4 ms·
The point is that at the moment we will replace all truck driving jobs in US, we are not going to replace 3.5 million individual workers, with skills that took
by pbalau 10y ago
The point is that at the moment we will replace all truck driving jobs in US, we are not going to replace 3.5 million individual workers, with skills that took a life to master, but 3.5 million jobs that a big slice of the 7 billion humans could learn to do in a couple of weeks (let's not start a debate about how far away we are from actually starting to have automatic trucks...). I don't see the point of feeling bad for these people loosing their jobs. As I don't feel bad for all the breakers that were put out of a job by the invention of air brakes (did you know that US railways took forever - and many casualties - to adopt air brakes, because they didn't want to fire breakers?)
Reading and writing where a skill at some point. So was driving. But at this point, they are necessities (maybe not driving, if you live in a civilized country). We shouldn't keep jobs around just because some people really can't do anything else. I'm not saying that we shouldn't find a way for these people to live, but keeping them employed in jobs that hold humanity back, just because, is beyond stupid.
- Pamar 10y agoThen we are talking of two different things, I am afraid. I never said or implied "we must prevent truckers from being replaced by automation". I have my own ideas on this, but it wasn't the point I was answering to. What I was trying to address was: "Yeah, in the past technology advances always created new jobs, this will happen with AI too, do not worry". And I am arguing that this time we are not sure it will work because the skill gap between - for instance - truck driver and self-driving-sensor-suite repairman is much bigger than the one between farmer and factory worker.