Self-driving trucks and the drivers that won't drive them
June 2, 2015 12:08 PM Subscribe
Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck. Musings on the potentially devastating economic impact of self-driving trucks. Previously.
We're probably first going to have leader/follower trucks. That is, a train of 2-5 semis that not physically attached, but are driven and monitored by one human in the front. Darpa invested a couple billion bucks in this during the Iraq war -- they weren't successful, but almost.
Also... not sure this will be terrible for the economy. People will drive a lot more if they don't have to actually, you know, drive. That means more cars, more roads, more gas ... not great stuff for the environment, but it could employ a whole lot of medium-skilled workers to build out the infrastructure.
posted by miyabo at 12:18 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also... not sure this will be terrible for the economy. People will drive a lot more if they don't have to actually, you know, drive. That means more cars, more roads, more gas ... not great stuff for the environment, but it could employ a whole lot of medium-skilled workers to build out the infrastructure.
posted by miyabo at 12:18 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
The author states "We are facing the decimation of entire small town economies, a disruption the likes of which we haven’t seen since the construction of the interstate highway system itself bypassed entire towns." while ignoring the fact that self-driving trucks do not actually work in real life environments. Not. At. All. The author ignores the last few miles of city traffic that the truck has to navigate through which frankly it can not do. And let's not even talk about loading docks.
Right now, the self-driving car and truck are both vastly overrated and overhyped and both require, if made real, the sort of AI that is just not currently technologically feasible nor cost effective, nor does it exist.
The author states the oft times quoted Google factoid that " These cars have since driven over 1.7 million miles and have only been involved in 11 accidents, all caused by humans and not the computers." which completely ignores the fact that NONE of those miles occurred in a real life unsupervised city/highway environment. None.
Real self-driving vehicles that won't actually kill you on the streets of Los Angeles are a solid 20 years away.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:19 PM on June 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
Right now, the self-driving car and truck are both vastly overrated and overhyped and both require, if made real, the sort of AI that is just not currently technologically feasible nor cost effective, nor does it exist.
The author states the oft times quoted Google factoid that " These cars have since driven over 1.7 million miles and have only been involved in 11 accidents, all caused by humans and not the computers." which completely ignores the fact that NONE of those miles occurred in a real life unsupervised city/highway environment. None.
Real self-driving vehicles that won't actually kill you on the streets of Los Angeles are a solid 20 years away.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:19 PM on June 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
"Therefore, it’s probably pretty safe to say driverless freeway travel is even closer to our future horizon of driverless transportation."
Future meaning not in any of our lifetimes. And they aren't driver-less. They can sort of go on autopilot sometimes. LOL at wildly optimistic Morgan Stanley graph.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:20 PM on June 2, 2015
Future meaning not in any of our lifetimes. And they aren't driver-less. They can sort of go on autopilot sometimes. LOL at wildly optimistic Morgan Stanley graph.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:20 PM on June 2, 2015
I also underestimate the speed at which technology can happen when people start throwing a lot of money at it!
posted by maxsparber at 12:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Robot trucks will kill far fewer people, if any.
Considering that we have almost zero experience of having self-driving trucks or cars on public roads, this seems overly-confident.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Considering that we have almost zero experience of having self-driving trucks or cars on public roads, this seems overly-confident.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who just assumed that "more work can be done by robots" would mean "so everyone gets more free time" rather than "so increasing numbers of people are considered utterly expendable"
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:23 PM on June 2, 2015 [55 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:23 PM on June 2, 2015 [55 favorites]
Right now, the self-driving car and truck are both vastly overrated and overhyped and both require, if made real, the sort of AI that is just not currently technologically feasible nor cost effective, nor does it exist.
The trucks seem pretty damn plausible since they are running the same programmed routes over and over again. They will be here before the go-anywhere automated cars for sure.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The trucks seem pretty damn plausible since they are running the same programmed routes over and over again. They will be here before the go-anywhere automated cars for sure.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Five years for all of it. Come back and check this post to see if I am right.
posted by maxsparber at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [36 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [36 favorites]
"We are facing the decimation of entire small town economies"
Quite frankly, if your economy is entirely based on trucking and catering to truckers, you were moribund anyway.
posted by ocschwar at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Quite frankly, if your economy is entirely based on trucking and catering to truckers, you were moribund anyway.
posted by ocschwar at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Robot trucks will kill far fewer people, if any.
Not until after they transform, anyway. More than meets the eye, they are.
posted by maryr at 12:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [19 favorites]
Not until after they transform, anyway. More than meets the eye, they are.
posted by maryr at 12:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [19 favorites]
Right now, the self-driving car and truck are both vastly overrated and overhyped and both require, if made real, the sort of AI that is just not currently technologically feasible nor cost effective, nor does it exist.
This is incorrect on almost every level.
They will be here before the go-anywhere automated cars for sure.
This is also incorrect, as self-driving cars have less liability (they will be luxuries to begin with, a small subset of vehicles interacting with the public), easier and cheaper to create test mules with (already using tiny kit-cars or modified production models. On the streets. Today.)
Trucks will be coming soonafter, tho. This will hit long-haul truckers much harder than regional or local, as those guys typically are involved with loading and unloading the deliveries once at the site.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
This is incorrect on almost every level.
They will be here before the go-anywhere automated cars for sure.
This is also incorrect, as self-driving cars have less liability (they will be luxuries to begin with, a small subset of vehicles interacting with the public), easier and cheaper to create test mules with (already using tiny kit-cars or modified production models. On the streets. Today.)
Trucks will be coming soonafter, tho. This will hit long-haul truckers much harder than regional or local, as those guys typically are involved with loading and unloading the deliveries once at the site.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
A response by Megan McArdle pointing out that much of this piece is BS. Someone had to do it, because this piece has some pretty painful let's extrapolate wildly from some numbers I Googled going on.
posted by ssg at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by ssg at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Robot trucks don't kill people. Robot truck driving algorithms kill people.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
People will drive a lot more if they don't have to actually, you know, drive.
Not the ones who drive because they like to drive vehicles with big engines, accelerate hard, drive fast, swerve around other cars, and brake hard. Those assholes will be out of luck.
posted by pracowity at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not the ones who drive because they like to drive vehicles with big engines, accelerate hard, drive fast, swerve around other cars, and brake hard. Those assholes will be out of luck.
posted by pracowity at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Megan McArdle? Are you posting that with a straight face?
posted by indubitable at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [19 favorites]
"In 2012, there were 3,921 people killed and 104,000 people injured in crashes involving large trucks (gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds) (Table 1). In the United States, 333,000 large trucks were involved in traffic crashes during 2012." [cite].
I wish this article was phrased more about the benefits of a basic income than about trying to defend a job that is inherently dangerous. I don't know of any common career that kills/injures more people.
posted by saeculorum at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I wish this article was phrased more about the benefits of a basic income than about trying to defend a job that is inherently dangerous. I don't know of any common career that kills/injures more people.
posted by saeculorum at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Source for that map showing the ubiquity of Truck Drivers and money quote:
*We used data from the Census Bureau, which has two catch-all categories: "managers not elsewhere classified" and "salespersons not elsewhere classified." Because those categories are broad and vague to the point of meaninglessness, we excluded them from our map.posted by achrise at 12:36 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Phase 4: 100% autonomous penetration, utopian society.
Phase 4: Go fuck yourself.
The jokes just write themselves.
I helped.
posted by maryr at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Phase 4: Go fuck yourself.
The jokes just write themselves.
I helped.
posted by maryr at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
The author states the oft times quoted Google factoid that " These cars have since driven over 1.7 million miles and have only been involved in 11 accidents, all caused by humans and not the computers." which completely ignores the fact that NONE of those miles occurred in a real life unsupervised city/highway environment. None.
Real self-driving vehicles that won't actually kill you on the streets of Los Angeles are a solid 20 years away.
I don't know whether you've ever driven in Italy, but if an autonomous car can handle that shit, L.A. isn't 20 years away.
posted by Etrigan at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Real self-driving vehicles that won't actually kill you on the streets of Los Angeles are a solid 20 years away.
I don't know whether you've ever driven in Italy, but if an autonomous car can handle that shit, L.A. isn't 20 years away.
posted by Etrigan at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Megan McArdle? Are you posting that with a straight face?
I knew I should have put a disclaimer on there! I don't agree with much of what she writes, but there really isn't anything objectionable in this particular article.
posted by ssg at 12:38 PM on June 2, 2015
I knew I should have put a disclaimer on there! I don't agree with much of what she writes, but there really isn't anything objectionable in this particular article.
posted by ssg at 12:38 PM on June 2, 2015
There's an anime called "Ex Driver" where, in the future, all cars are self-driven and no one knows how to drive. But sometimes a self-driving car goes out of control, and that's when a squad of surly teenagers comes in to rescue. They are the last people to know how to drive a car. I'm hoping for this kind of scenario, because I want to be paid to drive a Caterham 7 at bonkers speeds in traffic.
posted by hellojed at 12:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by hellojed at 12:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
And let's not even talk about loading docks.
At the loading dock, the robot truck will stop and the trailer will be placed where it needs to go by small swarming robots.
posted by Naberius at 12:49 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
At the loading dock, the robot truck will stop and the trailer will be placed where it needs to go by small swarming robots.
posted by Naberius at 12:49 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
If the truck needs help, it’ll alert the driver. If the driver doesn’t respond, it’ll slowly pull over and wait for further instruction
So, uh, it needs a driver.
I'd think that eventually there would simply be on-call customer service drivers working in India or the Philippines or wherever trained to take the wheel remotely or arrange for local help on the ground in emergencies. OnStar drone drivers for robot trucks.
posted by Auden at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
So, uh, it needs a driver.
I'd think that eventually there would simply be on-call customer service drivers working in India or the Philippines or wherever trained to take the wheel remotely or arrange for local help on the ground in emergencies. OnStar drone drivers for robot trucks.
posted by Auden at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
The core of McArdle's objections, to me read like many of the naysayers of the human genome project did in the 1990s. It's too hard!
I think Santens is right that we're near a tipping point in terms of sensors, software and computing power. It does look like the pieces are happening. As the HGP proved, once the economies of scale start tipping and the harder software problems become solvable, the change can be very rapid.
Autonomous trucks, in particular, don't need a lot of additional infrastructure. More filling station attendants, perhaps. Most of the changes are a truck package, regulatory and insurance changes. Software is the hardest. Once that starts to change, I would not at all be surprised by a rapid pivot.
posted by bonehead at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think Santens is right that we're near a tipping point in terms of sensors, software and computing power. It does look like the pieces are happening. As the HGP proved, once the economies of scale start tipping and the harder software problems become solvable, the change can be very rapid.
Autonomous trucks, in particular, don't need a lot of additional infrastructure. More filling station attendants, perhaps. Most of the changes are a truck package, regulatory and insurance changes. Software is the hardest. Once that starts to change, I would not at all be surprised by a rapid pivot.
posted by bonehead at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's an anime called "Ex Driver" where, in the future, all cars are self-driven and no one knows how to drive.
WHO IS DRIVING? CAR IS DRIVING?!? HOW CAN THAT BE?!?
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
WHO IS DRIVING? CAR IS DRIVING?!? HOW CAN THAT BE?!?
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
What are Americans going to do for personal identification when no one needs a driver's license anymore?
posted by pracowity at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
While I was reading, I was mostly thinking about the the fact he was confusing self-driving with totally-autonomous, and raising an eyebrow at the adoption timeline. I think a lot of this is coming, but not one decade out like the TFA claims. And I think adoption will be gradual, not like the proverbial cliff referenced in the article.
So I went back to grab the headline to post here and wrap my comment around before I realized that the whole article is not actually about self-driving trucks, it's an extended argument for providing a universal and unconditional basic income.
posted by achrise at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
So I went back to grab the headline to post here and wrap my comment around before I realized that the whole article is not actually about self-driving trucks, it's an extended argument for providing a universal and unconditional basic income.
posted by achrise at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't know whether you've ever driven in Italy, but if an autonomous car can handle that shit, L.A. isn't 20 years away.
Looking at that link there are actually two people in the car as well as a human driven lead car which, among other things clears the way for freeway on/off ramps for the supposedly driverless vehicle.
So ... no.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015
Looking at that link there are actually two people in the car as well as a human driven lead car which, among other things clears the way for freeway on/off ramps for the supposedly driverless vehicle.
So ... no.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015
I foresee creative ways of Highway Piracy involving radio transmitters...
posted by Sintram at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Sintram at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Most trucks, and truck drivers, aren't long-haul semis, though. Most trucks are delivery vehicles, from UPS trucks bringing you your Amazon purchases, to Sysco panel trucks bringing sacks of MSG to your local pho restaurant, to the local distributor with a load of Budweiser or Doritos for the convenience store, and so on. How's the autonomous truck going to unload twelve kegs of beer? Or make its way up my walk to my front door? Or know when it's OK to stop in the middle of the turn lane or any of the hundred other types of impromptu loading zones that any city depends on?
posted by Fnarf at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Fnarf at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think we will see more or less fully autonomous long haul trucks before we do cars. The problem domain is that much smaller, the benefits are larger, and honestly, it's and industry that would really benefit from it.
I say this having grown up in a family of OTR truckers. I spent a summer riding in my grandfather's cabover Fruitliner listening to 8 tracks of bluegrass and original country and talking to other truckers on CB while sipping 80 degree grape NeHis. My mom, after us kids all left the house, went on to be an OTR trucker. I even did it for a while.
Trucking is hard, boring work. Everybody is up your ass for this reason or that, and you get paid and treated like shit, and it is basically impossible to succeed without cheating somewhere somehow.
So, yeah, I see trucks having an autopilot for the long haul, and the driver taking over in towns, or if soemthign bad happens. We are probably 2-3 years out from that being in production. They are already testing on highways. It will be longer before they are more fully autonomous, but it will come, and it won't be long.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
I say this having grown up in a family of OTR truckers. I spent a summer riding in my grandfather's cabover Fruitliner listening to 8 tracks of bluegrass and original country and talking to other truckers on CB while sipping 80 degree grape NeHis. My mom, after us kids all left the house, went on to be an OTR trucker. I even did it for a while.
Trucking is hard, boring work. Everybody is up your ass for this reason or that, and you get paid and treated like shit, and it is basically impossible to succeed without cheating somewhere somehow.
So, yeah, I see trucks having an autopilot for the long haul, and the driver taking over in towns, or if soemthign bad happens. We are probably 2-3 years out from that being in production. They are already testing on highways. It will be longer before they are more fully autonomous, but it will come, and it won't be long.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who just assumed that "more work can be done by robots" would mean "so everyone gets more free time"
And I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who spread the idea that we would be able to go back in time.
posted by pracowity at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
And I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who spread the idea that we would be able to go back in time.
posted by pracowity at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
What are Americans going to do for personal identification when no one needs a driver's license anymore?
Barcodes on the back of the neck.
Subcutaneous RFID implants.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Subcutaneous RFID implants.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:55 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
How's the autonomous truck going to unload twelve kegs of beer?
You could have no driver (a skilled profession) but still have a cheap, untrained grunt in the back to shift boxes as instructed by the on-board computer.
posted by pracowity at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
You could have no driver (a skilled profession) but still have a cheap, untrained grunt in the back to shift boxes as instructed by the on-board computer.
posted by pracowity at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
OnStar drone drivers for robot trucks.
The cute car pictured here works exactly that way. There's one passenger control - a big red button. Any driver that intercedes is remote.
posted by GuyZero at 12:58 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The cute car pictured here works exactly that way. There's one passenger control - a big red button. Any driver that intercedes is remote.
posted by GuyZero at 12:58 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
How's the autonomous truck going to unload twelve kegs of beer?
Warehouse Robots.
posted by GuyZero at 12:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Warehouse Robots.
posted by GuyZero at 12:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The truck could actually be one big robot, with its own arms, detachable unloader modules, and so on.
posted by pracowity at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Software is the hardest
You mean software like...Google Maps? Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Google Maps, and spend maybe an hour a day pootling about on it, but it is absolutely chock-full of wrong data. Just within a block of where I'm sitting, there are numerous incorrectly placed pins, wrong names, closed businesses, businesses not listed, etc. etc. Sometimes by thousands of miles (I have submitted hundreds of corrections to Google Maps; sometimes they get fixed, sometimes they don't). And that's a static product; now imagine that it has to provide information like the fact that they're working today on the only lane of this street that goes through, forcing an unwanted left turn? Or that the business that you're delivering to is on the second floor? Is the autonomous truck going to drive up the stairs?
posted by Fnarf at 1:01 PM on June 2, 2015
You mean software like...Google Maps? Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Google Maps, and spend maybe an hour a day pootling about on it, but it is absolutely chock-full of wrong data. Just within a block of where I'm sitting, there are numerous incorrectly placed pins, wrong names, closed businesses, businesses not listed, etc. etc. Sometimes by thousands of miles (I have submitted hundreds of corrections to Google Maps; sometimes they get fixed, sometimes they don't). And that's a static product; now imagine that it has to provide information like the fact that they're working today on the only lane of this street that goes through, forcing an unwanted left turn? Or that the business that you're delivering to is on the second floor? Is the autonomous truck going to drive up the stairs?
posted by Fnarf at 1:01 PM on June 2, 2015
Is the autonomous truck going to drive up the stairs?
Walmart trucks go to known, fixed destinations. As do many, many inter-warehouse shipments. These are putting highway truckers out of work, not retail FedEx or UPS drivers. For now.
posted by GuyZero at 1:02 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Walmart trucks go to known, fixed destinations. As do many, many inter-warehouse shipments. These are putting highway truckers out of work, not retail FedEx or UPS drivers. For now.
posted by GuyZero at 1:02 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Warehouse Robots
So in this future of yours every bar and convenience store is going to be built to the dimensions of an Amazon warehouse?
My friend drives a bread truck. Deliveries are to a schedule, but there's a large ad hoc component as well. Frequently he will tell the next store or restaurant, "my last guy cancelled on this chocolate croissants, fresh this morning, do you want some? Half off".
posted by Fnarf at 1:05 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
So in this future of yours every bar and convenience store is going to be built to the dimensions of an Amazon warehouse?
My friend drives a bread truck. Deliveries are to a schedule, but there's a large ad hoc component as well. Frequently he will tell the next store or restaurant, "my last guy cancelled on this chocolate croissants, fresh this morning, do you want some? Half off".
posted by Fnarf at 1:05 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Autonomous truck corridor linking Manitoba to Mexico discussed: "A trade group in the US is in the early stages of trying to develop an autonomous trucking corridor that would link Manitoba to Mexico. It would run along Route 83, through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota and continue into Manitoba..."
(*edited to add source link rather than 2nd party report)
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
(*edited to add source link rather than 2nd party report)
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
More filling station attendants, perhaps.
If you have self-driving trucks, can't you have a fleet of self-driving refill tankers that will "dock" with another self-driving truck to refill it without the need to even stop?
posted by delicious-luncheon at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you have self-driving trucks, can't you have a fleet of self-driving refill tankers that will "dock" with another self-driving truck to refill it without the need to even stop?
posted by delicious-luncheon at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Looking at that link there are actually two people in the car
Who do nothing throughout the test.
as well as a human driven lead car which, among other things clears the way for freeway on/off ramps for the supposedly driverless vehicle.
Seriously? Was Walter Payton not really a running back because he had an offensive line?
posted by Etrigan at 1:07 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Who do nothing throughout the test.
as well as a human driven lead car which, among other things clears the way for freeway on/off ramps for the supposedly driverless vehicle.
Seriously? Was Walter Payton not really a running back because he had an offensive line?
posted by Etrigan at 1:07 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
not retail FedEx or UPS drivers
The article in the OP suggests that all truck drivers everywhere are going to vanish into thin air ten years from now.
Interestingly, these "ten years out" predictions for autonomous cars and trucks seem to be ignoring that the average vehicle on the road is considerably more than ten years old; about twelve years, I think.
posted by Fnarf at 1:07 PM on June 2, 2015
The article in the OP suggests that all truck drivers everywhere are going to vanish into thin air ten years from now.
Interestingly, these "ten years out" predictions for autonomous cars and trucks seem to be ignoring that the average vehicle on the road is considerably more than ten years old; about twelve years, I think.
posted by Fnarf at 1:07 PM on June 2, 2015
We're not talking about autonomous trucks taking things from a warehouse to the back of a restaurant or bar, at least, not at first. The problem's going to start with getting pallet stacked trucks from distribution centers (DC's) to those warehouse.
DC's are already well places near highway connections, so you can at least work at the easy-end of the spectrum of sending an automated truck from the DC to the warehouse location. If that truck just parks in the holding zone when it gets there, and a human driver gets in to reverse into the warehouse bay, so be it-- but that will change.
The whole logistic chain is getting automated. Ever been in a decent warehouse recently? The human pickers are being talked to by a computer, and talk back to the computer to confirm they picked the right box-- for now robots are expensive, but they won't be forever.
posted by Static Vagabond at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
DC's are already well places near highway connections, so you can at least work at the easy-end of the spectrum of sending an automated truck from the DC to the warehouse location. If that truck just parks in the holding zone when it gets there, and a human driver gets in to reverse into the warehouse bay, so be it-- but that will change.
The whole logistic chain is getting automated. Ever been in a decent warehouse recently? The human pickers are being talked to by a computer, and talk back to the computer to confirm they picked the right box-- for now robots are expensive, but they won't be forever.
posted by Static Vagabond at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
What are Americans going to do for personal identification when no one needs a driver's license anymore?
Friendly, neighborly spiders.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2015
Friendly, neighborly spiders.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2015
I'm pretty well assuming that Uber's business model is really all about preparing and penetrating the market so that they can blanket the urban world with driverless cars as soon as they're ready.
posted by wotsac at 1:09 PM on June 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by wotsac at 1:09 PM on June 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
What are Americans going to do for personal identification when no one needs a driver's license anymore?
Why, our National Healthcare identification cards, of course!
posted by madajb at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why, our National Healthcare identification cards, of course!
posted by madajb at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think the long-haul guys who go from freight terminal to freight terminal are the most in immediate danger, but I'd put those who do regular short-distance routes are next. The more routine associate with a job, the easier it is to get a robot to do it. And yeah, that does include Coke and bakery delivery routes.
posted by bonehead at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 1:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, if that map about how common truck driver jobs are is correct, passing federal legislation to allow robot trucks on the interstate highways is going to be a whole lot harder than killing farm subsidies.
posted by straight at 1:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by straight at 1:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I wish this article was phrased more about the benefits of a basic income than about trying to defend a job that is inherently dangerous.
This article was not trying to defend the trucking industry. It's saying that this shift is inevitable, and there will be negative economic effects in the form of greater concentration of wealth at the top. In the end, the conclusion is that this kind of thing points to the need for a basic income.
That's what this article is really about. And I think it makes a strong case. Even if you argue about the timeline, the question is not if but when. And the same logic can be extended to pretty much any industry over a long enough term.
posted by Edgewise at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
This article was not trying to defend the trucking industry. It's saying that this shift is inevitable, and there will be negative economic effects in the form of greater concentration of wealth at the top. In the end, the conclusion is that this kind of thing points to the need for a basic income.
That's what this article is really about. And I think it makes a strong case. Even if you argue about the timeline, the question is not if but when. And the same logic can be extended to pretty much any industry over a long enough term.
posted by Edgewise at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
I think Santens is right that we're near a tipping point in terms of sensors, software and computing power. It does look like the pieces are happening. As the HGP proved, once the economies of scale start tipping and the harder software problems become solvable, the change can be very rapid.
Well, maybe. Self-driving cars are a software problem, and in software, one generally finds that you spend 90% of the time solving the first 90% of the problem, then you spend another 90% of the time solving the last 10%, then you ship about half of what you originally imagined and most of it doesn't work very well. What I see with the self-driving car projects looks like they are maybe 75% done, which does not leave me feeling optimistic about the imminent appearance of commercially-available self-driving cars on our highways. Even after the first robot cars show up at your local car lot available for ordinary purchase, the Rogers curve suggests that the kind of paradigm-shifting transportation changes people expect will take a long time to play out.
Nothing is as easy as it looks. Still worth doing, just don't hold your breath in the meantime.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, maybe. Self-driving cars are a software problem, and in software, one generally finds that you spend 90% of the time solving the first 90% of the problem, then you spend another 90% of the time solving the last 10%, then you ship about half of what you originally imagined and most of it doesn't work very well. What I see with the self-driving car projects looks like they are maybe 75% done, which does not leave me feeling optimistic about the imminent appearance of commercially-available self-driving cars on our highways. Even after the first robot cars show up at your local car lot available for ordinary purchase, the Rogers curve suggests that the kind of paradigm-shifting transportation changes people expect will take a long time to play out.
Nothing is as easy as it looks. Still worth doing, just don't hold your breath in the meantime.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm no expert but I thought this piece by Lee Gomes raised some pretty good points about the substantial technical hurdles that have to be overcome before autonomous vehicles are street-ready. I could see it being worthwhile to intensively map some of the most commonly-driven freight-terminal to freight-terminal routes, but it seems less likely that anyone in the private sector will spend the money to develop maps that will be useful for package delivery or the like.
posted by burden at 1:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by burden at 1:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Interestingly, these "ten years out" predictions for autonomous cars and trucks seem to be ignoring that the average vehicle on the road is considerably more than ten years old; about twelve years, I think.
What you miss is that even a minimum wage person costs north of $20,000/year after payroll tax, and is subject to all manner of productivity limiting work rules. So every operation that employs drivers commercially is going to have a substantial incentive to replace those drivers with robots.
posted by wotsac at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
What you miss is that even a minimum wage person costs north of $20,000/year after payroll tax, and is subject to all manner of productivity limiting work rules. So every operation that employs drivers commercially is going to have a substantial incentive to replace those drivers with robots.
posted by wotsac at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Google Maps, and spend maybe an hour a day pootling about on it, but it is absolutely chock-full of wrong data.
There's a simple solution to that- make it the customer's fault.
"According to the Terms of Service, your business location will default to the specific in Google Maps. Therefore your business is additionally not in Santa Clara Road San Jose CA, but in Santa Clara Road, San Jose Island. Please pay extra shipping."
"According to MapKwest, there is a
street at this location. Your building a living room in this location is a violation of Mapkwest Terms of Service. Please correct immediately. Delivery trucks will continue to use this routing path."
posted by happyroach at 1:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
There's a simple solution to that- make it the customer's fault.
"According to the Terms of Service, your business location will default to the specific in Google Maps. Therefore your business is additionally not in Santa Clara Road San Jose CA, but in Santa Clara Road, San Jose Island. Please pay extra shipping."
"According to MapKwest, there is a
street at this location. Your building a living room in this location is a violation of Mapkwest Terms of Service. Please correct immediately. Delivery trucks will continue to use this routing path."
posted by happyroach at 1:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
And let's not even talk about loading docks.
I feel like loading docks are where we'll see the first automation. I mean, we already have self-parallel parking cars. The nice thing about a loading dock is you can set up markers and such to make it even easier for the trucks to read. Also, sensors do not have blind spots and have much better depth perception than even the best drivers.
You could even do entire distribution centers with smart feed-back systems. I could see large shipping companies completely automating their entire truck yards, much like logistics robots do in shipping facilities. The drivers drops the truck off at the gate, and another driver picks it up on the way out.
posted by mayonnaises at 1:23 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like loading docks are where we'll see the first automation. I mean, we already have self-parallel parking cars. The nice thing about a loading dock is you can set up markers and such to make it even easier for the trucks to read. Also, sensors do not have blind spots and have much better depth perception than even the best drivers.
You could even do entire distribution centers with smart feed-back systems. I could see large shipping companies completely automating their entire truck yards, much like logistics robots do in shipping facilities. The drivers drops the truck off at the gate, and another driver picks it up on the way out.
posted by mayonnaises at 1:23 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
You mean software like...Google Maps?
Yeah. Around here we look forward to watching our robot overlords being told that they have arrived, making u-turns on a switchback and driving off cliffs.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah. Around here we look forward to watching our robot overlords being told that they have arrived, making u-turns on a switchback and driving off cliffs.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sounds like a train...
posted by mikelieman at 1:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 1:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
This is almost coming full circle. James Cameron, working as a Canadian trucker has a nightmare rooted in his Ellison readings and creates Skynet. Skynet, has a nightmare that it becomes a fleet of Canadian truckers, Harlan Ellison is still grouchy, alive, and sues. AM waits patiently for revenge.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by chainlinkspiral at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Simpsons did it.
posted by entropone at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by entropone at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Given that the Google model (which admittedly isn't the only one) involves a "team at Google in charge of updating the map", in order to make adjustments for unforeseen potholes, changed traffic signals, lane reconfigurations, construction flagmen, or even crumpled wads of paper blown out into the roadway, etc., I foresee that, given the extreme complexity and detail of these maps, which vastly outstrips that of the regular Google Maps, the entire population of the US will be necessary to correct and maintain these maps.
posted by Fnarf at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Fnarf at 1:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
How's the autonomous truck going to unload twelve kegs of beer?
Like this but more of a t-shirt cannon setup.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Like this but more of a t-shirt cannon setup.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:32 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The cars themselves will maintain the map, down to the location of every pothole and tree. They're definitely going to be smarter (as drivers) and more observant than at least half the human drivers currently roaring down the highways.
posted by pracowity at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mapping the environment with LIDAR gives you a partial 3D model. That doesn't imply being able to do anything about the content of the model, or even being able to identify any features in the model. You may see that the shape of the road is different; that's different from knowing there's a pothole, or knowing whether you can drive around the pothole legally at that point, or having any idea how much clearance you have to give the pothole.
When these things can handle hitting a hand lettered detour sign, which takes them across a temporary dirt lane along the side of a construction zone, with a cop directing traffic, and judge the quality of the surface they're traveling over, up to and including refusing to move when that cop directs them into an area they can't traverse, while reliably distinguishing a poster flapping in the wind from a dangerous moving object, when it's snowing, they're maybe ready to drive autonomously.
posted by Hizonner at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
When these things can handle hitting a hand lettered detour sign, which takes them across a temporary dirt lane along the side of a construction zone, with a cop directing traffic, and judge the quality of the surface they're traveling over, up to and including refusing to move when that cop directs them into an area they can't traverse, while reliably distinguishing a poster flapping in the wind from a dangerous moving object, when it's snowing, they're maybe ready to drive autonomously.
posted by Hizonner at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, also, what are the chances that a significant number of people are going to have (possibly) ignorant / irrational fears of robot trucks on the highways and what are the chances of politicians and media outlets pandering to those fears?
posted by straight at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by straight at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh, and just shutting down when you hit that situation is not OK. You have to keep moving and avoid impeding other traffic.
posted by Hizonner at 1:38 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Hizonner at 1:38 PM on June 2, 2015
If you have self-driving trucks, can't you have a fleet of self-driving refill tankers that will "dock" with another self-driving truck to refill it without the need to even stop?
This still isn't all that autonomous, though, because it still depends on massive energy infrastructure to refine and distribute fuel. A better solution might be to equip these large trucks with automated robot arm "scoops" on the front and then just troll through crosswalks in crowded urban areas when they need to refuel. Like a blue whale, if you will.
posted by indubitable at 1:43 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
This still isn't all that autonomous, though, because it still depends on massive energy infrastructure to refine and distribute fuel. A better solution might be to equip these large trucks with automated robot arm "scoops" on the front and then just troll through crosswalks in crowded urban areas when they need to refuel. Like a blue whale, if you will.
posted by indubitable at 1:43 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
a road condition that typical human drivers will never encounter in their lives, or, if they did, fail to navigate "properly".If you're talking about me, those are representative of road conditions I have encountered, more than once, and I and everybody else there did navigate them properly. And I have encountered elements of that scenario many times.
And that was before I moved to Canada. And I am not a professional driver and don't drive more than the average person.
posted by Hizonner at 1:44 PM on June 2, 2015
I'm trying to figure out what automated trucks are going to carry once virtually every blue collar job is automated and unemployment is at 60%?
posted by Avenger at 1:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Avenger at 1:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
I agree that the cliff metaphor is misplaced, but that gradual changes are within the next few years. The simplest and most easily in reach seems to be the human lead convoy, which effectively cuts down your HR needs from 5 or 6 drivers to 1. Granted that is just for long haul interstate transportation. You could have lower paid shift-work drivers to take the cargo from the distribution center down the last few miles of road. So it won't mean a 100% reduction of truck driving jobs, but it would mean a significant percentage of lay-offs and massive deskilling and deprofessionalization of the remaining jobs.
It also wouldn't take place across the board instantaneously, but once a single shipping franchise is able to demonstrate massive cost savings in labor you can bet that others would be looking for a way to compete, and pumping money into R&D.
Similar to the way that Uber started out in a few major metro. centers, but has exploded since then, and posed an existential threat to regular cabbies.
I'm trying to figure out what automated trucks are going to carry once virtually every blue collar job is automated and unemployment is at 60%?
Truffles, designer ice, cattle prods, private police force equipment...
posted by codacorolla at 1:47 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
It also wouldn't take place across the board instantaneously, but once a single shipping franchise is able to demonstrate massive cost savings in labor you can bet that others would be looking for a way to compete, and pumping money into R&D.
Similar to the way that Uber started out in a few major metro. centers, but has exploded since then, and posed an existential threat to regular cabbies.
I'm trying to figure out what automated trucks are going to carry once virtually every blue collar job is automated and unemployment is at 60%?
Truffles, designer ice, cattle prods, private police force equipment...
posted by codacorolla at 1:47 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
just shutting down when you hit that situation is not OK. You have to keep moving and avoid impeding other traffic
I agree with your larger point, but it is obvious you've never driven in Seattle, where Driver Brain Death is a real and common thing. I frequently encounter drivers who have done exactly that -- stopped dead on a busy street, with no indication of what they're doing or thinking.
posted by Fnarf at 1:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
I agree with your larger point, but it is obvious you've never driven in Seattle, where Driver Brain Death is a real and common thing. I frequently encounter drivers who have done exactly that -- stopped dead on a busy street, with no indication of what they're doing or thinking.
posted by Fnarf at 1:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
why is it that autonomous car threads are always so fighty? People get angry about cars, in general I guess, and maybe adding competing visions of the future does it.
posted by skewed at 1:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by skewed at 1:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
You may see that the shape of the road is different; that's different from knowing there's a pothole, or knowing whether you can drive around the pothole legally at that point, or having any idea how much clearance you have to give the pothole.
If you feel like you are actually able to give each pothole you encounter while driving a more in-depth and accurate assessment under these criteria than a network of self-driving cars aggregating LIDAR scans and all sorts of other sensory data—based on things like seeing the pothole at night through a windshield blurred by rain just before you drive over it, presumably—I think you must live somewhere where there aren't very many potholes. And possibly are a dwarf or elf or half-elf with 60' night vision.
posted by XMLicious at 1:52 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Semi-autonomous passenger cars soon will be on a highway near you. The introduction of autonomous trucks will be very disruptive. There will still be drivers in the short term, but likely one driver for many vehicles rather than just one. The ability of these system to operate continuously for many more hours than humans can safely will reduce the need for truck stops and similar supporting infrastructure. While the Morgan Stanley graphic is silly to include "utopian society" in it--I cannot help thinking that phrase added as a joke--the timeline is not unrealistic.
posted by haiku warrior at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by haiku warrior at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2015
If you're worried about mapping/unloading issues, that will go like this.
Autonomous Trucks, Inc.: Hey Local Business, we will ship your [X] to you for $XXX!
Local Business: That sounds like a great deal, let's do it!
ATI: Ok, but in order to do that, we need you to update your business location on this map that guides our trucks and (whatever else would be needed). Also, you will need to guarantee staff is available to unload the trucks when they arrive.
Local Business: Sure thing!
posted by emjaybee at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
Autonomous Trucks, Inc.: Hey Local Business, we will ship your [X] to you for $XXX!
Local Business: That sounds like a great deal, let's do it!
ATI: Ok, but in order to do that, we need you to update your business location on this map that guides our trucks and (whatever else would be needed). Also, you will need to guarantee staff is available to unload the trucks when they arrive.
Local Business: Sure thing!
posted by emjaybee at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
You could also resolve some non-automatable problems in the infrastructure by passing off the cost to the consumer. Offer a big enough discount on shipping costs, and I bet that people on either end of the pipeline would be willing to purchase third party offloading labor, which could be sourced for minimum wage.
posted by codacorolla at 1:56 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 1:56 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
And while a basic income would take care of the workers displace by automation, I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others. The tech is going to have to be really secure and I'm not sure I trust our capitalist overlords to understand that and do a good job with it.
posted by emjaybee at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by emjaybee at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2015
Also, you will need to guarantee staff is available to unload the trucks when they arrive.
Right up until automated forklift robots become available to offload the trucks, which were packed according to the new industry standard.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Right up until automated forklift robots become available to offload the trucks, which were packed according to the new industry standard.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others.
Me fellow drivers hack their own cars and turn them into killing machines every day with the simple addition of alcohol.
posted by maxsparber at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [23 favorites]
Me fellow drivers hack their own cars and turn them into killing machines every day with the simple addition of alcohol.
posted by maxsparber at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [23 favorites]
Oh absolutely PG, but we were talking small businesses without warehouses. By the time your neighborhood bar is staffed by robots who can also take the kegs off the robo-truck, we will be way past this discussion.
posted by emjaybee at 2:00 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by emjaybee at 2:00 PM on June 2, 2015
Me fellow drivers hack their own cars and turn them into killing machines every day with the simple addition of alcohol.
Or malice.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:01 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or malice.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:01 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Me fellow drivers hack their own cars and turn them into killing machines every day with the simple addition of alcohol.
Can they make hundreds of cars do it at once, though? If you have a highway full of cars run by remote systems, and you hack them, then you can create an instant massacre of a size that even your most determined drunk could not manage. I mean, the terrorist plots/action movies write themselves, here.
posted by emjaybee at 2:03 PM on June 2, 2015
Can they make hundreds of cars do it at once, though? If you have a highway full of cars run by remote systems, and you hack them, then you can create an instant massacre of a size that even your most determined drunk could not manage. I mean, the terrorist plots/action movies write themselves, here.
posted by emjaybee at 2:03 PM on June 2, 2015
Amazon tests out robots that might one day replace warehouse workers
It’s unlikely, however, that RBO’s robot, or any other’s, will be fulfilling orders for Amazon any time soon. Amazon is actually hiring 6,000 more human workers for its fulfilment warehouses, as we keep wanting more things delivered to us. None of the robots were more effective, or even as effective, at identifying objects than humans and they’re also really, really slow. Somewhat ironically, the items that caused one team the most grief were the first things Amazon sold: thin paperback books.posted by bonehead at 2:04 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. The next generation of robots will undoubtably be faster and more adept at identifying objects, whereas the next generation of humans will pretty much be as good as the current one.
showbiz_liz: "I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who just assumed that "more work can be done by robots" would mean "so everyone gets more free time" rather than "so increasing numbers of people are considered utterly expendable""
It's hardly just SF writers - John Maynard Keynes had basically the same idea.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:05 PM on June 2, 2015
It's hardly just SF writers - John Maynard Keynes had basically the same idea.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:05 PM on June 2, 2015
When these things can handle hitting a hand lettered detour sign etc.
Nope. You're remembering what you learned a long time ago about road signs and detours for the old technology. You might as well be talking about saddlers and blacksmiths and thrown shoes. For the new technology, you have to imagine new signs (which may be invisible, or visible and invisible, visually readable and electronically receivable) and different detour technologies, maybe a required string of markers laid out by the construction workers or traffic department that autonomous cars would recognize as an official and legal departure from the map. If the cars are doing the driving, the signs will have to be designed for the cars to read.
As for doing things like judging the surface of the street and whether the car is suited to it, a car computer will do as well as most people I know. Have you never driven with actual people? They just dive headlong into shit without knowing what they are doing. Vroom! Let's race down the fucking highway, swerve through the bumpy construction areas at speed, and merge with other maniacs who are also driving 70 mph while eating hamburgers and texting their friends.
posted by pracowity at 2:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Nope. You're remembering what you learned a long time ago about road signs and detours for the old technology. You might as well be talking about saddlers and blacksmiths and thrown shoes. For the new technology, you have to imagine new signs (which may be invisible, or visible and invisible, visually readable and electronically receivable) and different detour technologies, maybe a required string of markers laid out by the construction workers or traffic department that autonomous cars would recognize as an official and legal departure from the map. If the cars are doing the driving, the signs will have to be designed for the cars to read.
As for doing things like judging the surface of the street and whether the car is suited to it, a car computer will do as well as most people I know. Have you never driven with actual people? They just dive headlong into shit without knowing what they are doing. Vroom! Let's race down the fucking highway, swerve through the bumpy construction areas at speed, and merge with other maniacs who are also driving 70 mph while eating hamburgers and texting their friends.
posted by pracowity at 2:06 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others. The tech is going to have to be really secure
This is another worthy topic here. Others in this thread have already mentioned that software development is going to be a huge part of this. So is all of this new, complex software going to go through a verification process similar to what we require for aircraft right now? Because that's going to be really expensive; the stuff on aircraft isn't anything as complex and cutting edge as this and it takes massive efforts to demonstrate airworthiness. The field of formal verification is advancing rapidly right now, but we probably have a long way to go yet before it's practical to take on something of this scale.
posted by indubitable at 2:07 PM on June 2, 2015
This is another worthy topic here. Others in this thread have already mentioned that software development is going to be a huge part of this. So is all of this new, complex software going to go through a verification process similar to what we require for aircraft right now? Because that's going to be really expensive; the stuff on aircraft isn't anything as complex and cutting edge as this and it takes massive efforts to demonstrate airworthiness. The field of formal verification is advancing rapidly right now, but we probably have a long way to go yet before it's practical to take on something of this scale.
posted by indubitable at 2:07 PM on June 2, 2015
Cause we've got a little 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110110 01101111 01111001/ rockin' through the night/Yeah, we got a little 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110110 01101111 01111001/Ain't she a beautiful sight!
posted by drezdn at 2:08 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by drezdn at 2:08 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Semiautonomous cars, sure - that's the first 90%. We'll see those soon enough, and they'll have significant impacts on transit infrastructure starting in 10-20 years.
Fully autonomous cars are a much much harder problem.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fully autonomous cars are a much much harder problem.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:10 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
imagine new signs (which may be invisible, or visible and invisible, visually readable and electronically receivable) and different detour technologies
Imagine them all you want, but that's not going to put them in city budgets. Especially since all this stuff has to be in place BEFORE the cars arrive.
posted by Fnarf at 2:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Imagine them all you want, but that's not going to put them in city budgets. Especially since all this stuff has to be in place BEFORE the cars arrive.
posted by Fnarf at 2:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cars have been automatically reading road signs since 2008
posted by rustcrumb at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by rustcrumb at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Humans do not have a 100% success rate in navigating atypical (but common) road conditions, which suggests that demanding driverless cars to navigate them perfectly is an unreasonable standard. They don't need to be perfect: they just need to be slightly better than an average human driver.
Nonsense. The first time a robot car kills someone will be a big enormous deal, giving a big push to political movements to ban them from the highways. A sufficiently salacious screw-up could set robot cars back a decade.
posted by straight at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2015
Nonsense. The first time a robot car kills someone will be a big enormous deal, giving a big push to political movements to ban them from the highways. A sufficiently salacious screw-up could set robot cars back a decade.
posted by straight at 2:13 PM on June 2, 2015
You're remembering what you learned a long time ago about road signs and detours for the old technology. You might as well be talking about saddlers and blacksmiths and thrown shoes.If this waits for the whole infrastructure to catch up, it's gonna be a lot more than 10 years.
Cars actually started out driving on "horse roads". The roads took decades to adapt. And the cars adapted along with them.
maybe a required string of markers laid out by the construction workers or traffic department that autonomous cars would recognize as an official and legal departure from the map.You've fallen into my evil trap. Or sort of. The reason I put in the cop incorrectly directing traffic was that this was about heavy vehicles... and I have seen negotiations between cops and heavy vehicle drivers in situations like that, because cops don't necessarily know what heavy vehicles can and can't do. If you've talked to your average construction worker, it's pretty clear that a lot of them don't either.
So now you have to wait for the specialist. Except that a lot of these things get set up in emergencies, which means you have 5 miles of traffic backed up before the specialist shows up.
By the way, I've also seen cases where "people on scene" helped out drivers of light vehicles who either didn't know what their own vehicles could do or weren't comfortable operating them. So now everybody has to know how to assist every model of robot. It's not clear to me we'll get there before the robots can deal with the situation I described.
posted by Hizonner at 2:14 PM on June 2, 2015
This is going to go down like drones, one minute rare and scary, and in between blinks becoming ubiquitous...yet still kind of scary.
Fuel stations will be re-engineered to allow for autonomous loading. Prior to that happening, some former drivers might be relegated to be pump operators, waiting at the stations for trucks to pull up in need of fueling.
Oh absolutely PG, but we were talking small businesses without warehouses.
Sure, somebody could ride in the cabin just to unload the stuff, but that person might get paid a lot less than a full-blown driver.
Or it could be that the local businesses will have to hire locals who do nothing but load and unload stuff from neighborhood stores all day long.
I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others.
No hacking necessary. You just load up the auto-truck with a package that's set to go off at specific gps coordinates, and none of your people even have to die for the cause.
posted by xigxag at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fuel stations will be re-engineered to allow for autonomous loading. Prior to that happening, some former drivers might be relegated to be pump operators, waiting at the stations for trucks to pull up in need of fueling.
Oh absolutely PG, but we were talking small businesses without warehouses.
Sure, somebody could ride in the cabin just to unload the stuff, but that person might get paid a lot less than a full-blown driver.
Or it could be that the local businesses will have to hire locals who do nothing but load and unload stuff from neighborhood stores all day long.
I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others.
No hacking necessary. You just load up the auto-truck with a package that's set to go off at specific gps coordinates, and none of your people even have to die for the cause.
posted by xigxag at 2:15 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others.
You guys know newer cars are already computer-controlled, right? Your pedal sends a short command via CANbus to an electronic control unit (or really a system of them), which then sends another message to your engine controlling the throttle. OEMs don't publish the data on the commands they send, but this stuff is already hackable. On newer cars with web access there are even potential wireless exploits.
It doesn't really matter whether you or the car are at the wheel if someone else entirely is driving.
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
You guys know newer cars are already computer-controlled, right? Your pedal sends a short command via CANbus to an electronic control unit (or really a system of them), which then sends another message to your engine controlling the throttle. OEMs don't publish the data on the commands they send, but this stuff is already hackable. On newer cars with web access there are even potential wireless exploits.
It doesn't really matter whether you or the car are at the wheel if someone else entirely is driving.
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Cars have been reading some road signs since 2008. Just because your BMW can tell what the speed limit is doesn't mean that every car on the road, or any car on the road, can tell what the date is scribbled on the temporary no parking signs along my street. Seattle, where I live, has something like a half-million signs up, and replaces thousands of them every year. Heck, they invent entire new street signs all the time, like the newish ones that have a stop sign in a larger field of white, with an arrow pointing down, that are supposed to mean "stop if pedestrians" but in practice means "slow to a crawl, stop, look confused, wait, wait, go".
posted by Fnarf at 2:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Fnarf at 2:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fnarf, so you are saying that humans encountering unfamiliar road signs do not behave well? Hmm...
posted by rustcrumb at 2:23 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by rustcrumb at 2:23 PM on June 2, 2015
I smell a remake of Convoy where, instead of a grizzled trucker standing up to the man, a pale-faced IT nerd sits in front of an array of screens for 2.5 hours navigating a minor detour in their automated shipping line.
posted by codacorolla at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 2:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
any car on the road, can tell what the date is scribbled on the temporary no parking signs along my street
What is this "parking" thing you mention? You folks actually stop your cars for extended periods and turn them off, rather sending them along to the next user or a designated service facility? Next you're going to tell me you own the vehicle, rather than just paying for a vehicular service contract! Hahahaha, no really, what's "parking"?
posted by aramaic at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
What is this "parking" thing you mention? You folks actually stop your cars for extended periods and turn them off, rather sending them along to the next user or a designated service facility? Next you're going to tell me you own the vehicle, rather than just paying for a vehicular service contract! Hahahaha, no really, what's "parking"?
posted by aramaic at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
You guys know newer cars are already computer-controlled, right?
Yes and this is one big reason I refuse to buy one. As a software engineer, I know damn well that software cannot be trusted, and as a former embedded systems engineer, I am here to tell you that firmware programmers are astonishingly terrible by software-engineering standards.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes and this is one big reason I refuse to buy one. As a software engineer, I know damn well that software cannot be trusted, and as a former embedded systems engineer, I am here to tell you that firmware programmers are astonishingly terrible by software-engineering standards.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Cars have been automatically reading road signs since 2008
Misread this as cats, got really excited for Toonces.
posted by maryr at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Misread this as cats, got really excited for Toonces.
posted by maryr at 2:25 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
can we have the robot forklifts unload the robot truck cargo directly into robot trash compactor-incinerator units for maximum efficiency? and amazon automatic order placement software sending crap to whichever address google maps deems fit? god i hate the future
posted by 3urypteris at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by 3urypteris at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I smell a remake of Convoy where, instead of a grizzled trucker standing up to the man, a pale-faced IT nerd sits in front of an array of screens for 2.5 hours navigating a minor detour in their automated shipping line.
Desert Bus: The Movie!
posted by drezdn at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
Desert Bus: The Movie!
posted by drezdn at 2:27 PM on June 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
To every post in this thread that says automation can't drive cars better, or put orders in boxes better, or do anything that a human generally learns to "autopilot" on with minimum active attention, I have only this to say:
Yet.
Our time is better spent on setting the scene for the adaptations that will be necessary rather than pretending they're not coming soon. Like Universal Basic Income, and laws and regulations that protect consumers from predatory corporations.
posted by chimaera at 2:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yet.
Our time is better spent on setting the scene for the adaptations that will be necessary rather than pretending they're not coming soon. Like Universal Basic Income, and laws and regulations that protect consumers from predatory corporations.
posted by chimaera at 2:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [12 favorites]
And car companies are now saying that they retain ownership of your car's software forever, and that touching it even for service is against the law.
posted by Fnarf at 2:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Fnarf at 2:28 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Like Universal Basic Income
Very funny. We can argue about autonomous cars till the cows come home, but there will never, ever, ever be a Universal Basic Income in this country. Look who runs it. This is in fact one of many reasons I'm skeptical about the cars, because their proponents tend to believe in things like this as well.
posted by Fnarf at 2:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Very funny. We can argue about autonomous cars till the cows come home, but there will never, ever, ever be a Universal Basic Income in this country. Look who runs it. This is in fact one of many reasons I'm skeptical about the cars, because their proponents tend to believe in things like this as well.
posted by Fnarf at 2:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
There has to be some kind of Godwin's Law equivalent for discussions about autonomous cars, wherein it's inevitable that someone brings up a road condition that typical human drivers will never encounter in their lives, or, if they did, fail to navigate "properly".
Any single human driver is unlikely to encounter any of these highly unusual scenarios, but during the course of a single day, it is probable that many in the population of drivers will. Many of the foreseen benefits of autonomous cars are envisioned to be produced by network effects after wide-scale adoption.
As I understand it, road conditions that are conspicuously dangerous are less of a problem for human drivers than road conditions which appear to be safe, and so cause drivers to activate their autopilot, which is far inferior to a robotic autopilot. Humans actually perform acceptably at navigating novel obstacles when they are engaged, it is distracted, impaired, and reckless driving that is responsible for the greatest proportion of auto accidents. My expectation would be that most of the early benefit from semi-autonomous cars would come from eliminating distracted and impaired driving (and this is a huge benefit). Weather and weird are two categories where humans might be competitive for a bit longer (even though we are not great at either).
posted by Svejk at 2:34 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Any single human driver is unlikely to encounter any of these highly unusual scenarios, but during the course of a single day, it is probable that many in the population of drivers will. Many of the foreseen benefits of autonomous cars are envisioned to be produced by network effects after wide-scale adoption.
As I understand it, road conditions that are conspicuously dangerous are less of a problem for human drivers than road conditions which appear to be safe, and so cause drivers to activate their autopilot, which is far inferior to a robotic autopilot. Humans actually perform acceptably at navigating novel obstacles when they are engaged, it is distracted, impaired, and reckless driving that is responsible for the greatest proportion of auto accidents. My expectation would be that most of the early benefit from semi-autonomous cars would come from eliminating distracted and impaired driving (and this is a huge benefit). Weather and weird are two categories where humans might be competitive for a bit longer (even though we are not great at either).
posted by Svejk at 2:34 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
We can argue about autonomous cars till the cows come home, but there will never, ever, ever be a Universal Basic Income in this country.
I acknowledge that there will have to be a major cultural shift, possibly an unprecedented cultural shift in the US. However, there remain some fairly rational people even among the very rich that realize that if nobody but them has any money, they can't sell the things that made them rich.
I don't even think it's necessarily likely that we'll ever have a universal basic income. But I also know better than to say never. History has a way of making that word very, very quaint indeed.
posted by chimaera at 2:42 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I acknowledge that there will have to be a major cultural shift, possibly an unprecedented cultural shift in the US. However, there remain some fairly rational people even among the very rich that realize that if nobody but them has any money, they can't sell the things that made them rich.
I don't even think it's necessarily likely that we'll ever have a universal basic income. But I also know better than to say never. History has a way of making that word very, very quaint indeed.
posted by chimaera at 2:42 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is no immediate need for a basic income, Fnarf and chimaera, plenty of work to go around if we divide it up fairly. We should simply shorten the work week, and eliminate FLSA exemptions, until unemployment drops to acceptable levels.
We should end copyrights on closed source software too, Fnarf, by making the cpyright apply only to the source code and allow binary to derive the copyright only if the source code is provided and licensed in a usable way. Ain't likely in the short term, but maybe eventually.
If we're discussing driving software licensing, then it's maybe worth linking RMS' Reasons not to use Uber (via) here. I prefer Uber to traditional cabs even if they're closed source. I avoid cabs if at all possible though myself.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:46 PM on June 2, 2015
We should end copyrights on closed source software too, Fnarf, by making the cpyright apply only to the source code and allow binary to derive the copyright only if the source code is provided and licensed in a usable way. Ain't likely in the short term, but maybe eventually.
If we're discussing driving software licensing, then it's maybe worth linking RMS' Reasons not to use Uber (via) here. I prefer Uber to traditional cabs even if they're closed source. I avoid cabs if at all possible though myself.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:46 PM on June 2, 2015
It's not the very rich I'm worried about. You have heard of "Republicans", haven't you?
These "unprecedented cultural shifts" are actually pretty damned rare.
posted by Fnarf at 2:54 PM on June 2, 2015
These "unprecedented cultural shifts" are actually pretty damned rare.
posted by Fnarf at 2:54 PM on June 2, 2015
We're probably first going to have leader/follower trucks. That is, a train of 2-5 semis that not physically attached, but are driven and monitored by one human in the front.
"Tethered" convoys are already working in proof-of-concept tests, and real world tests will be under way once adjacent states can get everyone on board (including state police, who want more distance between trucks, thus decreasing the desired efficiencies). I'm involved on the periphery of one of these efforts, and it sounds like the company wants to start soon, but there are a lot of public folks who aren't supportive just yet, for a variety of reasons.
I foresee creative ways of Highway Piracy involving radio transmitters...
Why wait for truly autonomous trucks (with an array of cameras and sensors to safeguard their stock), when you can rob trucks in motion today?
You mean software like...Google Maps? Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Google Maps, and spend maybe an hour a day pootling about on it, but it is absolutely chock-full of wrong data. Just within a block of where I'm sitting, there are numerous incorrectly placed pins, wrong names, closed businesses, businesses not listed, etc. etc.
Except Google Maps isn't really in the business of getting you from Point A to Point B. When it's your business, you make your data the best it can be, and have your vehicles communicate with the intelligent infrastructure in the roadways to tell you about slow traffic, weather conditions, and road closures.
If you have self-driving trucks, can't you have a fleet of self-driving refill tankers that will "dock" with another self-driving truck to refill it without the need to even stop?
Trucks can currently go 1,400 to 1,500 miles on a tank, so there's no need for a mobile filling station, unless your fleet exceeds those distances.
Sounds like a train...
Except trains are efficient because they don't stop. Once a train is rolling, it takes the least amount of effort to keep it moving. That's why trains are great for long-distance hauls, and trucks do everything else.
This is all glossing over what was just a passing note in the article:
posted by filthy light thief at 3:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Tethered" convoys are already working in proof-of-concept tests, and real world tests will be under way once adjacent states can get everyone on board (including state police, who want more distance between trucks, thus decreasing the desired efficiencies). I'm involved on the periphery of one of these efforts, and it sounds like the company wants to start soon, but there are a lot of public folks who aren't supportive just yet, for a variety of reasons.
I foresee creative ways of Highway Piracy involving radio transmitters...
Why wait for truly autonomous trucks (with an array of cameras and sensors to safeguard their stock), when you can rob trucks in motion today?
You mean software like...Google Maps? Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Google Maps, and spend maybe an hour a day pootling about on it, but it is absolutely chock-full of wrong data. Just within a block of where I'm sitting, there are numerous incorrectly placed pins, wrong names, closed businesses, businesses not listed, etc. etc.
Except Google Maps isn't really in the business of getting you from Point A to Point B. When it's your business, you make your data the best it can be, and have your vehicles communicate with the intelligent infrastructure in the roadways to tell you about slow traffic, weather conditions, and road closures.
If you have self-driving trucks, can't you have a fleet of self-driving refill tankers that will "dock" with another self-driving truck to refill it without the need to even stop?
Trucks can currently go 1,400 to 1,500 miles on a tank, so there's no need for a mobile filling station, unless your fleet exceeds those distances.
Sounds like a train...
Except trains are efficient because they don't stop. Once a train is rolling, it takes the least amount of effort to keep it moving. That's why trains are great for long-distance hauls, and trucks do everything else.
This is all glossing over what was just a passing note in the article:
The trucking industry expects to see 21% more truck driving jobs by 2020. They also expect to see an increasing shortfall in drivers, with over 100,000 jobs open and unable to find drivers to fill them.It's a trucker shortage, dummy. It's real, and it's here today. Like Pogo_Fuzzybutt wrote upthread, truck driving is not an easy life, and there are more regulations coming down the way. Namely electronic logbooks that keep truckers from cheating on their mandatory hours of service requirements (how long a driver can go without resting, and how long before they can drive again). That's a great idea for safety, but only if there were enough safe places for truckers to park, so truckers can spend an hour of what would be otherwise productive drive-time trying to find a safe parking space at the end of their shift.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
In all seriousness, however, one reason why self-driving cars would take off in Chicago -- it would give us all an excellent way to screw those Goldman-Sachs types who "own" the parking system in the city!
Hahaha, bastards! You may still own the parking revenue, but nobody ever needs to park!
posted by aramaic at 3:07 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hahaha, bastards! You may still own the parking revenue, but nobody ever needs to park!
posted by aramaic at 3:07 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
For me, it really boils down not to a technological challenge but to an extremely unproven assumption that the technological solution will automatically pencil out economically and socially. For example, this same conversation was going on forty years ago about supersonic air transport, which was going to change everything. Except it didn't; it lost horrendous sums of money every second of the way. Some of you here might not even remember when Concorde last flew.
Similarly, there's a big, big difference between getting a driverless car to tootle around Mountain View and filling the whole country with the things. You've got a nationwide mapping system whose size and complexity outstrips anything yet attempted, and you've got an instantly-responsive team of people making real-time updates and changes. You've got 250+ million cars to replace; you've got 4 million miles of roads that need to be brought up to new standards with fancy electronic transmitting signs and whatnot. And all of that has to be done not just once but over and over again, as things wear out. You've got huge legal challenges to overcome. You've got huge public-acceptance challenges to overcome. And some of you are insisting on even bigger changes -- a total change in the way parking and car ownership are going be.
Look at electric cars. President Obama said in 2011 that there'd be a million of them on the road by 2015, but even with large subsidies there are less than a third as many.
posted by Fnarf at 3:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Similarly, there's a big, big difference between getting a driverless car to tootle around Mountain View and filling the whole country with the things. You've got a nationwide mapping system whose size and complexity outstrips anything yet attempted, and you've got an instantly-responsive team of people making real-time updates and changes. You've got 250+ million cars to replace; you've got 4 million miles of roads that need to be brought up to new standards with fancy electronic transmitting signs and whatnot. And all of that has to be done not just once but over and over again, as things wear out. You've got huge legal challenges to overcome. You've got huge public-acceptance challenges to overcome. And some of you are insisting on even bigger changes -- a total change in the way parking and car ownership are going be.
Look at electric cars. President Obama said in 2011 that there'd be a million of them on the road by 2015, but even with large subsidies there are less than a third as many.
posted by Fnarf at 3:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Automobile autonomy has been happening already. It started with Traction and stability control, ABS, and so on, and now, they park themselves and maintain separation on the highway, and even brake automatically now.
Soon, they'll be steering themselves down the open road while you eat a burger and catch up on emails, taking control back as your exit approaches. Then, they'll get more point to point.
It won't be a revolution, it will be an evolution.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:26 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Soon, they'll be steering themselves down the open road while you eat a burger and catch up on emails, taking control back as your exit approaches. Then, they'll get more point to point.
It won't be a revolution, it will be an evolution.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:26 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I cringe at the idea that semi-autonomous vehicles are hitting the roads now. The probability that something horrendous will result from a human driver thinking "the machine's got it" when it doesn't, really, approaches 1.
I cringe at this thought because I want truly autonomous vehicles as soon as possible, as a public health measure, and I think the inevitable failure of these halfway, marketing-bred excuses for people to switch off, will delay that.
posted by grubby at 3:28 PM on June 2, 2015
I cringe at this thought because I want truly autonomous vehicles as soon as possible, as a public health measure, and I think the inevitable failure of these halfway, marketing-bred excuses for people to switch off, will delay that.
posted by grubby at 3:28 PM on June 2, 2015
there's a big, big difference between getting a driverless car to tootle around Mountain View and filling the whole country with the things
I'm sure it will be a really long time before self-driving cars are doing much more than tootling around Mountain View. It won't be until some crazy futuristic point when there's stuff like flying robots and private space vehicles and everyone carries a miniature network-connected personal computer around with them.
posted by XMLicious at 3:31 PM on June 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
Quite frankly, if your economy is entirely based on trucking and catering to truckers, you were moribund anyway.
Well, see, a good chunk of their economy was based on manufacturing, and the service jobs that helped support everyone working in the plants. But, those went away, because profits, and about the only thing the towns could attract were shipping facilities looking for cheap land, empty buildings and tax breaks.
But, you know, go ahead and believe all that was needed was a really good crystal ball and a smart libertarian to read it. Oh, wait...Libertarians only predict the future (and kick the losers) after the fact. Never mind.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:31 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, see, a good chunk of their economy was based on manufacturing, and the service jobs that helped support everyone working in the plants. But, those went away, because profits, and about the only thing the towns could attract were shipping facilities looking for cheap land, empty buildings and tax breaks.
But, you know, go ahead and believe all that was needed was a really good crystal ball and a smart libertarian to read it. Oh, wait...Libertarians only predict the future (and kick the losers) after the fact. Never mind.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:31 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
here's a big, big difference between getting a driverless car to tootle around Mountain View and filling the whole country with the things
There's a big, difference between running an email server in Mountain View and getting the wholecountry world running on one email system.
posted by GuyZero at 3:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a big, difference between running an email server in Mountain View and getting the whole
posted by GuyZero at 3:35 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it would be useful to look at commercial aircraft to give us some clues to what this transition will look like. The first version of auto pilot weren't great. They eventually got good enough that they could handle most common tasks once a human got it into the air. Nowadays the plane mostly flies itself or at least automates a LOT of tasks for the pilot from take-off to landing. The pilot is mostly there in case something goes wrong enough that the plane can't figure it out by itself and the list of things the plane can't handle is shrinking all of the time.
We already have a TON of driver aids (lane departure warning, ABS, traction control, dynamic stability control, emergency braking, etc.). Those aids are just becoming more and more automatic.
I really don't care about having a totally driver-less car. The big revolutionary change will be when cars can drive themselves on the interstate without any human intervention. The directions for so many longer trips (that are probably pretty similar to an over-the-road trucker's route) involve a bunch of turns, getting on the interstate, staying on the interstate for two hours, then taking an exit and a few more turns to get to my destination. If I can just take little nap for that two section of the trip, it would be a revolutionary change. I can handle the take-off and landing, I'd like the auto-pilot to take care of the few hours in between and let me know if there are any issues.
posted by VTX at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
We already have a TON of driver aids (lane departure warning, ABS, traction control, dynamic stability control, emergency braking, etc.). Those aids are just becoming more and more automatic.
I really don't care about having a totally driver-less car. The big revolutionary change will be when cars can drive themselves on the interstate without any human intervention. The directions for so many longer trips (that are probably pretty similar to an over-the-road trucker's route) involve a bunch of turns, getting on the interstate, staying on the interstate for two hours, then taking an exit and a few more turns to get to my destination. If I can just take little nap for that two section of the trip, it would be a revolutionary change. I can handle the take-off and landing, I'd like the auto-pilot to take care of the few hours in between and let me know if there are any issues.
posted by VTX at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
bonehead: "More filling station attendants, perhaps. "
If you can automate the driving, surely you can automate the fuel filling. I have this strange feeling that all of us "expendables" will be turned into cat food.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2015
If you can automate the driving, surely you can automate the fuel filling. I have this strange feeling that all of us "expendables" will be turned into cat food.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:38 PM on June 2, 2015
In all seriousness, however, one reason why self-driving cars would take off in Chicago -- it would give us all an excellent way to screw those Goldman-Sachs types who "own" the parking system in the city!
Or it might be one more reason the self-driving cars won't be allowed on the streets of Chicago...
posted by straight at 3:39 PM on June 2, 2015
Or it might be one more reason the self-driving cars won't be allowed on the streets of Chicago...
posted by straight at 3:39 PM on June 2, 2015
truck food.
posted by indubitable at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by indubitable at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2015
flying robots
Yeah, aren't those just terrific? Totally changed everything! Revolutionary!
posted by Fnarf at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2015
Yeah, aren't those just terrific? Totally changed everything! Revolutionary!
posted by Fnarf at 3:40 PM on June 2, 2015
Moving bits around is not as complicated as moving live bodies around.
posted by Fnarf at 3:44 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Fnarf at 3:44 PM on June 2, 2015
Pogo_Fuzzybutt: "my grandfather's cabover Fruitliner"
Is that something like a tropical version of a Freightliner?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is that something like a tropical version of a Freightliner?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm already composing a Slow Road Movement manifesto for my new career as an Artisanal Driver.
posted by Enemy of Joy at 3:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Enemy of Joy at 3:46 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
So, will driverless delivery trucks be programmed to park illegally in no-stopping zones and bike lanes? Because that seems to be the only way street-level delivery remains viable in a lot of cities now.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
A city with delivery trucks parked in the bike lane occasionally is many times more bike-friendly than a suburb where that never happens, because it's so much more compact and thus you don't have to cycle many miles to get to everyplace you need to be. Cities are messy and annoying but productive.
posted by Fnarf at 4:04 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Fnarf at 4:04 PM on June 2, 2015
It's hard for me to get a good handle on what the actual state of the art for self-driving vehicles is, because all of the primary sources tend to be PR pieces from people trying to make self-driving vehicles, who have a vested interest in making you think that the cars are ready yesterday, if only the legal issues could be worked out. And those overly-optimistic primary sources are drowning in a sea of overly-optimistic thinkpieces by people who don't actually understand what's going on, overly-pessimistic thinkpieces by people who don't actually understand what's going on, and repurposed personal rapid transit propaganda by people who don't actually understand what's going on.
posted by ckape at 4:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ckape at 4:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
One thing that puzzles me is why trains still have drivers. If so much progress has been made in the much harder computational task of navigating urban roads, why do we still need train drivers whose job is (largely) to just accelerate and decelerate at appropriate times?
posted by pipeski at 4:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 4:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
It won't be a revolution, it will be an evolution.
There's a lot of noise from the Luddites in the thread, but you have the gist of it. Most of the luxury brands are currently working on or already have functional highway autopilot.
We already have self driving cars that are on the streets right now. Sure, they're not perfect, but they already drive better than the average human. It's easy to make up extremely specific limiting conditions that might flummox a computer, but look at how far it's come in just a decade. That's right. Google's program has only been going for ten years.
I find the claims of "not in our lifetimes" particularly laughable. I have a phone in my pocket that is a computer more powerful than the top of the line military computers that existed when I graduated college.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
There's a lot of noise from the Luddites in the thread, but you have the gist of it. Most of the luxury brands are currently working on or already have functional highway autopilot.
We already have self driving cars that are on the streets right now. Sure, they're not perfect, but they already drive better than the average human. It's easy to make up extremely specific limiting conditions that might flummox a computer, but look at how far it's come in just a decade. That's right. Google's program has only been going for ten years.
I find the claims of "not in our lifetimes" particularly laughable. I have a phone in my pocket that is a computer more powerful than the top of the line military computers that existed when I graduated college.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:17 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Moving bits around is not as complicated as moving live bodies around.
Neither of which is as easy to move as goalposts, evidently.
posted by XMLicious at 4:19 PM on June 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I was waiting for someone to pull out the old "computer in my pocket" comparison. It's like phones have hypnotized people. Yeah, they're neat. I've got one too. And I'm the furthest thing from a Luddite -- but I'm also not a Google Glass wearer, either.
I think the problem with trains is mostly cost. A single driver isn't that expensive if you have 1,000 passengers, but even the Positive Train Control system that might have prevented the recent derailment near Philadelphia is expected to cost as much as $22 billion to implement, and that's not driverless. Driverless trains are already in service all over the world, but only on tightly controlled closed systems, not wide-open track systems like the long-haul trains in the US. I'm sure it would be less difficult than driverless trucks or cars to implement, but the demand doesn't seem to be there.
posted by Fnarf at 4:28 PM on June 2, 2015
I think the problem with trains is mostly cost. A single driver isn't that expensive if you have 1,000 passengers, but even the Positive Train Control system that might have prevented the recent derailment near Philadelphia is expected to cost as much as $22 billion to implement, and that's not driverless. Driverless trains are already in service all over the world, but only on tightly controlled closed systems, not wide-open track systems like the long-haul trains in the US. I'm sure it would be less difficult than driverless trucks or cars to implement, but the demand doesn't seem to be there.
posted by Fnarf at 4:28 PM on June 2, 2015
A city with delivery trucks parked in the bike lane occasionally is many times more bike-friendly than a suburb where that never happens, because it's so much more compact and thus you don't have to cycle many miles to get to everyplace you need to be.
Actually, one of the major causes of traffic delays (of all varieties) in a city like Toronto is delivery vehicles parked along key thoroughfares during rush hour.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:33 PM on June 2, 2015
Actually, one of the major causes of traffic delays (of all varieties) in a city like Toronto is delivery vehicles parked along key thoroughfares during rush hour.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:33 PM on June 2, 2015
I frequently encounter drivers who have done exactly that -- stopped dead on a busy street, with no indication of what they're doing or thinking.
That is because GPS has told them they have arrived.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:36 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
That is because GPS has told them they have arrived.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:36 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The major cause of traffic delays is loads of people trying to get to a place. Toronto is a popular place. It's funny how when we think of cars we think traffic is just terrible, but if you ask any business owner or commercial real estate person, traffic is the one thing you want the most. If you really hate traffic, I can suggest some places in rural eastern Montana that have none.
posted by Fnarf at 4:42 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Fnarf at 4:42 PM on June 2, 2015
I was waiting for someone to pull out the old "computer in my pocket" comparison. It's like phones have hypnotized people.
Please excuse me for being hypnotized. Just dismiss what I say out of hand, instead of addressing what I was saying. Thanks.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:45 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Please excuse me for being hypnotized. Just dismiss what I say out of hand, instead of addressing what I was saying. Thanks.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:45 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was waiting for someone to pull out the old "computer in my pocket" comparison.
Oh snap! Someone fell into your trap of pointing out an obvious and fairly compelling counter to your argument!
posted by Etrigan at 4:48 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Oh snap! Someone fell into your trap of pointing out an obvious and fairly compelling counter to your argument!
posted by Etrigan at 4:48 PM on June 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Another hypnotized individual! The iPhone has a Level 5 Glamour on it, you know.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Fleebnork at 4:50 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
one possibly unforseen benefit: much less country music.
posted by telstar at 4:56 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by telstar at 4:56 PM on June 2, 2015
There has to be some kind of Godwin's Law equivalent for discussions about autonomous cars, wherein it's inevitable that someone brings up a road condition that typical human drivers will never encounter in their lives, or, if they did, fail to navigate "properly".
Not to derail, but I would like to highly encourage this expansion of the use of Godwin's Law. I would also encourage people who think others are engaging in straw-man arguments to assert that this is a violation Godwin's Law, as well as arguments that contradict things you take to be basic facts, or just in poor taste. The sooner Godwin's Law has been Godwinned out of existence through mis- or over-use, the happier I'll be.
posted by chortly at 5:01 PM on June 2, 2015
Not to derail, but I would like to highly encourage this expansion of the use of Godwin's Law. I would also encourage people who think others are engaging in straw-man arguments to assert that this is a violation Godwin's Law, as well as arguments that contradict things you take to be basic facts, or just in poor taste. The sooner Godwin's Law has been Godwinned out of existence through mis- or over-use, the happier I'll be.
posted by chortly at 5:01 PM on June 2, 2015
I imagine railroad brakemen, stevedores and Blockbuster employees were similarly incredulous when told of their impending obsolescence. What's really going to be interesting is when automation moves beyond the blue collar and begins making redundant white collar workers. That'll be fun.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:21 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
one possibly unforseen benefit: much less country music.
you don't understand country music - did the dying off of the american cowboy result in less cowboy songs, or more cowboy songs?
did the mass movement of rural southerners to the burbs result in less songs about farming and hunting and whatnot or more songs about them?
you wait - in 15 - 20 years there's going to be a deluge of country songs about truckers because there won't be any
that's how it works
posted by pyramid termite at 5:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
you don't understand country music - did the dying off of the american cowboy result in less cowboy songs, or more cowboy songs?
did the mass movement of rural southerners to the burbs result in less songs about farming and hunting and whatnot or more songs about them?
you wait - in 15 - 20 years there's going to be a deluge of country songs about truckers because there won't be any
that's how it works
posted by pyramid termite at 5:37 PM on June 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
I always hate seeing a car with just one person in it, some clown who needs a new dildo at like seven in the fuckin' morning, clogging up the roadways when I've got places to be, man. You know, coordinate your shit with the other dildo fantatics and carpool since you're all going to the precisely the exact same place. There are buses every fifteen minutes. The dildo warehouse has its own train station, just jump on one of those bad boys. But nah, you're too special to share the dildo excursion with your fellow humans. Better get in your car individually and drive to exactly where all the other individuals are driving their own personal individual cars, then fight over parking, then whine about the traffic. I don't even know what the hell I'm going to think when all the cars in the big dildo convoy don't even have any people in them at all.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:44 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:44 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Ray Walston, Luck Dragon: "What's really going to be interesting is when automation moves beyond the blue collar and begins making redundant white collar workers. That'll be fun."
And by fun, I think you mean mass starvation and riots. I hope I live long enough to enjoy the show that will be the death of the USA.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 5:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
And by fun, I think you mean mass starvation and riots. I hope I live long enough to enjoy the show that will be the death of the USA.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 5:51 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
None of the robots were more effective, or even as effective, at identifying objects than humans and they’re also really, really slow. Somewhat ironically, the items that caused one team the most grief were the first things Amazon sold: thin paperback books.
Eventually somebody's going to think to put everything in its own little box covered in nothing but repeating QR codes so that there's no difference between recognizing and handling a bowling ball from a copy of Time Magazine. The whole warehouse can be basically a giant vending machine moving standardized boxes around, and the bits that pack the individual items for shipping can use the known, standardized size of each individually boxed item to sort them into the shipping boxes.
("But suppliers won't agree to pack every little item individually!" you say, and I sign you up for a seminar on how Wal-Mart used its market power to force everybody to basically rebuild their distribution infrastructures to suit Wal-Mart's desires.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:05 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Eventually somebody's going to think to put everything in its own little box covered in nothing but repeating QR codes so that there's no difference between recognizing and handling a bowling ball from a copy of Time Magazine. The whole warehouse can be basically a giant vending machine moving standardized boxes around, and the bits that pack the individual items for shipping can use the known, standardized size of each individually boxed item to sort them into the shipping boxes.
("But suppliers won't agree to pack every little item individually!" you say, and I sign you up for a seminar on how Wal-Mart used its market power to force everybody to basically rebuild their distribution infrastructures to suit Wal-Mart's desires.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:05 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
it's an extended argument for providing a universal and unconditional basic income
Our time is better spent on setting the scene for the adaptations that will be necessary rather than pretending they're not coming soon. Like Universal Basic Income, and laws and regulations that protect consumers from predatory corporations.
This is in fact one of many reasons I'm skeptical about the cars, because their proponents tend to believe in things like this as well.
it's interesting how technology and policy come hand in hand! :P
like here: "capitalism... cannot unleash the true potential of the info-tech revolution because it cannot imagine what to do with the millions who would lose their jobs."
and here: "The argument for Universal Basic Income then is that it enables us to go past capital towards knowledge by freeing everyone to participate in its creation and maintenance."
cf. Technological Underemployment: Addressing Common Objections & A rebuttal of the most common arguments against a future of technological unemployment
poking around on the basic income medium site i really liked this article...
From Basic Income to Social Dividends: Sharing the Value of Common Resources - "It's time to broaden the debate on how to fund a universal basic income by including options for sharing resource rents, which is a model that can be applied internationally to reform unjust economic systems, reduce extreme poverty and protect the global commons."
also the FPP author moderates /r/BasicIncome which has a fairly comprehensive wiki!
i'd just add the notion of 'national equity' (sovereign currency as tax credit in an MMT context, viz. public banking and systemic solvency accounting rules; 1,2,3) and 'money financed fiscal stimulus' (from central banks) to the theoretical underpinnings of basic income (and bitcoin ;)
posted by kliuless at 6:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Our time is better spent on setting the scene for the adaptations that will be necessary rather than pretending they're not coming soon. Like Universal Basic Income, and laws and regulations that protect consumers from predatory corporations.
This is in fact one of many reasons I'm skeptical about the cars, because their proponents tend to believe in things like this as well.
it's interesting how technology and policy come hand in hand! :P
like here: "capitalism... cannot unleash the true potential of the info-tech revolution because it cannot imagine what to do with the millions who would lose their jobs."
and here: "The argument for Universal Basic Income then is that it enables us to go past capital towards knowledge by freeing everyone to participate in its creation and maintenance."
cf. Technological Underemployment: Addressing Common Objections & A rebuttal of the most common arguments against a future of technological unemployment
poking around on the basic income medium site i really liked this article...
From Basic Income to Social Dividends: Sharing the Value of Common Resources - "It's time to broaden the debate on how to fund a universal basic income by including options for sharing resource rents, which is a model that can be applied internationally to reform unjust economic systems, reduce extreme poverty and protect the global commons."
also the FPP author moderates /r/BasicIncome which has a fairly comprehensive wiki!
i'd just add the notion of 'national equity' (sovereign currency as tax credit in an MMT context, viz. public banking and systemic solvency accounting rules; 1,2,3) and 'money financed fiscal stimulus' (from central banks) to the theoretical underpinnings of basic income (and bitcoin ;)
posted by kliuless at 6:14 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ray Walston, Luck Dragon: "What's really going to be interesting is when automation moves beyond the blue collar and begins making redundant white collar workers."
This is already happening to some extent. There are now computer systems which do preliminary research and discovery for legal cases. There are also robotic systems for assisting in analytic chemistry and drug discovery. Arguably High Frequency Trading has already made the role of stock-broker or floor-trader ceremonial at best. Quick googling around for "white collar robot" also suggests that automatic systems are moving into pharmacy work.
posted by rustcrumb at 6:36 PM on June 2, 2015
This is already happening to some extent. There are now computer systems which do preliminary research and discovery for legal cases. There are also robotic systems for assisting in analytic chemistry and drug discovery. Arguably High Frequency Trading has already made the role of stock-broker or floor-trader ceremonial at best. Quick googling around for "white collar robot" also suggests that automatic systems are moving into pharmacy work.
posted by rustcrumb at 6:36 PM on June 2, 2015
I think everyone skips from computer-assisted driving (ABS, nav systems) right to autonomous cars. I think we're missing a step: remotely operated vehicles. Why can't a long-haul truck be remotely operated non-stop in reasonable shifts by someone in a windowless room in Florida like Predator drones?
It's a trucker shortage, dummy. It's real, and it's here today.
Probably get more applicants if it were a day job you could go home from every night. And cab drivers wouldn't have to worry about getting beat up by crazy people.
posted by ctmf at 6:49 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's a trucker shortage, dummy. It's real, and it's here today.
Probably get more applicants if it were a day job you could go home from every night. And cab drivers wouldn't have to worry about getting beat up by crazy people.
posted by ctmf at 6:49 PM on June 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Cities at the ends could have the ROV operators pick up a local driver, like a ship with a harbor pilot.
posted by ctmf at 6:52 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 6:52 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's sorta weird that people are arguing this will never happen because it's too difficult. While I'm optimistic Google or somebody else will eventually figure out the hard problem of fully autonomous driving in complicated environments, the secret of automation is that you can cheat. Redefine the problem. Find something simpler that's doable and do that. For example, mechanically harvesting tomatoes without damaging them was difficult, so they bred a sturdier tomato. Most industrial processes look nothing like the original manual task they automate.
Suppose we modify the infrastructure. If you're willing to embed cables in the roadways, self-driving cars have basically been feasible since the sixties. There's a recent proposal for an autonomous friendly corridor from Canada to Mexico, which could eliminate enough complexity in the environment for current technology to work. There's the convoy solution where one human driver leads a convoy of several trucks. Automated vehicles are already in use in the mining industry. I'm sure there are other possibilities for gradual automation.
If the problem is "replicate everything a human driver can do", then yeah, that's tricky. If the problem is "how do we get stuff from one place to another with minimal labor costs", then there are many, many more opportunities for new technology. I expect it'll start with the easier stuff like mine vehicles and long-haul trucking, and while that's playing out we'll figure out how to automate taxis in downtown Mumbai.
posted by Wemmick at 6:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Suppose we modify the infrastructure. If you're willing to embed cables in the roadways, self-driving cars have basically been feasible since the sixties. There's a recent proposal for an autonomous friendly corridor from Canada to Mexico, which could eliminate enough complexity in the environment for current technology to work. There's the convoy solution where one human driver leads a convoy of several trucks. Automated vehicles are already in use in the mining industry. I'm sure there are other possibilities for gradual automation.
If the problem is "replicate everything a human driver can do", then yeah, that's tricky. If the problem is "how do we get stuff from one place to another with minimal labor costs", then there are many, many more opportunities for new technology. I expect it'll start with the easier stuff like mine vehicles and long-haul trucking, and while that's playing out we'll figure out how to automate taxis in downtown Mumbai.
posted by Wemmick at 6:59 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I expect to see autonomous trucks on the highway within a few years -- as noted above, first in convoys with a human lead (and with human backups for emergencies) and then in fully autonomous convoys, perhaps with pilot cars for heavily trafficked sections.
But it's important to note that this will only work for a certain percentage of trucks. Palletized van trailers heading from exurban warehouse to exurban warehouse are going to be super easy to automate. Beginning and end points are fixed, routes are determined, and the loads are standardized. (In fact, automating the loading would help with weight calculations and balancing, since computers are good at that kind of three dimensional arranging.)
But all those flatbeds with oddball loads you see going by? Good luck automating any part of that other than the highway miles anytime soon. Those drivers are often carrying mixed loads, picking up a load of pipe from a small supplier, adding some big engine castings, and then dropping off a load at a remote construction site before heading off to the next pickup. I had to give phone directions to two drivers this morning, and for a third truck I had to lead it in the last stage of the trip since no one was sure if the final stretch of road would be passable.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
But it's important to note that this will only work for a certain percentage of trucks. Palletized van trailers heading from exurban warehouse to exurban warehouse are going to be super easy to automate. Beginning and end points are fixed, routes are determined, and the loads are standardized. (In fact, automating the loading would help with weight calculations and balancing, since computers are good at that kind of three dimensional arranging.)
But all those flatbeds with oddball loads you see going by? Good luck automating any part of that other than the highway miles anytime soon. Those drivers are often carrying mixed loads, picking up a load of pipe from a small supplier, adding some big engine castings, and then dropping off a load at a remote construction site before heading off to the next pickup. I had to give phone directions to two drivers this morning, and for a third truck I had to lead it in the last stage of the trip since no one was sure if the final stretch of road would be passable.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 PM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
ctmf, communication latency would pose challenge with remote ground vehicle operation. By the time a frame of video arrives on your screen from the truck, it might be several hundred milliseconds old. By the time your piloting commands reach the vehicle, they will be even more out of date. This is fine for drone airplanes because they are not operating in an environment where they have to react to things in a split second. Then again, maybe if a truck could be operated more or less non-stop in shifts, it could drive more slowly and still arrive on time. You might also have a sort of simple collision-detection system built into the truck, like many cars have now, which could handle emergency stops.
posted by rustcrumb at 7:01 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by rustcrumb at 7:01 PM on June 2, 2015
I'm picturing autonomous long-haul trucks that don't need a driver per se, just a warm body to respond to detours or mechanical malfunctions. For this I suggest they hire college students who are getting their degree online. Maybe two people in a truck, switching every 12 hours, working for minimum wage. It could be a whole new job category: "Do you spend at least 12 hours a day on the internet or playing video games? Why not become a monitor for a self-driving truck? The responsibilities are minimal, but you have to pee in a bucket."
posted by bendy at 7:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bendy at 7:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Right, interstate highway miles seem more like aircraft flight than "driving," in the reaction time sense.
posted by ctmf at 7:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 7:11 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
turbid dahlia: "There are buses every fifteen minutes. The dildo warehouse has its own train station, just jump on one of those bad boys."
Where the hell do you people live where public transportation not only is not a feeble joke but you assume that it's universally available to everyone? It would take me three hours and 5 miles of walking on busy roads with no sidewalks -- each way -- to get to my job by bus, assuming I could trust our buses to run on time, which I can't. There ain't no train here. I carpool with my wife. That's about the best I can do.
While I'm driving with my wife, I notice many idiots texting, eating, talking on the phone, applying makeup, even shaving with an electric razor as tailgate each other at 75 mph. They generally do a really shitty job of driving, since they're paying almost no attention to it. I've seen some terrible car accidents. Computers may never be perfect at driving, but they'll never be as bad as these fool humans I share the road with now.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Where the hell do you people live where public transportation not only is not a feeble joke but you assume that it's universally available to everyone? It would take me three hours and 5 miles of walking on busy roads with no sidewalks -- each way -- to get to my job by bus, assuming I could trust our buses to run on time, which I can't. There ain't no train here. I carpool with my wife. That's about the best I can do.
While I'm driving with my wife, I notice many idiots texting, eating, talking on the phone, applying makeup, even shaving with an electric razor as tailgate each other at 75 mph. They generally do a really shitty job of driving, since they're paying almost no attention to it. I've seen some terrible car accidents. Computers may never be perfect at driving, but they'll never be as bad as these fool humans I share the road with now.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:13 PM on June 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh how I long for this day, robot truck after robot truck lined up at the chain-up area to climb a snowy grade. And then having to unchain at the bottom. And if there isn't millimeter alignment between the cruise controls and GPS so that the truck instantly realizes that its driving wheels are sliding and the whole fucking rig is going to jackknife off the side of a mountain. Or when brakes go south, and the runaway truck lane is already in use. Or when the system gets hacked and you get some /b/tard taking ten trucks on a holocaust run thru a crowded neighborhood. Or uses it for profit, to create a diversion to get drug shipments thru. Oh sweet jeebus on a palomino, bring me them sweet metal minds now!
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 7:16 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 7:16 PM on June 2, 2015
odinsdream: "Consider how Google gathers traffic flow statistics now with real-time feedback from Android phones in the field. If there are more than a few autonomous cars in an area, they would share information."
Google is using humans as the regulator in the feedback loop. You can't do that if all the cars are controlled by the same or a few car networks.
codacorolla: "The simplest and most easily in reach seems to be the human lead convoy, which effectively cuts down your HR needs from 5 or 6 drivers to 1."
Adhoc convoys are illegal in most places for good reasons; I'm really interested to see this tried out even on interstates.
emjaybee: "I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others. The tech is going to have to be really secure and I'm not sure I trust our capitalist overlords to understand that and do a good job with it."
Yep, if autonomous cars are capable only with the help of an always on network interaction it'll be very interesting the first time a 0-day exploit in millions of cars shows itself during the morning commute.
Wemmick: " For example, mechanically harvesting tomatoes without damaging them was difficult, so they bred a sturdier tomato. "
That tastes like red Styrofoam and cardboard.
posted by Mitheral at 7:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Google is using humans as the regulator in the feedback loop. You can't do that if all the cars are controlled by the same or a few car networks.
codacorolla: "The simplest and most easily in reach seems to be the human lead convoy, which effectively cuts down your HR needs from 5 or 6 drivers to 1."
Adhoc convoys are illegal in most places for good reasons; I'm really interested to see this tried out even on interstates.
emjaybee: "I am nervous about riding in a vehicle that could be hacked and turned into a machine for killing me and others. The tech is going to have to be really secure and I'm not sure I trust our capitalist overlords to understand that and do a good job with it."
Yep, if autonomous cars are capable only with the help of an always on network interaction it'll be very interesting the first time a 0-day exploit in millions of cars shows itself during the morning commute.
Wemmick: " For example, mechanically harvesting tomatoes without damaging them was difficult, so they bred a sturdier tomato. "
That tastes like red Styrofoam and cardboard.
posted by Mitheral at 7:24 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this will happen, slowly at first, with the "good 'ol boy" politicians resisting change and requiring licensed drivers to accompany small convoys, at off peak hours and on certain stretches of road, doling out the permission to use these money saving convoys to lobbyist friends. Then more quickly as mile after mile is racked up without serious incident. Then there will be an accident, and the furor will start over whether it was the chaperone driver, software or mechanical failure, or the non autonomous driver's fault. This will stall progress for an investigation period, until it is determined that human error was at fault, and the process will continue.
Then, after millions of miles of testing, it will be proven that non human drivers are better, and billions of dollars will be sunk into accelerating the process.
Unfortunately, In the program's second successful decade , the solar flare will hit, and hundreds of billions of dollars of machinery will be left useless. Out of the rubble, a grizzled Bruce Willis emerges reluctantly from his alcoholic haze, to deliver desperately needed medicine to the orphans in Anytown, USA. His amazing driving skills, somehow not tarnished by years of unemployment, depression and drinking will win the day, but he will be forced to sacrifice his own life in a stunning display of truckery in which the only way to complete the delivery is to jackknife the trailer at 80 MPH with the rear doors open to launch the desperately needed medicine across a deep chasm.
God Bless you Bruce... You truly are.... THE LAST TRUCKER (a Michael Bay Production)
posted by Debaser626 at 7:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
Then, after millions of miles of testing, it will be proven that non human drivers are better, and billions of dollars will be sunk into accelerating the process.
Unfortunately, In the program's second successful decade , the solar flare will hit, and hundreds of billions of dollars of machinery will be left useless. Out of the rubble, a grizzled Bruce Willis emerges reluctantly from his alcoholic haze, to deliver desperately needed medicine to the orphans in Anytown, USA. His amazing driving skills, somehow not tarnished by years of unemployment, depression and drinking will win the day, but he will be forced to sacrifice his own life in a stunning display of truckery in which the only way to complete the delivery is to jackknife the trailer at 80 MPH with the rear doors open to launch the desperately needed medicine across a deep chasm.
God Bless you Bruce... You truly are.... THE LAST TRUCKER (a Michael Bay Production)
posted by Debaser626 at 7:38 PM on June 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
Between special roadways for them and convoys with one driver, we've just invented trains.
I mean, I know that's really snarky and an apples to oranges comparison but they're broadly similar in a way that tickles my funny bone a bit.
posted by VTX at 7:52 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I mean, I know that's really snarky and an apples to oranges comparison but they're broadly similar in a way that tickles my funny bone a bit.
posted by VTX at 7:52 PM on June 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
But, you know, go ahead and believe all that was needed was a really good crystal ball and a smart libertarian to read it. Oh, wait...Libertarians only predict the future (and kick the losers) after the fact. Never mind.
My comment was n't so much an apologia for the libertarian view as it was for noting just what an utter cesspool of desperation and degradation the long haul trucking economy is. I spent enough time on long drives and Greyhound to note that apart from the occasional good breakfast, there's nothing good to be found in a truckstop.
If your town has nothing but a truck stop, it's best to do the next generation a favor by lighting a match and walking away.
posted by ocschwar at 7:54 PM on June 2, 2015
I wanna go back in time and slap the shit out of all the sci fi writers who just assumed that "more work can be done by robots" would mean "so everyone gets more free time" rather than "so increasing numbers of people are considered utterly expendable"
Maybe the elites know something we don't, and are planning to cook off most of the world's population (a nice "reduction" like simple sugar!) with the deleterious effects of climate change to "fix the glitch" of there being too damn many people (they were handy up until the moment they weren't, it's a tough thing to dial in!) and then go about creating a Gene Roddenberry-esque Paradise, except without the nuclear war, but with resource and climate war instead. It's a lot cleaner that way, more habitable terrain and whatnot with no fallout contamination, and you were probably going to get used to eating jellyfish and roaches either way...
posted by aydeejones at 8:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe the elites know something we don't, and are planning to cook off most of the world's population (a nice "reduction" like simple sugar!) with the deleterious effects of climate change to "fix the glitch" of there being too damn many people (they were handy up until the moment they weren't, it's a tough thing to dial in!) and then go about creating a Gene Roddenberry-esque Paradise, except without the nuclear war, but with resource and climate war instead. It's a lot cleaner that way, more habitable terrain and whatnot with no fallout contamination, and you were probably going to get used to eating jellyfish and roaches either way...
posted by aydeejones at 8:33 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
>why is it that autonomous car threads are always so fighty?
I think it is because the issues behind the technology are deceptive. Many people look at the issue and see "advanced cars" or "advanced trucks" and think "how hard can that be?" OK, that's a bit simplistic but I think I'm in the ballpark somewhere.
The reality of course is that this is not an automotive or transportation issue at all but rather a highly advanced problem in computation involving image recognition, advanced AI, heuristic learning algorithms, and 3 dimensional situational awareness all to a degree that is beyond our current Information technology and will be for 5 to ten years at a very minimum - and probably closer to 15 or more. I believe that you will find few computer programmers who believe that autonomous vehicles are "right around the corner" and a whole lot non IT people who believe it is - hence the "fightiness" - the problem seems simple to those who really do not have a good grasp of the issues involved.
Articles that promote the autonomous vehicle - including those from Google are nothing more than flashy adverts designed toscam raise money from somewhat clueless investors so that a CEO somewhere can buy a Tesla the research can continue.
It will happen - just not in the next five or ten years.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 10:18 PM on June 2, 2015
I think it is because the issues behind the technology are deceptive. Many people look at the issue and see "advanced cars" or "advanced trucks" and think "how hard can that be?" OK, that's a bit simplistic but I think I'm in the ballpark somewhere.
The reality of course is that this is not an automotive or transportation issue at all but rather a highly advanced problem in computation involving image recognition, advanced AI, heuristic learning algorithms, and 3 dimensional situational awareness all to a degree that is beyond our current Information technology and will be for 5 to ten years at a very minimum - and probably closer to 15 or more. I believe that you will find few computer programmers who believe that autonomous vehicles are "right around the corner" and a whole lot non IT people who believe it is - hence the "fightiness" - the problem seems simple to those who really do not have a good grasp of the issues involved.
Articles that promote the autonomous vehicle - including those from Google are nothing more than flashy adverts designed to
It will happen - just not in the next five or ten years.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 10:18 PM on June 2, 2015
People, cars aren't reading road signs to get the speed limit - it comes over GPS. The last time I updated the firmware in my Garmin it started displaying the speed limit, and it doesn't have a camera.
posted by rfs at 10:18 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by rfs at 10:18 PM on June 2, 2015
So, I actually drive for a living. Not a big rig, just a Chevy Express long van. Fill it up with stuff to be delivered in part of our warehouse's service area, drive it 200 miles, drop it off to the driver who will deliver that product, then pick up an empty van and drive it back, 200 miles. 1600 miles a week.
I'm a pretty mellow driver. I'm paid by the hour to get there safely, not get there quickly, so I'm not aggressive and try to be polite. I have been driving for a living in various ways for nearly 20 years now, so I have a lot of sort of sixth-sense Force powers when it comes to seeing what is actually going on around me and avoiding basically all problems.
But yeah, I'm basically replaceable by a robot. It's the exact same stretch of highway every day, up over a couple of mountain passes and along a river, quite beautiful. But other than things like construction zones and deer (which aren't as bad along the interstate I am currently driving than they were on the 2-lane highway I was driving a year ago), it's an entirely predictable and rather autonomous task. I feel like I'm very skilled at my job, I don't have accidents or even get pulled over ever, I could give lengthy seminars on active, aware driving skills.
But really, and I know it's not happening tomorrow, I know my current position within this company is basically doomed.
posted by hippybear at 1:07 AM on June 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'm a pretty mellow driver. I'm paid by the hour to get there safely, not get there quickly, so I'm not aggressive and try to be polite. I have been driving for a living in various ways for nearly 20 years now, so I have a lot of sort of sixth-sense Force powers when it comes to seeing what is actually going on around me and avoiding basically all problems.
But yeah, I'm basically replaceable by a robot. It's the exact same stretch of highway every day, up over a couple of mountain passes and along a river, quite beautiful. But other than things like construction zones and deer (which aren't as bad along the interstate I am currently driving than they were on the 2-lane highway I was driving a year ago), it's an entirely predictable and rather autonomous task. I feel like I'm very skilled at my job, I don't have accidents or even get pulled over ever, I could give lengthy seminars on active, aware driving skills.
But really, and I know it's not happening tomorrow, I know my current position within this company is basically doomed.
posted by hippybear at 1:07 AM on June 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
hippybear: "I know my current position within this company is basically doomed."
I think in the long run we're all in that exact same position.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 1:13 AM on June 3, 2015
I think in the long run we're all in that exact same position.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 1:13 AM on June 3, 2015
Use autonomous trucks for city-2-city, and pneumatic tubes for intercity distribution.
posted by mikelieman at 1:48 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by mikelieman at 1:48 AM on June 3, 2015
hippybear that frankly sounds like my dream job.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:42 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:42 AM on June 3, 2015
And if there isn't millimeter alignment between the cruise controls and GPS so that the truck instantly realizes that its driving wheels are sliding and the whole fucking rig is going to jackknife off the side of a mountain.
Cruise control and GPS... really?
Yep, if autonomous cars are capable only with the help of an always on network interaction
What do you mean "if"? Are you guys commenting without reading to see how the technology works?
The super specific special case denial scenarios would would a little less ridiculous if you guys maybe read up a bit about how the autonomous driving systems work and what technology they use. They're not a dumb GPS system following google maps. It's not cruise control. Etc.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:49 AM on June 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Cruise control and GPS... really?
Yep, if autonomous cars are capable only with the help of an always on network interaction
What do you mean "if"? Are you guys commenting without reading to see how the technology works?
The super specific special case denial scenarios would would a little less ridiculous if you guys maybe read up a bit about how the autonomous driving systems work and what technology they use. They're not a dumb GPS system following google maps. It's not cruise control. Etc.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:49 AM on June 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah, this isn't a "5-15 years in the future" thing. Autonomous cars are operating now, on publc roads in California, Nevada and New Jersey. Not the future. Now. There are legislative, logistical and business hurdles to productize them into something you can buy off the lot, but the tech side is pretty much nailed down.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
And if there isn't millimeter alignment between the cruise controls and GPS so that the truck instantly realizes that its driving wheels are sliding and the whole fucking rig is going to jackknife off the side of a mountain.
There are plenty of other ways to measure these things. If your car has dynamic stability control (or whatever trademarked term your car's manufacturer uses) can already use that technology to YOU from sliding off the side of a mountain. BMW's version, when combined with their AWD system used some algorithms to predict when the car is about to lose traction and step in to prevent wheels from slipping.
When I sold new cars for a living, the way that Nissan recommended that we demonstrate it was to find an empty parking lot, turn the system off (usually by holding the "ESP" button down for 3 seconds but check your manual), turn the wheel all the way in one direction (left is a little better so you're on the inside of the turn), and slowly start to speed up until the wheels start to slip. You'll hear them squeal a bit before the tires totally lose grip. Assuming the car is front-wheel-drive, you'll feel the front end wash out, if it's rear-wheel-drive, the rear end will step out on you. Then you do the whole thing over again with the system on until the lights start blinking to let you know that the system is working (about at the point the tires start squealing).
Self-driving cars remind a little bit of when IBM's Watson was on Jeopardy. There was some debate on if Watson was actually better at Jeopardy than the two humans it faced off against because the computer was basically cheating in that it knew precisely when it could ring in and did so electronically rather than mechanically hitting a button and it had the questions fed to it rather than reading them off the game board. The humans had to listen to Trebek to figure out when to ring and use their buzzers which is a HUGE part of being able to win on the show. The tasks of listening to a clue, reading it on a board, determining when to ring in from Trebek's cadence, and pressing the button on the buzzer are all relatively simple for us humans but represent a technical challenge to a computer nearly as big as designing Watson. Meanwhile the knowledge part of Jeopardy that most of us find so difficult is pretty easy by comparison for a computer.
posted by VTX at 6:05 AM on June 3, 2015
There are plenty of other ways to measure these things. If your car has dynamic stability control (or whatever trademarked term your car's manufacturer uses) can already use that technology to YOU from sliding off the side of a mountain. BMW's version, when combined with their AWD system used some algorithms to predict when the car is about to lose traction and step in to prevent wheels from slipping.
When I sold new cars for a living, the way that Nissan recommended that we demonstrate it was to find an empty parking lot, turn the system off (usually by holding the "ESP" button down for 3 seconds but check your manual), turn the wheel all the way in one direction (left is a little better so you're on the inside of the turn), and slowly start to speed up until the wheels start to slip. You'll hear them squeal a bit before the tires totally lose grip. Assuming the car is front-wheel-drive, you'll feel the front end wash out, if it's rear-wheel-drive, the rear end will step out on you. Then you do the whole thing over again with the system on until the lights start blinking to let you know that the system is working (about at the point the tires start squealing).
Self-driving cars remind a little bit of when IBM's Watson was on Jeopardy. There was some debate on if Watson was actually better at Jeopardy than the two humans it faced off against because the computer was basically cheating in that it knew precisely when it could ring in and did so electronically rather than mechanically hitting a button and it had the questions fed to it rather than reading them off the game board. The humans had to listen to Trebek to figure out when to ring and use their buzzers which is a HUGE part of being able to win on the show. The tasks of listening to a clue, reading it on a board, determining when to ring in from Trebek's cadence, and pressing the button on the buzzer are all relatively simple for us humans but represent a technical challenge to a computer nearly as big as designing Watson. Meanwhile the knowledge part of Jeopardy that most of us find so difficult is pretty easy by comparison for a computer.
posted by VTX at 6:05 AM on June 3, 2015
I think looking at trains is a very good comparison. The tech requirements being far more simplistic and readily available for years, along with several pushes to bring autonomous trains into mass usage, you can likely gain a deeper insight into how this will play out. Sure, there are several airports, resorts, and smaller private facilities which use fully autonomous rail carriers, and there have been many successful tests of fully autonomous trains on major passenger lines, but the simple fact is that no one wants to assume the liability (especially politicians) to deploy these in a unilateral system. I remember the MTA in NYC determining that the mid-train conductors were obsolete and that a computer could make announcements and close doors. Unless this has changed in the last few years, while the announcements are automated in newer trains, for safety reasons, there is still a human being manning the doors. Nevermind driving the train, on a "closed" course. Politicians are all for appearing forward thinking and allowing tests in tightly controlled scenarios, with safeguards which basically negate the advantages of the new tech, but are highly resistant to deploy changes in a very broad sense. The people who clamor for change are those who stand to gain from it. Those responsible for the potential for fallout from change (politicians, unions, general public, insurance companies, etc.) and those negatively impacted by it (drivers, dealerships, major car manufacturers) will vehemently oppose it.
Just look at the fight Tesla is in based on their business model which threatens established dealerships.
posted by Debaser626 at 6:45 AM on June 3, 2015
Just look at the fight Tesla is in based on their business model which threatens established dealerships.
posted by Debaser626 at 6:45 AM on June 3, 2015
For me, I think that there is something deeply unsettling, a spiritual uncanny valley, perhaps, about placing life and limb in the care of something.... well... that has no capacity for caring. Just algorithms and logic, but no desire to survive or concern for its own well being outside a series of complex "if/then" statements.
Logic be damned, this will be tough to swallow for many. Sure, once people get used to it that hurdle can easily be overcome, but with decades of visuals from horrible accidents, machines gone awry in movies and tv, and a general mistrust of machines, I think it'll have to wait for another generation.
posted by Debaser626 at 6:51 AM on June 3, 2015
Logic be damned, this will be tough to swallow for many. Sure, once people get used to it that hurdle can easily be overcome, but with decades of visuals from horrible accidents, machines gone awry in movies and tv, and a general mistrust of machines, I think it'll have to wait for another generation.
posted by Debaser626 at 6:51 AM on June 3, 2015
TL;DR: we will never put a man on the moon!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:09 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 7:09 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
whole lot non IT people who believe it is - hence the "fightiness" - the problem seems simple to those who really do not have a good grasp of the issues involved.
I have a degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering, a ~20 year career in IT, and was on the robotics club building autonomous robots in college. My senior project was an autonomous Mindstorm with custom built sensors for target detection.
The lane detection and automatic braking/speed control exist on cars you can buy today. That's most of the highway driving problem solved, right there. Today. Already. Not 15-20 years in the future. You could buy a car with these features over lunch, today. They already park themselves. Today. You can buy a car, today, that can park itself. That's some portion of the city/parking lot driving problem set right there.
It won't be too much longer, and we'll see a highway autopilot. And a highway is a parkinglot commute autopilot. Then the autopilot will get more sophisticated - like drop you off at the door and go park itself in the lot somewhere. So, yeah, a fully autonomous car like HAL or Knight Rider ? That's a ways off. Semi-autonomous vehicles ? Already here, and getting more capable every year.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:17 AM on June 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have a degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering, a ~20 year career in IT, and was on the robotics club building autonomous robots in college. My senior project was an autonomous Mindstorm with custom built sensors for target detection.
The lane detection and automatic braking/speed control exist on cars you can buy today. That's most of the highway driving problem solved, right there. Today. Already. Not 15-20 years in the future. You could buy a car with these features over lunch, today. They already park themselves. Today. You can buy a car, today, that can park itself. That's some portion of the city/parking lot driving problem set right there.
It won't be too much longer, and we'll see a highway autopilot. And a highway is a parkinglot commute autopilot. Then the autopilot will get more sophisticated - like drop you off at the door and go park itself in the lot somewhere. So, yeah, a fully autonomous car like HAL or Knight Rider ? That's a ways off. Semi-autonomous vehicles ? Already here, and getting more capable every year.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:17 AM on June 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
from what I understand Elon Musk's hyperloop concept will be more suited to the shipping industry than passenger travel.
posted by judson at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by judson at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2015
TL;DR: we will never put a man on the moon!
Said men having been landed on the moon by a computer, btw. Programmed by a team lead by a woman, as it would happen.
I wonder if anyone having a heart attack has ever waved away the computer-controlled AED, which even all paramedics were already using ten years ago according to a friend who is a paramedic, to avoid
placing life and limb in the care of something.... well... that has no capacity for caringand demanded that a human defibrillate them manually instead.
posted by XMLicious at 7:39 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, I appreciate that lane detection and automatic braking exist currently and that autonomous highway driving is a heck of a lot easier than other kinds of automatic driving and is therefore likely in the relatively near-term. I think non-highway driving is a much harder problem, and if it is ever solved, it will be done by extremely large expenditures of funds and time, both as startup costs and maintenance costs. I'm not optimistic at present that any of the current players will be enthused about spending the funds to do it. Happy to be wrong. In the meantime, though, let's keep making investments in those systems that are proven to work, including roads, bridges, rail, and mass transit.
posted by burden at 7:39 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by burden at 7:39 AM on June 3, 2015
five fresh fish: "TL;DR: we will never put a man on the moon!"
TL;DR: Fusion is only 20 years away!
posted by Chrysostom at 7:58 AM on June 3, 2015
TL;DR: Fusion is only 20 years away!
posted by Chrysostom at 7:58 AM on June 3, 2015
Well, man-made fusion was achieved in 1951. I expect you mean cold fusion, which may or may not be impossible.
Self-driving cars? Perfectly possible.
posted by maxsparber at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Self-driving cars? Perfectly possible.
posted by maxsparber at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
When I see one automated truck clogging the left lane going 65.3 mph passing another going 65.0 mph, I'll know all the bugs have been worked out.
posted by klarck at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by klarck at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I know this was meant in jest, but the idea that we have to work out all the kinks has shown up in this thread a few times and it's strange to me. We literally never wait to work out all the kinks. We still haven't worked out all the kinks with driving a regular car.
It just has to work well enough.
posted by maxsparber at 8:25 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
It just has to work well enough.
posted by maxsparber at 8:25 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
maxsparber: "Well, man-made fusion was achieved in 1951. I expect you mean cold fusion, which may or may not be impossible."
No, I meant, "controlled fusion for commercial power generation." Which is the fusion meant in the saying, "Fusion is 20 years away, and always will be."
posted by Chrysostom at 9:07 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, I meant, "controlled fusion for commercial power generation." Which is the fusion meant in the saying, "Fusion is 20 years away, and always will be."
posted by Chrysostom at 9:07 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
"What's really going to be interesting is when automation moves beyond the blue collar and begins making redundant white collar workers."
This is already happening to some extent.
This has already happened to a massive extent for at least 50 years.
My father started work as an adding machine repairman. Psuedo-white collar. Then he became a computer guy. White collar. His first computer job was going into work in a suit and tie and then stripping down to his boxers and undershirt and spending his day sweating away replacing vacuum tubes and then putting his suit and tie back on to come home. Every single step of the way in his career jobs vanished. It used to take 5 guys to lift 8K of memory at one point.
Everybody forgets that every single thing used to be more labour intensive. Displacement is nothing new.
posted by srboisvert at 9:09 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is already happening to some extent.
This has already happened to a massive extent for at least 50 years.
My father started work as an adding machine repairman. Psuedo-white collar. Then he became a computer guy. White collar. His first computer job was going into work in a suit and tie and then stripping down to his boxers and undershirt and spending his day sweating away replacing vacuum tubes and then putting his suit and tie back on to come home. Every single step of the way in his career jobs vanished. It used to take 5 guys to lift 8K of memory at one point.
Everybody forgets that every single thing used to be more labour intensive. Displacement is nothing new.
posted by srboisvert at 9:09 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, I meant, "controlled fusion for commercial power generation." Which is the fusion meant in the saying, "Fusion is 20 years away, and always will be."
Well, it's still apples to oranges, whatever you meant by it. This is closer to "will we achieve flight" than "will we safely have atoms exploding near us."
posted by maxsparber at 9:11 AM on June 3, 2015
Well, it's still apples to oranges, whatever you meant by it. This is closer to "will we achieve flight" than "will we safely have atoms exploding near us."
posted by maxsparber at 9:11 AM on June 3, 2015
Every self-driving car thread seems to rehash the same pro and con arguments again and again. Maybe this is why they get fighty?
posted by rustcrumb at 9:17 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by rustcrumb at 9:17 AM on June 3, 2015
What's really going to be interesting is when automation moves beyond the blue collar and begins making redundant white collar workers.
Seriously? AT&T used to tally monthly bills BY HAND. They had buildings full of people sending out bills. And yet after decades of increasing automation there are still accountants.
White collar workers strike back by getting governments to pass increasingly complex regulations which make them a requirement even for tiny businesses and in ever-expanding areas.
posted by GuyZero at 9:18 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously? AT&T used to tally monthly bills BY HAND. They had buildings full of people sending out bills. And yet after decades of increasing automation there are still accountants.
White collar workers strike back by getting governments to pass increasingly complex regulations which make them a requirement even for tiny businesses and in ever-expanding areas.
posted by GuyZero at 9:18 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Stuff where human have to fight thermodynamic (or related fluid mechanic) issues is really hard: batteries, fusion both fall in this category.
Stuff where there's a clear problem definition and the issues are informational or model-based: much of computer science, early 1900s chemistry, late 1900s molecular biology, humans tend to make rapid advances in.
There are no thermodynamic/physical limit issues in autonomous driving. I think issues defining the problem so that a good model can be built has been the major roadblock, as with more general forms of AI.
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Stuff where there's a clear problem definition and the issues are informational or model-based: much of computer science, early 1900s chemistry, late 1900s molecular biology, humans tend to make rapid advances in.
There are no thermodynamic/physical limit issues in autonomous driving. I think issues defining the problem so that a good model can be built has been the major roadblock, as with more general forms of AI.
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't understand the motivation of the people who say it can never happen. Maybe it won't happen in 5, or 10, or 20 years, but even so, betting that it can never happen seems like a sucker's bet. It's going to be possible someday, barring some kind of intervening catastrophe or big social change. Closing your eyes and saying "won't gonna happen" or, worse, "won't happen in my lifetime, so why should I care?" is just obstructing the real discussion and extrapolation of consequences that needs to eventually happen.
posted by newdaddy at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by newdaddy at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is a super-compelling economic reason for it to happen: Truckers earn a median annual wage of $37,930, and there are 3.5 million of them in the United States. Automate trucking and the industry has an automatic reduction of $140,600,000,000 in annual expenses.
If the history of labor shows anything, it's that businesses will always not pay someone when they can not pay them.
This will happen, and sooner rather than later.
posted by maxsparber at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
If the history of labor shows anything, it's that businesses will always not pay someone when they can not pay them.
This will happen, and sooner rather than later.
posted by maxsparber at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is anyone actually saying that it can never happen? Have I missed something in this thread? What I see is a discussion between people saying "it's right on the brink of happening" and people saying "it's going to take a long time".
I fall in the latter camp, because engineering projects like this are always harder than they look, and there's a very clear pattern in the development of new technologies. There's an early breakthrough which demonstrates that something is possible, everyone hyperventilates about the amazing new future which is just around the corner and speculates in the wildest possible terms about its implications, then it takes decades before all the kinks are worked out and the technology goes mainstream, at which point capitalism takes over and the whole transformation happens in about a decade. After that, everyone forgets that it was ever a big deal.
We're still in the "hyperventilating" part of the curve. Semi-autonomous cars are an evolutionary step which is already happening and will continue to develop, steadily and progressively, without attracting a whole lot of fuss; but it will be a long time before we have fleets of fully autonomous vehicles roaming the roads and transforming our transportation infrastructure in all the various ways people love to speculate about.
People pointing out the ubiquity of pocket computers are missing the fact that the Star Trek tricorder preceded the iPhone by forty years.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I fall in the latter camp, because engineering projects like this are always harder than they look, and there's a very clear pattern in the development of new technologies. There's an early breakthrough which demonstrates that something is possible, everyone hyperventilates about the amazing new future which is just around the corner and speculates in the wildest possible terms about its implications, then it takes decades before all the kinks are worked out and the technology goes mainstream, at which point capitalism takes over and the whole transformation happens in about a decade. After that, everyone forgets that it was ever a big deal.
We're still in the "hyperventilating" part of the curve. Semi-autonomous cars are an evolutionary step which is already happening and will continue to develop, steadily and progressively, without attracting a whole lot of fuss; but it will be a long time before we have fleets of fully autonomous vehicles roaming the roads and transforming our transportation infrastructure in all the various ways people love to speculate about.
People pointing out the ubiquity of pocket computers are missing the fact that the Star Trek tricorder preceded the iPhone by forty years.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Whoops, you went from a solid 20 years, which did indeed get people a little fighty, to 5 to 10 years,
Although I now realize your purpose seems to be only to be fighty :( ("someone's wrong on the internet!") you really should not selectively pick and choose words from a quote as anyone can go back to that actual post and see I still actually say a 15 year time frame. Such a thing is best suited to Redditt
Whether it be 15 or 20 years the actual point is that it is not going to affect anyone here in the near future at all.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 11:04 AM on June 3, 2015
Although I now realize your purpose seems to be only to be fighty :( ("someone's wrong on the internet!") you really should not selectively pick and choose words from a quote as anyone can go back to that actual post and see I still actually say a 15 year time frame. Such a thing is best suited to Redditt
Whether it be 15 or 20 years the actual point is that it is not going to affect anyone here in the near future at all.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 11:04 AM on June 3, 2015
People pointing out the ubiquity of pocket computers are missing the fact that the Star Trek tricorder preceded the iPhone by forty years.
Or, if you want to get technical about it, the iPhone precedes the tricorder by about 230 years.
posted by hippybear at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Or, if you want to get technical about it, the iPhone precedes the tricorder by about 230 years.
posted by hippybear at 11:33 AM on June 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
businesses will always not pay someone when they can not pay them.
Well, only when people are more expensive than automation. This is not always the case. (And the automation's not always feasible. See also: garment workers.)
posted by asperity at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2015
Well, only when people are more expensive than automation. This is not always the case. (And the automation's not always feasible. See also: garment workers.)
posted by asperity at 11:39 AM on June 3, 2015
Things like analogizing the current state of self-driving vehicle technology to the state of pocket-sized gigaflop-power general-purpose computers in 1966 (or however tricorders are being compared to iPhones) or claims from the beginning of the thread like it's "not currently technologically feasible" just seem completely ridiculous to me, as though the people making these statements are either including some sort of bizarrely hair-splitting caveats, are positing some extensive conspiracy to fabricate even video footage from many different sources, or are else unaware of what was already being done ten years ago in the DARPA Grand Challenge for example, much less what's being done by dozens of companies presently.
It's kind of like someone who saw the Trinity test saying "well maybe in a few decades, but nuclear weapons are an untried technology and there's no proof that they'll have a material impact on war or the rest of the world, at least not any time soon." (Though really, the equivalent of the Trinity test is more like back around the time of the DARPA Grand Challenge and we are many engineering cycles beyond that now.)
posted by XMLicious at 11:58 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's kind of like someone who saw the Trinity test saying "well maybe in a few decades, but nuclear weapons are an untried technology and there's no proof that they'll have a material impact on war or the rest of the world, at least not any time soon." (Though really, the equivalent of the Trinity test is more like back around the time of the DARPA Grand Challenge and we are many engineering cycles beyond that now.)
posted by XMLicious at 11:58 AM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
According to my partner (whose father-in-law drives a truck), there's no centralized database detailing what roads are legal for trucks of a given weight to drive on or not drive on (which is regulated at a federal, state, and local level). Whoever assembles that data first to sell to Google (or whoever) will be doing a lot of the real work of letting robots drive big trucks places...
posted by rivenwanderer at 1:15 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by rivenwanderer at 1:15 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yay. Feel free to prove my skepticism wrong by making tons of money investing in companies producing fully-autonomous cars. Let me know when you find one who is shipping an actual product and not just demoing a research prototype.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:57 PM on June 3, 2015
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:57 PM on June 3, 2015
I find cars driven by people deeply unsettling. There is something about reaching an intersection, having the right of way, making eye-contact beforehand and seeing/getting the feeling that this person a few feet away is about to straight up murder you.
I really, really cant wait for the robot cars because I'm convinced that a large part of accidents are caused by people intent on hurting others.
posted by uandt at 2:28 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I really, really cant wait for the robot cars because I'm convinced that a large part of accidents are caused by people intent on hurting others.
posted by uandt at 2:28 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nobody in this thread is unaware of the Google car. The videos are impressive, but they show the car driving in excellent conditions on roads that are not at all normal in that they have been meticulously modeled/mapped at great expense. And besides that, the videos were edited by Google; we simply don't know if less-impressive footage wound up on the digital cutting room floor.
Again, happy to be wrong, but I don't see the technology out there that will make the meticulous modeling/mapping necessary affordable for any but the most frequently-traveled or simple routes.
posted by burden at 2:31 PM on June 3, 2015
Again, happy to be wrong, but I don't see the technology out there that will make the meticulous modeling/mapping necessary affordable for any but the most frequently-traveled or simple routes.
posted by burden at 2:31 PM on June 3, 2015
Again, happy to be wrong, but I don't see the technology out there that will make the meticulous modeling/mapping necessary affordable for any but the most frequently-traveled or simple routes.
It's as simple as erring on the side of deploying the brakes.
That's it. Google has done that, but they've also mapped the routes they actually use, so at this phase the cars won't "err" as often.
posted by ocschwar at 2:36 PM on June 3, 2015
Yay. Feel free to prove my skepticism wrong by making tons of money investing in companies producing fully-autonomous cars.
When you're presented with evidence but don't bother engaging with that evidence, I don't think you get to call yourself skeptical anymore.
posted by skewed at 2:38 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
When you're presented with evidence but don't bother engaging with that evidence, I don't think you get to call yourself skeptical anymore.
posted by skewed at 2:38 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's as simple as erring on the side of deploying the brakes.
I don't know where you're getting this, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, I'll set aside the possibility that the self-driven car hitting the brakes would cause a following car to rear-end the automatic car, since presumably there'd be a sensor in the back that would help prevent it by telling the CPU to brake slowly (if possible). But this article says that the Google cars can't always tell when it's safe to make a left turn into a high-speed stream of traffic. Now, from a safety perspective, it's fine for the car to decide to not make the turn until conditions are completely clear. But from the perspective of someone sitting behind the automatic car, that result is going to be extremely annoying, bordering on unacceptable. Let it happen to a mayor or governor once or twice and time how long the cars are allowed to continue operating.
I think Google Street View is extremely impressive, but I don't think it's a direct analogue because, in my estimation, the creation of GSV is orders of magnitude easier than the kind of intensive mapping required for the Google car to operate. Now, it's definitely possible that Google or someone will have some breakthrough that makes the intensive mapping much easier and cheaper, but the tech to do it affordably is not currently in existence or in the pipeline, as far as I can tell.
posted by burden at 2:54 PM on June 3, 2015
I don't know where you're getting this, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, I'll set aside the possibility that the self-driven car hitting the brakes would cause a following car to rear-end the automatic car, since presumably there'd be a sensor in the back that would help prevent it by telling the CPU to brake slowly (if possible). But this article says that the Google cars can't always tell when it's safe to make a left turn into a high-speed stream of traffic. Now, from a safety perspective, it's fine for the car to decide to not make the turn until conditions are completely clear. But from the perspective of someone sitting behind the automatic car, that result is going to be extremely annoying, bordering on unacceptable. Let it happen to a mayor or governor once or twice and time how long the cars are allowed to continue operating.
I think Google Street View is extremely impressive, but I don't think it's a direct analogue because, in my estimation, the creation of GSV is orders of magnitude easier than the kind of intensive mapping required for the Google car to operate. Now, it's definitely possible that Google or someone will have some breakthrough that makes the intensive mapping much easier and cheaper, but the tech to do it affordably is not currently in existence or in the pipeline, as far as I can tell.
posted by burden at 2:54 PM on June 3, 2015
If you rear end somebody it's almost always your own fault. I mean even now you always have to be prepared for sudden unforeseen breaking if a deer hops in front of the car in front of you or something. Follow at a safe distance.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:17 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:17 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
What evidence is it that you believe I'm failing to engage with?
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:35 PM on June 3, 2015
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:35 PM on June 3, 2015
I was referring to your response to odinsdream's two posts, which you responded to with "yay".
posted by skewed at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2015
posted by skewed at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2015
But from the perspective of someone sitting behind the automatic car, that result is going to be extremely annoying, bordering on unacceptable.
Which is why they'll have an easy manual override until that problem gets solved. You'll just grab the wheel and hit the gas to make the turn when YOU decide it's safe and, once you're underway again, hit a button to put it back in automatic mode.
posted by VTX at 3:45 PM on June 3, 2015
Which is why they'll have an easy manual override until that problem gets solved. You'll just grab the wheel and hit the gas to make the turn when YOU decide it's safe and, once you're underway again, hit a button to put it back in automatic mode.
posted by VTX at 3:45 PM on June 3, 2015
I had already seen both videos.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:47 PM on June 3, 2015
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:47 PM on June 3, 2015
But this article says that the Google cars can't always tell when it's safe to make a left turn into a high-speed stream of traffic.
What it actually says after listing off "obstacles" to Google's work is
[director of the Google car team]So the idea that Google's system has trouble making that sort of turn would appear to be a guess on the part of a non-Google academic.Urmson says these sorts of questions might be unresolved simply because engineers haven’t yet gotten to them.
But researchers say the unsolved problems will become increasingly difficult. For example, John Leonard, an MIT expert on autonomous driving, says he wonders about scenarios that may be beyond the capabilities of current sensors, such as making a left turn into a high-speed stream of oncoming traffic.
I also note that although the author seems to be trying to make it sound as though they're talking about general technological limitations he or she very pointedly mentions "the Google Self-Driving Car, model year 2014" at the beginning.
posted by XMLicious at 4:00 PM on June 3, 2015
But from the perspective of someone sitting behind the automatic car, that result is going to be extremely annoying, bordering on unacceptable.
Which is why they'll have an easy manual override until that problem gets solved.
There's also the UPS method of minimizing the left turns its drivers need to make.
posted by Etrigan at 4:02 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which is why they'll have an easy manual override until that problem gets solved.
There's also the UPS method of minimizing the left turns its drivers need to make.
posted by Etrigan at 4:02 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't know where you're getting this, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, I'll set aside the possibility that the self-driven car hitting the brakes would cause a following car to rear-end the automatic car, since presumably there'd be a sensor in the back that would help prevent it by telling the CPU to brake slowly (if possible). But this article says that the Google cars can't always tell when it's safe to make a left turn into a high-speed stream of traffic. Now, from a safety perspective, it's fine for the car to decide to not make the turn until conditions are completely clear. But from the perspective of someone sitting behind the automatic car, that result is going to be extremely annoying, bordering on unacceptable. Let it happen to a mayor or governor once or twice and time how long the cars are allowed to continue operating.
See, that's the thing. Autonomous cars can be a nuisance when they insist on slowing down, but not a danger.
The Google cars have cameras and lots of object recognition software. That software doesn't just classify what it sees. It also assigns a numerical confidence to every classification. And you can be sure that if a Google care left the intensely-mapped routes Google made, those confidence measures drop.
So it's a simple matter of slowing down when confidence declines. Then, once you're at the annoying 15MPH speed range, if something really goes wrong, hitting the brakes is easy, with very little risk of injury to passengers or of being rear ended.
Okay, so you might be fuming at sharing the road with a Sunday Robot Driver, but what happens when most cars are autonomous? They won't just be looking at each other. Theyy'll be communicating position, speed, and intentions to each other. It's pretty easy to get them to dance a nice 15MPH ballet. And if anything goes wrong, you get dings. Bruises at worst. No. More. Deaths.
Now, about that 15MPH speed: that's how ambulances travel when they carry patients. 15MPH is seriously fast when you don't have to stop for traffic. A city with autonomous cars can get a lot of business done efficiently with a 15MPH speed limit.
posted by ocschwar at 5:27 PM on June 3, 2015 [7 favorites]
Genuine question - is there any evidence that the Google car works at all on streets that have not been intensively mapped? Have they tried to turn it loose on unmapped streets under controlled conditions? How'd it go?
This article, from last month, says that the Google prototype minicar can't travel anywhere without the detailed maps, but I'm not sure if that is true of the Lexus models as well.
If you think people will put up with automatic cars slowing traffic to 15 mph until "most cars are autonomous," I think you're a little too optimistic about human nature. I think the political pressure to ban the vehicles until they learn how to drive more like humans do would be completely irresistible.
posted by burden at 6:22 PM on June 3, 2015
This article, from last month, says that the Google prototype minicar can't travel anywhere without the detailed maps, but I'm not sure if that is true of the Lexus models as well.
If you think people will put up with automatic cars slowing traffic to 15 mph until "most cars are autonomous," I think you're a little too optimistic about human nature. I think the political pressure to ban the vehicles until they learn how to drive more like humans do would be completely irresistible.
posted by burden at 6:22 PM on June 3, 2015
Humans drive like idiots though, that's the whole point. If a car is going 15 mph and it's annoying you, pass it if conditions warrant...the same thing you do now when the mail truck is in the way.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:35 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:35 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
But there would be no one to flip off! How the hell do you expect me to register my displeasure against some robot?
posted by Etrigan at 6:38 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 6:38 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
People are missing one of the killer apps that will speed the adoption of self-driving cars: Sex.
When cars effectively become private limos with built-in no-tell robotic chauffeurs, invest in companies offering window tinting and fully reclinable seating.
posted by fings at 7:11 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
When cars effectively become private limos with built-in no-tell robotic chauffeurs, invest in companies offering window tinting and fully reclinable seating.
posted by fings at 7:11 PM on June 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
But as autonomous cars get more popular, they'll also keep developing. By the time it gets to be any sort of significant problem, the "safety mode" for the car might be as fast as 30mph.
I do think that when we get to a point where most cars are autonomous, they will talk to each other and that will create a significant security risk if someone figures out how to mess with the software to make them all crash or something.
But, assuming that problem is surmounted, it will have huge impact on travel. Just think about how much faster and much closer cars will be able to safely drive when all the cars know not only what's going on a few miles down the road but they know exactly what each of the other cars on the road with them are doing. Cars will merge onto the interstate and make turns against traffic seamlessly. The cars will have worked out ahead of time how fast they all need to go in order for them all to get the time right so that they don't even have to stop at an intersection.
There are going to be more problems to overcome as these things develop but they WILL be surmounted. It's not like google is just going to make an announcement one day that "it's ready" and BOOM cars drive themselves. It will be, as many have already pointed out up thread, an evolution. An evolution that has already started and more and more things have become totally automated (like self parking) or heavily aid the driver (dynamic stability control).
posted by VTX at 7:34 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I do think that when we get to a point where most cars are autonomous, they will talk to each other and that will create a significant security risk if someone figures out how to mess with the software to make them all crash or something.
But, assuming that problem is surmounted, it will have huge impact on travel. Just think about how much faster and much closer cars will be able to safely drive when all the cars know not only what's going on a few miles down the road but they know exactly what each of the other cars on the road with them are doing. Cars will merge onto the interstate and make turns against traffic seamlessly. The cars will have worked out ahead of time how fast they all need to go in order for them all to get the time right so that they don't even have to stop at an intersection.
There are going to be more problems to overcome as these things develop but they WILL be surmounted. It's not like google is just going to make an announcement one day that "it's ready" and BOOM cars drive themselves. It will be, as many have already pointed out up thread, an evolution. An evolution that has already started and more and more things have become totally automated (like self parking) or heavily aid the driver (dynamic stability control).
posted by VTX at 7:34 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a halfway stage in which most of the work of driving a long-haul route can be done by a souped-up cruise-control. I bet a computer could save a significant amount of fuel and wear-and-tear, and the driver could take a nap for hours at a time, only taking the controls when it's time to leave the highway. That would mean that the truck wouldn't need to be idle while the driver takes a mandated break, and the system could pay for itself almost immediately.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:38 AM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:38 AM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
People pointing out the ubiquity of pocket computers are missing the fact that the Star Trek tricorder preceded the iPhone by forty years.
I can't figure out what point you were trying to make with this statement.
Since a lot of people seem to be missing my point: I will clarify why I brought up "pocket computers."
I was pointing out the advances in microprocessors that have occurred just in the last few decades. We have naysayers in this thread using phrases like "not in our lifetimes."
I'm 41 years old. In my lifetime, computers have gone from being huge room-filling beasts to something ubiquitous that a great many people carry around every day in their pockets.
Connect the dots here. Self driving cars use computers to navigate. They perform a great many calculations, and then decide the best course of action to take. Maybe they need to be able to perform more calculations, or think faster. That's fine. Computers are getting faster and better all the time.
Once again, we have self driving car prototypes that have gone from concept to reality in ten years. Yes, they are still prototypes. Yes, limitations still exist. But they are real cars driving around right now, being tested and developed right now.
Self-driving cars don't need to be 100% perfect. They just need to be better at driving than humans. And people are really shitty drivers in general. It's a low bar.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:15 AM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't figure out what point you were trying to make with this statement.
Since a lot of people seem to be missing my point: I will clarify why I brought up "pocket computers."
I was pointing out the advances in microprocessors that have occurred just in the last few decades. We have naysayers in this thread using phrases like "not in our lifetimes."
I'm 41 years old. In my lifetime, computers have gone from being huge room-filling beasts to something ubiquitous that a great many people carry around every day in their pockets.
Connect the dots here. Self driving cars use computers to navigate. They perform a great many calculations, and then decide the best course of action to take. Maybe they need to be able to perform more calculations, or think faster. That's fine. Computers are getting faster and better all the time.
Once again, we have self driving car prototypes that have gone from concept to reality in ten years. Yes, they are still prototypes. Yes, limitations still exist. But they are real cars driving around right now, being tested and developed right now.
Self-driving cars don't need to be 100% perfect. They just need to be better at driving than humans. And people are really shitty drivers in general. It's a low bar.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:15 AM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
One thing that puzzles me is why trains still have drivers. If so much progress has been made in the much harder computational task of navigating urban roads, why do we still need train drivers whose job is (largely) to just accelerate and decelerate at appropriate times?
Upgrading trains is a hugely costly affair. You need to upgrade a lot of stuff at the same time, and train companies are often unable to make such huge investments. A lot of the signals use very old technology. The add unions and all kinds of regulations.
But you can upgrade one truck at a time. You don't need to upgrade all trucks at the same time, and you don't have to pay anything to upgrade the roads.
The metro in Copenhagen is driverless because it was designed to be driverless from the start. Looking out of the front of the train. This is not the end of the train, this is the drivers non-existing seat! The two persons are passengers.
posted by flif at 7:12 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Upgrading trains is a hugely costly affair. You need to upgrade a lot of stuff at the same time, and train companies are often unable to make such huge investments. A lot of the signals use very old technology. The add unions and all kinds of regulations.
But you can upgrade one truck at a time. You don't need to upgrade all trucks at the same time, and you don't have to pay anything to upgrade the roads.
The metro in Copenhagen is driverless because it was designed to be driverless from the start. Looking out of the front of the train. This is not the end of the train, this is the drivers non-existing seat! The two persons are passengers.
posted by flif at 7:12 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, there remain some fairly rational people even among the very rich that realize that if nobody but them has any money, they can't sell the things that made them rich.
Anyone who thinks that automation will lead to a Universal Basic Income doesn't actually understand the punt of automation.
Consider this: you can go through the inefficient and complicated process of giving wealth to a worker, who gives money to a salesperson, who pays to have goods shipped from a factory, which is paid to manufacture goods, which eventually gives you wealth. Or, you can use a computer to transfer wealth to you directly-no middlemen, no inefficiencies. Given that, went choose to be less efficient?
So the end goal will be automated factories producing goods that are sold online, and automatically shipped to the customers. With minimal human intervention at any step of the process. We will probably be able to get by with only a third or less of our current population. And why pay the surplus when you can put them in favelas or prison?
posted by happyroach at 11:08 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyone who thinks that automation will lead to a Universal Basic Income doesn't actually understand the punt of automation.
Consider this: you can go through the inefficient and complicated process of giving wealth to a worker, who gives money to a salesperson, who pays to have goods shipped from a factory, which is paid to manufacture goods, which eventually gives you wealth. Or, you can use a computer to transfer wealth to you directly-no middlemen, no inefficiencies. Given that, went choose to be less efficient?
So the end goal will be automated factories producing goods that are sold online, and automatically shipped to the customers. With minimal human intervention at any step of the process. We will probably be able to get by with only a third or less of our current population. And why pay the surplus when you can put them in favelas or prison?
posted by happyroach at 11:08 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
And now you know the premise of Terminator: Genisys: SkyNet was actually accidentally created by Amazon and Google.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on June 4, 2015
Self-driving cars don't need to be 100% perfect. They just need to be better at driving than humans.
That might be true from a rational and technical standpoint, but I don't think it's true from a political standpoint. I expect a lot of irrational objections to robot cars mixed in with rational prudence. A couple nasty accidents would make it a lot easier to rally political support against legalizing robot cars, no matter how safe they are statistically.
For robot cars to be legal, they're going to have to be much, much better at driving than humans, probably pretty close to 100% perfect.
posted by straight at 9:11 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
That might be true from a rational and technical standpoint, but I don't think it's true from a political standpoint. I expect a lot of irrational objections to robot cars mixed in with rational prudence. A couple nasty accidents would make it a lot easier to rally political support against legalizing robot cars, no matter how safe they are statistically.
For robot cars to be legal, they're going to have to be much, much better at driving than humans, probably pretty close to 100% perfect.
posted by straight at 9:11 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
This idea that self-driving cars will face enormous political and legal hurdles because of public irrationality is also a common argument in these discussions. I don't think it really stands up.
When we get to the point where autonomous cars are as safe as human drivers, preventing their use will become political suicide. Business isn't going to put up with stonewalling on an issue that would be so profitable. I guess if the realities of the cars made them only marginally profitable, there might not be enough money behind the effort. But as long as they prove to be hugely profitable, I think they will be legal almost everywhere, almost immediately.
posted by skewed at 10:00 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
When we get to the point where autonomous cars are as safe as human drivers, preventing their use will become political suicide. Business isn't going to put up with stonewalling on an issue that would be so profitable. I guess if the realities of the cars made them only marginally profitable, there might not be enough money behind the effort. But as long as they prove to be hugely profitable, I think they will be legal almost everywhere, almost immediately.
posted by skewed at 10:00 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I personally think that any legal and political obstacles will be very temporary. While the rest of us are waiting for cars capable of evading Raiders of the Lost Ark boulders rolling down the streets the number of people who are familiar with self-driving cars who have encountered age-related reasons why they can no longer drive, and know that the only thing keeping them from being able to get to their doctor's appointments themselves and from going to the supermarket to get food is everyone else's squeamishness, is just going to keep growing.
Those are the people who are often quite willing to support policies that keep infirm-due-to-age-or-illness human drivers who are worse than the average human driver on the road for the same purposes.
posted by XMLicious at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those are the people who are often quite willing to support policies that keep infirm-due-to-age-or-illness human drivers who are worse than the average human driver on the road for the same purposes.
posted by XMLicious at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
The law is incredibly hard to predict. We could end up with a national body that reviews and certifies automated vehicles, and provides liability regulation that make it reasonable for companies to produce them (not unlike the FAA does for aviation). Or we could stick our heads in the sand like we have with high-speed rail, broadband Internet, fuel efficient cars, or many other areas where the government has utterly failed to lay the groundwork for companies to compete. If we don't do it, some other country will -- but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll ever get around to copying them.
posted by miyabo at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2015
posted by miyabo at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2015
I wonder whether people were similarly worried about the first automatic elevators. "What happens if the automatic circuits fail?" And really, people have been killed by malfunctioning elevators, usually because they try to exit them in an unsafe fashion. Elevator operators would have saved those lives, probably. I remember older buildings with elevator operators, but the convenience of automatic elevators has been judged to justify the risk. XMLicious' argument about older drivers is a powerful one: old people are a huge lobby, and they vote. All my older relatives are worried about the loss of independence that comes from being unable to drive. They'd love robotic cars.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:44 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:44 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Freightliner unveils the first road-legal self-driving truck
posted by jason_steakums at 5:36 PM on June 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 5:36 PM on June 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older Nearly 700 in South Korea quarantined for MERS | 'Key word is “seemed” in that sentence. But thank... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
.If the truck needs help, it’ll alert the driver. If the driver doesn’t respond, it’ll slowly pull over and wait for further instruction
So, uh, it needs a driver.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:15 PM on June 2, 2015 [12 favorites]