields that are working on this and other projects, not limited to the engineering field per say.

^ The question for me is not about errors existing or can humans' err. Human error is evident across the board on every side, if you will. Automation error being secondary to the latter (or formed by humans who err) is also present though perhaps not as capricious etc. ;-) . Automation also does not simply solve a problem in the manner described previously as “folks tend to think” nor is automation error free, in the course of its implementation and/or operations. However, as engineers/scientists etc. work to develop and find flaws in the systems, it is conceivable that they catch mistakes and improve upon said systems to ultimately come up with a functioning device; A device that might prove overtime less prone to error than the many individuals who drive trucks every year with different skills sets, issues and priorities. Is such a thing impossible? I trust one understands the point. Still as I stated, I think we are ahead of ourselves and agree that much caution is necessary on a few different grounds.

^PS I would assume depending on the problem, conditions and scope of the accident(s) (An error causing a fire in the car factory compared to all the trucks suddenly turning left... ) , an error on the road can certainly be more problematic than in a car factory.

My example concerning factory automation is about history and context.

Hey, you didn't annoy me at all btw I wasn't addressing your larger points, just saying when a machine makes decisions you've moved the human error to someone who's not there.

Can human error be reduced by moving in a different direction? Yes.

Has automation in factories benefited costs, efficiency and quality, and reduced human injuries? Yes.

Have there been issues when workers get replaced by a robot and have to get a worse job somewhere else? Yes.

Is it true that a factory robot's repetitive tasks are not anywhere near the level of driving a truck across the country? Yes.


So will the engineers succeed or fail in their current aim to automate long haul trucking?

Look at Tesla. I think we're a lot further from simulating a superior driver than Elon and others think. We can't model an ant colony. We can't yet get computers to understand, 'It was Jimmy's birthday. Susie bought him a kite, but he already had one, so they took it back'. Yes, I think we're way ahead of ourselves to try and make driving robots. Unfortunately, I see politicians salivating over the thought of automated cars that is attributing to a rush to put them in production, and we don't do politics here. We already have robot drivers, and they work for Uber; you don't have to drive home drunk. If you do anyway and get hit by a train well, you've just culled the herd.

I just saw on the news that Tesla's autopilot seems to aim at traffic cones and barricades. What we have is a surplus of hackers and a shortage of good programmers.