New To Trucking Will self-driving trucks be an issue in the future?

Sinister

Supermodel
Staff member
Supporter
Did that thing just pull out in front of a vehicle at the 44 second mark. Looked like that vehicle was moving pretty good and not committed to the turn lane.
You can see that car for about a tenth of a second. Good catch.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
The Germans at Diamler-Benz decided they want to skip the supervised autonomous truck, and go right to robotical trucks with no one on board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

butch76

New Member
I agree with ironpony, automatisation always provide society with a buck of new working places. Another question is that those guys will be highly appreciated who will have a decent technical knowlege!
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
Apparently there are a batch of them robotical trucks driving loads between Phoenix and the west coast now.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

The Hidden Automation Agenda...


By Kevin Roose
  • Jan. 25, 2019
DAVOS, Switzerland — They’ll never admit it in public, but many of your bosses want machines to replace you as soon as possible.

I know this because, for the past week, I’ve been mingling with corporate executives at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos. And I’ve noticed that their answers to questions about automation depend very much on who is listening.

In public, many executives wring their hands over the negative consequences that artificial intelligence and automation could have for workers. They take part in panel discussions about building “human-centered A.I.” for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — Davos-speak for the corporate adoption of machine learning and other advanced technology — and talk about the need to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs as a result of automation.

But in private settings, including meetings with the leaders of the many consulting and technology firms whose pop-up storefronts line the Davos Promenade, these executives tell a different story: They are racing to automate their own work forces to stay ahead of the competition, with little regard for the impact on workers.

All over the world, executives are spending billions of dollars to transform their businesses into lean, digitized, highly automated operations. They crave the fat profit margins automation can deliver, and they see A.I. as a golden ticket to savings, perhaps by letting them whittle departments with thousands of workers down to just a few dozen.

“People are looking to achieve very big numbers,” said Mohit Joshi, the president of Infosys, a technology and consulting firm that helps other businesses automate their operations. “Earlier they had incremental, 5 to 10 percent goals in reducing their work force. Now they’re saying, ‘Why can’t we do it with 1 percent of the people we have?’”

Few American executives will admit wanting to get rid of human workers, a taboo in today’s age of inequality. So they’ve come up with a long list of buzzwords and euphemisms to disguise their intent. Workers aren’t being replaced by machines, they’re being “released” from onerous, repetitive tasks. Companies aren’t laying off workers, they’re “undergoing digital transformation.”

A 2017 survey by Deloitte found that 53 percent of companies had already started to use machines to perform tasks previously done by humans. The figure is expected to climb to 72 percent by next year.

The corporate elite’s A.I. obsession has been lucrative for firms that specialize in “robotic process automation,” or R.P.A. Infosys, which is based in India, reported a 33 percent increase in year-over-year revenue in its digital division. IBM’s “cognitive solutions” unit, which uses A.I. to help businesses increase efficiency, has become the company’s second-largest division, posting $5.5 billion in revenue last quarter. The investment bank UBS projects that the artificial intelligence industry could be worth as much as $180 billion by next year.

Kai-Fu Lee, the author of “AI Superpowers” and a longtime technology executive, predicts that artificial intelligence will eliminate 40 percent of the world’s jobs within 15 years. In an interview, he said that chief executives were under enormous pressure from shareholders and boards to maximize short-term profits, and that the rapid shift toward automation was the inevitable result.

“They always say it’s more than the stock price,” he said. “But in the end, if you screw up, you get fired.”

Other experts have predicted that A.I. will create more new jobs than it destroys, and that job losses caused by automation will probably not be catastrophic. They point out that some automation helps workers by improving productivity and freeing them to focus on creative tasks over routine ones.

But at a time of political unrest and anti-elite movements on the progressive left and the nationalist right, it’s probably not surprising that all of this automation is happening quietly, out of public view. In Davos this week, several executives declined to say how much money they had saved by automating jobs previously done by humans. And none were willing to say publicly that replacing human workers is their ultimate goal.

“That’s the great dichotomy,” said Ben Pring, the director of the Center for the Future of Work at Cognizant, a technology services firm. “On one hand,” he said, profit-minded executives “absolutely want to automate as much as they can.”

“On the other hand,” he added, “they’re facing a backlash in civic society.”

For an unvarnished view of how some American leaders talk about automation in private, you have to listen to their counterparts in Asia, who often make no attempt to hide their aims. Terry Gou, the chairman of the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Foxconn, hassaid the company plans to replace 80 percent of its workers with robots in the next five to 10 years. Richard Liu, the founder of the Chinese e-commerce company JD.com, said at a business conference last year that “I hope my company would be 100 percent automation someday.”

One common argument made by executives is that workers whose jobs are eliminated by automation can be “reskilled” to perform other jobs in an organization. They offer examples like Accenture, which claimed in 2017 to have replaced 17,000 back-office processing jobs without layoffs, by training employees to work elsewhere in the company. In a letter to shareholders last year, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, said that more than 16,000 Amazon warehouse workers had received training in high-demand fields like nursing and aircraft mechanics, with the company covering 95 percent of their expenses.

But these programs may be the exception that proves the rule. There are plenty of stories of successful reskilling — optimists often cite a program in Kentucky that trained a small group of former coal miners to become computer programmers — but there is little evidence that it works at scale. A report by the World Economic Forum this month estimated that of the 1.37 million workers who are projected to be fully displaced by automation in the next decade, only one in four can be profitably reskilled by private-sector programs. The rest, presumably, will need to fend for themselves or rely on government assistance.

In Davos, executives tend to speak about automation as a natural phenomenon over which they have no control, like hurricanes or heat waves. They claim that if they don’t automate jobs as quickly as possible, their competitors will.

“They will be disrupted if they don’t,” said Katy George, a senior partner at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

The choices made by the Davos elite — and the pressure applied on them to act in workers’ interests rather than their own — will determine whether A.I. is used as a tool for increasing productivity or for inflicting pain.

“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.”
 

BrandonCDLtrucker

Well-Known Member
I'm going to say no because there are too many variables and issues that drivers have to deal with and solve on a daily basis at each shipper and receiver that an automated machine wouldn't be able to handle. An automated truck won't be able to see a child who ran into the path of the trailer or that the light is not working and a construction worker is directing traffic.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
I'm going to say no because there are too many variables and issues that drivers have to deal with and solve on a daily basis at each shipper and receiver that an automated machine wouldn't be able to handle. An automated truck won't be able to see a child who ran into the path of the trailer or that the light is not working and a construction worker is directing traffic.
Robotical trucks are running between Arizona and California everyday now. Its experimental, and on a dedicated run.
 

BrandonCDLtrucker

Well-Known Member
Robotical trucks are running between Arizona and California everyday now. Its experimental, and on a dedicated run.
Yea but that's extremely limited. I'm not worried about it. I mean look at the self driving cars. That would be much easier than self driving trucks and they abandoned the idea after someone got killed by one. The first automated truck to kill a busload of kids will spell the end.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
Yea but that's extremely limited. I'm not worried about it. I mean look at the self driving cars. That would be much easier than self driving trucks and they abandoned the idea after someone got killed by one. The first automated truck to kill a busload of kids will spell the end.
The megas will be able to run a robot truck 24/7/365 only shutting down for fuel and maintenance. They'll get an immediate 50-cpm (or so) profit increase per truck they day they fire the drivers. With that kind of potential profit hanging out there for the taking, do you really think a school bus full of dead kids is going to slow them down very much?

Remember, we just put a justice on SCOTUS that didn't have a problem with a mega terminating a driver who walked away from his broken down truck (the engine died) after waiting for hours for a tow in sub zero weather. The driver was seeking emergency shelter. This is not exactly a governmental environment that's hostile to big business.
 

BrandonCDLtrucker

Well-Known Member
The megas will be able to run a robot truck 24/7/365 only shutting down for fuel and maintenance. They'll get an immediate 50-cpm (or so) profit increase per truck they day they fire the drivers. With that kind of potential profit hanging out there for the taking, do you really think a school bus full of dead kids is going to slow them down very much?

Remember, we just put a justice on SCOTUS that didn't have a problem with a mega terminating a driver who walked away from his broken down truck (the engine died) after waiting for hours for a tow in sub zero weather. The driver was seeking emergency shelter. This is not exactly a governmental environment that's hostile to big business.
Because that's two totally different things. Are we talking about self driving trucks or right-to-work states? If that happened in a right to work state ultimately the mega has the right to fire the driver for any reason or none at all. But that was not what we were discussing.
 

moonbeast32

Well-Known Member
Truckers have made out self-driving trucks to be the big bad boogeyman. I don't think there's anything to fear. Road safety is so much a priority that even self driving vehicles will need someone in the driver seat making sure everything is fine.

I for one, look forward to it.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
Because that's two totally different things. Are we talking about self driving trucks or right-to-work states? If that happened in a right to work state ultimately the mega has the right to fire the driver for any reason or none at all. But that was not what we were discussing.
Actually, "we" have been discussing this subject for a couple of years, in up to 4 different threads. You should read the entire thread.
 

Duck

Bumper sticker slogan goes here
Supporter
The first automated truck to kill a busload of kids will spell the end.
The majority of today's politicians don't give a flying **** about children. If they did, they wouldn't be so hell bent on turning the world they'll inherit into a global soviet union.

A robot truck goes bezerk and plows into an elementary school? They'll just find some low level patsy to blame it on, just like they do today with human drivers, then they'll pose for the news cameras holding candles and that'll be the end of it.
 

nan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
100+ drivers in our department alone.

Average income $70,000.

70,000x100=$7,000,000

Bet your ass they eventually want to replace us, but only after the profit vs liability trade-off calculates in their favor.

Hopefully it takes at least 20 years. I want my junk paid off then I won't care. Or at least 4 to have both cars paid for. 😂
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
Staff member
We follow their lead when it comes to things automotive.

We seen their autobahn, decided to implement an interstate system. They since have moved forward from that into a transit system that takes much of the travel off of that road.

We have always been behind their cars, IMO.
 

BrandonCDLtrucker

Well-Known Member
Actually, "we" have been discussing this subject for a couple of years, in up to 4 different threads. You should read the entire thread.
The title of the thread is about self driving trucks. Why you brought up a mega firing a driver who didn't want to drive I don't know but it derails the thread. You haven't been discussing that for 2 years which is why I asked. Why not stay on topic?
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
1. Who's going to invest in this technology? The megas.

2. Why? To maximize profit.

3. How do you cut costs with AI technology? Get rid of the workforce.

Got a clue yet?
 

moonbeast32

Well-Known Member
The majority of today's politicians don't give a flying **** about children. If they did, they wouldn't be so hell bent on turning the world they'll inherit into a global soviet union.
You know Duck Duck I don't think thats a very accurate statement. I think you're abiding by a politically charged narrative that is not actually based in reality.

I'm inclined to think that most politicians would care, because:
A, they're human just like all of us.
B, even if they have discarded their humanity, they would never think, do, or say anything that would put them in ill favor with the citizens they are elected to represent. So if you've ever complained about a candidate only saying what people want to hear him say, just know that's exactly how politics are supposed to work.

Maybe in your world the majority of politicians are elected through intrigue or conspiracy. The rest of us find that highly unlikely
 

nan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
You know Duck Duck I don't think thats a very accurate statement. I think you're abiding by a politically charged narrative that is not actually based in reality.

I'm inclined to think that most politicians would care, because:
A, they're human just like all of us.
B, even if they have discarded their humanity, they would never think, do, or say anything that would put them in ill favor with the citizens they are elected to represent. So if you've ever complained about a candidate only saying what people want to hear him say, just know that's exactly how politics are supposed to work.

Maybe in your world the majority of politicians are elected through intrigue or conspiracy. The rest of us find that highly unlikely
The higher up they get, the less they care.

They'll say whatever they need to say to get votes, but that doesn't mean they're in our corner.
 
Top