4 ms·

If driverless trucks were to be such a transformer of economies, we'd have seen that many more trains and railroads appear, decades ago. This is all just more

If driverless trucks were to be such a transformer of economies, we'd have seen that many more trains and railroads appear, decades ago. This is all just more puff about the massive campaign pushing for autonomous vehicles. Any publicity is good publicity. But let's not pretend we're being given a choice about this driverless car thing.

awjr 10y ago
With the number of deaths caused by human controlled cars, I do not think we humans deserve a choice when it comes to driverless cars. It is going to become very easy to revoke somebody's licence for dangerous driving given that this does not affect their ability to drive from A to B.
pkaye 10y ago
It will probably follow the Gartner Hype Cycle. After the initial peak of excitement for autonomous vehicles, there will be a trough of disillusionment where we realize everyone was too optimistic. But eventually the bugs and limitations will be worked out over decades of engineering of the vehicles and our road infrastructure before meaningful replacement of workers.
bertil 10y ago
> This is all just more puff about the massive campaign pushing for autonomous vehicles. Any publicity is good publicity. Certainly cynical, but not necessarily a wrong interpretation. > But let's not pretend we're being given a choice about this driverless car thing. We will not have a choice on whether automation cost are much cheaper than human driving, indeed — but we have two choices: - should we tax automation? if yes, should it be so that humans remain cheaper (probably a terrible idea) or enough to have enough to help recently out-of-work workers to re-train? - what should do with recently out-of-work workers? In the case of drivers, that is less essential than it would seem, as many are ageing and retirement is a possible option. (Hence my intuition that Unions are not that worried, and this could be puff for automation.) However, there are two generations who have been trained for a labor-intensive world that will need re-training. What and how we handle that is important, and it is our choice.
- vkou 10y ago
  Re-train to do what? Be live-in servants for the owner of the robot-staffed business? And while we're at it, when are we going to get around to retraining the millions of people in the Rust Belt, who were already put out of work?
  - bertil 10y ago
    Fixing robots, build or design custom furniture, something related to space-exploration? I work for Deliveroo (an equivalent of DoorDash/Seemless/UberEats) and our riders need a fairly new set of skills — not unlike courier — that are not yet really doable by a drone. Training those riders; being a rider and figuring out which properties drones should have to take some of the workload… all those are skills that are not directly technical, but are empowered by automation.
- eru 10y ago
  Why tax automation? We want more automation, not less. Tax land rent. Supply is fixed, so no economic distortions.
  - bertil 10y ago
    The article seems to worry that automation would have negative externalities.
    - eru 10y ago
      Oh, ok. Might want to tax those to internalize the cost, if they indeed exist.

awjr 10y ago

With the number of deaths caused by human controlled cars, I do not think we humans deserve a choice when it comes to driverless cars. It is going to become very easy to revoke somebody's licence for dangerous driving given that this does not affect their ability to drive from A to B.

pkaye 10y ago

It will probably follow the Gartner Hype Cycle. After the initial peak of excitement for autonomous vehicles, there will be a trough of disillusionment where we realize everyone was too optimistic. But eventually the bugs and limitations will be worked out over decades of engineering of the vehicles and our road infrastructure before meaningful replacement of workers.

bertil 10y ago

> This is all just more puff about the massive campaign pushing for autonomous vehicles. Any publicity is good publicity. Certainly cynical, but not necessarily a wrong interpretation. > But let's not pretend we're being given a choice about this driverless car thing. We will not have a choice on whether automation cost are much cheaper than human driving, indeed — but we have two choices: - should we tax automation? if yes, should it be so that humans remain cheaper (probably a terrible idea) or enough to have enough to help recently out-of-work workers to re-train? - what should do with recently out-of-work workers? In the case of drivers, that is less essential than it would seem, as many are ageing and retirement is a possible option. (Hence my intuition that Unions are not that worried, and this could be puff for automation.) However, there are two generations who have been trained for a labor-intensive world that will need re-training. What and how we handle that is important, and it is our choice.

vkou 10y ago
Re-train to do what? Be live-in servants for the owner of the robot-staffed business? And while we're at it, when are we going to get around to retraining the millions of people in the Rust Belt, who were already put out of work?
- bertil 10y ago
  Fixing robots, build or design custom furniture, something related to space-exploration? I work for Deliveroo (an equivalent of DoorDash/Seemless/UberEats) and our riders need a fairly new set of skills — not unlike courier — that are not yet really doable by a drone. Training those riders; being a rider and figuring out which properties drones should have to take some of the workload… all those are skills that are not directly technical, but are empowered by automation.
eru 10y ago
Why tax automation? We want more automation, not less. Tax land rent. Supply is fixed, so no economic distortions.
- bertil 10y ago
  The article seems to worry that automation would have negative externalities.
  - eru 10y ago
    Oh, ok. Might want to tax those to internalize the cost, if they indeed exist.