5 ms·

I'm not sure how the rest of it will pan out, but we are right on the cusp of a pretty significant job takeover by robots. Truck drivers. Consider that we alre

by ryandvm 17y ago

I'm not sure how the rest of it will pan out, but we are right on the cusp of a pretty significant job takeover by robots. Truck drivers. Consider that we already have vehicles (in prototype) that can outperform a human behind the wheel. Hell, Stanford is sending an Audi TT up Pike's Peak at 100+ mph (http://bit.ly/9akGU1 http://bit.ly/9akGU1). And consider that truck drivers are basically meat-based robots anyway inasmuch as they are all practically interchangeable. Once the first trucking company gets the idea to start replacing drivers, that's going to put them at such an insane competitive advantage that the rest of the industry will have no choice but to follow suit. No downtime, no accidents, far cheaper, no irresponsible behavior. Once the process is started, the entire delivery driver industry is going to be obsoleted within 12 years. That will be the first time a massive number of people perk up their eyebrows and start wondering if their job is far behind...

gridspy 17y ago
It gets more exciting when you have companies creating robotic forklifts (http://www.inro.co.nz/automated-forklift/ http://www.inro.co.nz/automated-forklift/), so the end-to-end manufacturing, loading, shipping and unloading could potentially all be automated. I wonder if a robo-shipping vessel would be next? With radar, anti-pirating water cannons and no accessible decks, galley, etc it would be a huge boon for shipping. Then again, I don't know how uneventful those journeys are. Hopefully the govt can step up with some way of re-educating employees obsoleted industries into something that interests those citizens.
- philk 17y ago
  To be honest I imagine that a robo-shipping vessel would be easier to create than robo-trucks. for several reasons: * The ships are larger and more expensive and hence the add on expense is smaller, comparatively * There's less traffic around and the traffic that is around is likely to have on board beacons, etc * The ships already have more sophisticated instrumentation than trucks (radar, etc)
  - cubix 17y ago
    Also, I would imagine docking would be the hard part. You could have a local human crew take over that part, perhaps.
    - nradov 17y ago
      That's already done. Most large ports require a licensed local pilot to board each ship and guide it in and out.
  - alex_stoddard 17y ago
    But there are also vulnerable to piracy.
    - philk 17y ago
      Big cargo ships are already vulnerable to piracy and the handful of crew on board does little more than give the pirates some hostages. If the ships were fully automated, and remote controlled, you could simply refuse to comply with the pirates and just keep sailing wherever you planned.
      - gridspy 17y ago
        Under the assumption that the pirates could not compromise the command and control system, or simply cut the rudder and steer the ship manually. But yes, it was these points that led me to suggest robot ships.
    - noblethrasher 17y ago
      Why not robosubs?
      - philk 17y ago
        Because sealing the thing would cost a lot more money. Containerised shipping is all about reducing overall expense.
- nradov 17y ago
  Modern merchant vessels are already highly automated, to the extent that crew compensation is a fairly small component of total cargo costs. Trying to reduce the crew further would be chasing diminishing returns. While it's possible to build a vessel that navigates itself from port to port they will at least need some engineers on board to fix equipment when it breaks. It wouldn't be safe to leave a robot ship drifting powerless in mid-ocean. The crew is also able to do a lot of routine maintenance during transit. Without a crew, the ship would have to spend longer in port just to have enough maintenance time.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Interesting point. Automation will only continue as long as we can save significant amounts of labor by automating. So we can expect to see more automation in the construction of automobiles and lawn mowers, but in all likelihood the fabrication of microchips is about as automatic as it will ever get.
gridspy 17y ago
It sounds to me like you need to start a long haul company that uses robot drivers.
tcskeptic 17y ago
This assumes the Teamsters have no power, which they do. The power of the Longshoremen to prevent substantial automation (compared to other major ports) in the Port of Los Angeles and the resulting productivity deficit vs the Port of Rotterdam for example appears to be realtively durable.
- philk 17y ago
  Once the entire logistical chain is fully automated the teamsters will have much less power. After all, if you don't need workers it doesn't matter if they strike.
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    That seems to assume a (almost) simultaneous switch from manual to automatic. In reality, it would probably be done as a small test case to see how well it works and be expanded slowly. A strike during this process can still be damaging.
  - jfoutz 17y ago
    A strike seems like the perfect time to introduce automation.
    - kungfooey 17y ago
      The only thing you're not including in this equation is votes. Union leaders simply need to convince lawmakers that it's in their best interests to pass favorable legislation limiting the adoption of new technologies. It's certainly been done before.
      - philk 17y ago
        This is where America's organization as a collection of states is helpful. At least one or two states will be willing to let automation take over once it's developed, and it's effectiveness there can become leverage to spread it to other states.
- 17y ago
spc476 17y ago
You might find reading _The Box_ ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691136408/conmanlaborat-20 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691136408/conmanlabo... ) interesting. When shipping containers were first used in 1956, the various longshoreman unions were really unhappy and fought quite hard to keep the status quo.
rdtsc 17y ago
I can't even imagine the legal repercussions of giant robotic trucks killing motorists. I would be cheaper to keep hiring drivers than paying tens and hundreds of millions for wrongful death suites. After enough accidents, many municipalities and states would prohibit such trucks, that would render them useless.
- nradov 17y ago
  In the US, regulation of robotic long-haul trucks will probably be almost entirely at the federal level (interstate commerce). So I doubt municipalities will have the authority to prohibit them.
- netcan 17y ago
  Interestingly, even if the number of fatal accidents caused by robot trucks was less than the number of accidents caused by human trucks, it would be unacceptable to the public. The number of fatal accidents would have to go close to zero.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Pie in the sky idea: if politicians had spines they could pass laws that required damages given in cases of robotic accidents to be no higher than damages given in accidents caused by humans, which is an obvious and sensible solution to the problem.
    - netcan 17y ago
      We (politicians and non politicians) are not rational creatures. An airplane bomb scares us more then a .5% increase in road deaths, a shooting more then an infection, etc. I am not immune to this. Getting squashed by a robot truck scares me.
      - houseabsolute 17y ago
        Right, that's why the hope is that politicians will put aside their irrationality and do what is best for the people, even if the people don't want it. It's a pie in the sky idea because it would require politicians (and those who would replace the ones who get voted out due to popular ire) have moral backbone and courage to do unpopular but right things.

by ryandvm 17y ago

gridspy 17y ago

It gets more exciting when you have companies creating robotic forklifts (http://www.inro.co.nz/automated-forklift/ http://www.inro.co.nz/automated-forklift/), so the end-to-end manufacturing, loading, shipping and unloading could potentially all be automated. I wonder if a robo-shipping vessel would be next? With radar, anti-pirating water cannons and no accessible decks, galley, etc it would be a huge boon for shipping. Then again, I don't know how uneventful those journeys are. Hopefully the govt can step up with some way of re-educating employees obsoleted industries into something that interests those citizens.

philk 17y ago
To be honest I imagine that a robo-shipping vessel would be easier to create than robo-trucks. for several reasons: * The ships are larger and more expensive and hence the add on expense is smaller, comparatively * There's less traffic around and the traffic that is around is likely to have on board beacons, etc * The ships already have more sophisticated instrumentation than trucks (radar, etc)
- cubix 17y ago
  Also, I would imagine docking would be the hard part. You could have a local human crew take over that part, perhaps.
  - nradov 17y ago
    That's already done. Most large ports require a licensed local pilot to board each ship and guide it in and out.
- alex_stoddard 17y ago
  But there are also vulnerable to piracy.
  - philk 17y ago
    Big cargo ships are already vulnerable to piracy and the handful of crew on board does little more than give the pirates some hostages. If the ships were fully automated, and remote controlled, you could simply refuse to comply with the pirates and just keep sailing wherever you planned.
    - gridspy 17y ago
      Under the assumption that the pirates could not compromise the command and control system, or simply cut the rudder and steer the ship manually. But yes, it was these points that led me to suggest robot ships.
  - noblethrasher 17y ago
    Why not robosubs?
    - philk 17y ago
      Because sealing the thing would cost a lot more money. Containerised shipping is all about reducing overall expense.
nradov 17y ago
Modern merchant vessels are already highly automated, to the extent that crew compensation is a fairly small component of total cargo costs. Trying to reduce the crew further would be chasing diminishing returns. While it's possible to build a vessel that navigates itself from port to port they will at least need some engineers on board to fix equipment when it breaks. It wouldn't be safe to leave a robot ship drifting powerless in mid-ocean. The crew is also able to do a lot of routine maintenance during transit. Without a crew, the ship would have to spend longer in port just to have enough maintenance time.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Interesting point. Automation will only continue as long as we can save significant amounts of labor by automating. So we can expect to see more automation in the construction of automobiles and lawn mowers, but in all likelihood the fabrication of microchips is about as automatic as it will ever get.

gridspy 17y ago

It sounds to me like you need to start a long haul company that uses robot drivers.

tcskeptic 17y ago

This assumes the Teamsters have no power, which they do. The power of the Longshoremen to prevent substantial automation (compared to other major ports) in the Port of Los Angeles and the resulting productivity deficit vs the Port of Rotterdam for example appears to be realtively durable.

philk 17y ago
Once the entire logistical chain is fully automated the teamsters will have much less power. After all, if you don't need workers it doesn't matter if they strike.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  That seems to assume a (almost) simultaneous switch from manual to automatic. In reality, it would probably be done as a small test case to see how well it works and be expanded slowly. A strike during this process can still be damaging.
- jfoutz 17y ago
  A strike seems like the perfect time to introduce automation.
  - kungfooey 17y ago
    The only thing you're not including in this equation is votes. Union leaders simply need to convince lawmakers that it's in their best interests to pass favorable legislation limiting the adoption of new technologies. It's certainly been done before.
    - philk 17y ago
      This is where America's organization as a collection of states is helpful. At least one or two states will be willing to let automation take over once it's developed, and it's effectiveness there can become leverage to spread it to other states.
17y ago

spc476 17y ago

You might find reading _The Box_ ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691136408/conmanlaborat-20 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691136408/conmanlabo... ) interesting. When shipping containers were first used in 1956, the various longshoreman unions were really unhappy and fought quite hard to keep the status quo.

rdtsc 17y ago

I can't even imagine the legal repercussions of giant robotic trucks killing motorists. I would be cheaper to keep hiring drivers than paying tens and hundreds of millions for wrongful death suites. After enough accidents, many municipalities and states would prohibit such trucks, that would render them useless.

nradov 17y ago
In the US, regulation of robotic long-haul trucks will probably be almost entirely at the federal level (interstate commerce). So I doubt municipalities will have the authority to prohibit them.
netcan 17y ago
Interestingly, even if the number of fatal accidents caused by robot trucks was less than the number of accidents caused by human trucks, it would be unacceptable to the public. The number of fatal accidents would have to go close to zero.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Pie in the sky idea: if politicians had spines they could pass laws that required damages given in cases of robotic accidents to be no higher than damages given in accidents caused by humans, which is an obvious and sensible solution to the problem.
  - netcan 17y ago
    We (politicians and non politicians) are not rational creatures. An airplane bomb scares us more then a .5% increase in road deaths, a shooting more then an infection, etc. I am not immune to this. Getting squashed by a robot truck scares me.
    - houseabsolute 17y ago
      Right, that's why the hope is that politicians will put aside their irrationality and do what is best for the people, even if the people don't want it. It's a pie in the sky idea because it would require politicians (and those who would replace the ones who get voted out due to popular ire) have moral backbone and courage to do unpopular but right things.