11 ms·

Maybe it's just that I live in Australia, a country that has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community, given t

Maybe it's just that I live in Australia, a country that has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community, given that our road fatality figures are now very low (in 2019 we had just under 1200 road deaths in a nation of 25.3M people - a low rate by world standards, particularly given how much we drive here). But I just don't see the cause for outrage over this - as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. Sure, over-work is an issue for Amazon, but it's an issue for all freight/delivery/transport companies, particularly when the company is engaging private contractors, as they can't control how long a driver works, how fatigued they are, and how much they adhere to other safety practices like seatbelts. I'm all for criticising Amazon and other companies when they really do go wrong and treat workers poorly, but what is the real evidence that this is such a case? How do we know this is anything other than a bona fide effort to ensure drivers are operating safely for the benefit of themselves and other road users? The reference to AI in the article makes it sound dystopian, but isn't this potentially better, if it just means that computation is used to detect any issues rather than having humans watching their fellow workers?

ptero 6y ago
I think the fear and the expectation (based on extensive previous experience) is that this technology, regardless of it's stated purpose, will be used to eke out a few extra seconds of efficiency from human drivers. Which will likely lead to stress and extra fatigue. In my book, automating boring and repetitive tasks is good even if it leads to some job losses. Turning humans into robots by optimizing for every bit of near-term efficiency is not. My 2c.
- thepete2 6y ago
  Yes. Notice that if the goal was really "safety" (as stated), the company does not need a "live feed" ever, a warning to the driver is enough. After all his safety is in his own best interest.
  - erikerikson 6y ago
    Maybe but the nuance of understanding and influencing complex situations through communication is beyond the scope of current AI techniques. Humans could be trained to observe and intervene in ways that will increase safety rather than increasing driver's cognitive load.
- notthemessiah 6y ago
  Corey Doctorow writes about the "turning humans into robots", or more specifically systems that "the machine uses the human for support" and describes them as "Reverse Centaurs": https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-centaur https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-... > Emmanuel Kant's "Formula of Humanity" told us that "treating people as means" was a violation of the supreme principal of morality – humans should be served automation, not harnessed to it.
EarlKing 6y ago
The outrage is twofold: 1. It's another example of Amazon blaming drivers for what Amazon themselves could control. 2. It's another example of Amazon doing something grossly invasive and of dubious effectiveness when simply tracking the hours individual drivers work and limiting them accordingly would get the job done.
- jefftk 6y ago
  1: It seems to me that this is Amazon trying to exert control, and that is part of what people are unhappy about? 2: Since drivers can work multiple jobs and do what they want with the time when they are not working for Amazon, I don't see how Amazon limiting the hours a driver works (which they likely already do) solves this problem?
Lendal 6y ago
I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From personal experience, I feel like that's what the quitting is truly about. I have quit a job before over surveillance cameras but that was back in 1980's, long before AI. The work environment there was oppressive, and not just due to the surveillance cameras. The business failed a few years later. I wasn't surprised. Blame was placed on external factors, but anyone who attempted to worked there knew it was due to the oppressive management style, of which surveillance cameras was just a tool. If this program fails, management will blame it on a failure of AI, because that is their character. But we all know that it's easy to place blame on something that can't fight back.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > berated Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety? And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?
  - bostonsre 6y ago
    > And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras. They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
> as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. That's the problem; nobody (rightfully) trusts Amazon to only have everyone's best interests at heart, or to not abuse this system. Because they have in the past, and they will in the future.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. From what I can see, other commenters agree that if this really is just a safety measure and doesn't transgress worker privacies in other ways, then it would be OK. So how about the critiques focus on ensuring that this outcome is achieved? Unless everyone really thinks that no amount of safety is worth any risk of breaches of worker privacy? To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter. But I welcome responses that explain what incentive Amazon has to expand this system beyond improving safety for drivers and other road users.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    > At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. Welcome to America, where the regulators are owned by the corporations and there's a never ending supply of hopelessly poor people desperate for jobs to replace anyone who quits. Your perspective is hopelessly naive.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      [Editing this with a re-write, as the first version was snarky, which I don't want to bring to the discussion] Your comment is unproductive as it's largely unfalsifiable ideological rhetoric (with the personal barb "hopelessly naive" thrown in to really poison the discussion). Granted: Corporate influence of government is a real issue; Corporate exploitation and mistreatment of workers is a real issue; But also: Democracy and government oversight of companies still exists, and still has a meaningful influence on the way companies operate; As does the fact that, whilst many people are struggling and desperate for work, there is not, in fact, a never-ending supply of workers who are both competent/capable of doing the work that Amazon needs, but also so poor and desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of maltreatment for an extended period of time. (If your whole argument hinges on that claim, which it seems to, you need to do some more work proving it, as it's a very big claim.) It's way late where I am so I'm exiting the discussion for some sleep, thanks.
z77dj3kl 6y ago
> ... Australia ... has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community I think this is it. Australians are okay with just about any kind of big-brother surveillance or nanny-stateism as long as it's sold to them with a good story. Australian roads are on par with other wealthy Western nations (US is an outlier), and Oz has an advantage of not having snow/ice and related hazards. The cops there are largely harassing people and raising money, it's not driven by an aim to reduce harm or protect drivers.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > it's not driven by an aim to reduce harm or protect drivers Yeah, this is false. Australians like living in a place that has safe roads, and support governments that keep things that way. It makes for well-functioning health system and a harmonious society. I agree that Australia can be too nanny-statist; that's a separate matter. But it's not true that authorities don't care about reducing harm to people. Governments/authority figures who aren't serious and sincere about this topic don't stay in office very long.
  - logifail 6y ago
    > Yeah, this is false. Australians like living in a place that has safe roads, and support governments that keep things that way (Counter-example) Approximately 70% of Germany's motorways have no speed limit, yet despite that and being very busy, they are still considered the safest roads in Germany. Full disclosure: I don't support the lack of speed limit, from personal experience when driving in Germany it appears to encourage tailgating and/or generally aggressive driving.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      Australia’s high-speed dual carriageway motorways are quite safe too, so speed by itself isn’t the issue. The riskier roads are single carriageway highways where vehicles with drowsy/impaired drivers can lose control and veer off the road into a tree or onto the other side of the road into an oncoming car. Notably, the most dangerous road in Victoria is the Western Highway, which is a single-carriageway road that joins two major cities that are about 9 hours drive apart, and is Australia’s second-busiest road for freight.
developer92 6y ago
Being constantly watched has negative psychological effects, check the old work on "panopticon" prisons.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
In my country truck drivers used to cause a lot of accidents because they were sleep depriving themselves. Now with technology every truck has a black box and their employers are heavily fined if they don't let their drivers rest enough. I don't understand the outrage either.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thesz 6y ago
Your comment prompted me to look at stats of injuries per km driven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... Australia is precisely at the middle. Right now it is 13th. So, I would like your opinion on driving in UK which has Isle of Man in it. It has much lower accidents rate per km driven. And also three times as much population. As for AI-reeve theme, AI is inherently biased - due to training sets used. Imagine being one with face expression that is a little bit closer to what AI considers not normal (slower blinking, less eye movement, etc - something like that). You certainly will be held to a higher standard than others just because chances are you will be considered not normal by AI. "I don't like your face, so I'll punish you for that" but from a robot. Russia have (and had from beginning of century if not earlier) a system that reads vital signs of train locomotive operators. It is consisted of special bracelet, pedal and series of signals. Bracelet reads heart rate and skin conductance and determines whether person has good health and is attentive. Pedal is used to tell the system that operator is attentive - it should be pressed after a signal is issued. If operator does not respond to series of signals, emergency braking is activated. That system works very well, we have rather low train accidents rate. But recently I heard about its replacement and it is all about face recognition, all for the sake of making it cheaper. And I guess it is as not good as the system employed by Amazon.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  Yeah I noticed that fatalities-per-billion VKT stat. One thing is that it's improved since the 2016 year that the Wikipedia data is from. In 2018 Australia's figure was 4.3, 7th on the list (though the UK isn't included in that report - recent UK figures seem hard to find). Australia's figure was better than the OECD average and much of Europe. But a reason for Australia's fatalities per billion VKT figure being so much higher than the UK would be its vastness, and the distances some people need travel in remote ares. According to this report [1] (see fig 1.1 - page 3), Australia's fatality rate increases dramatically the more remote you go. Presumably it's a combination of fatigue, the quality of roads and low police presence that leads to more dangerous conditions in remote areas. As for the rest of your comment, there's a huge assumption in all this that Amazon's primary goal here is punishing drivers, rather than just detecting if they're tired and activating a warning signal for their own safety. And surely as the training data includes all the drivers in their network it will become more accurate. [1] https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/international_2018.pdf https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/inter...

ptero 6y ago

I think the fear and the expectation (based on extensive previous experience) is that this technology, regardless of it's stated purpose, will be used to eke out a few extra seconds of efficiency from human drivers. Which will likely lead to stress and extra fatigue. In my book, automating boring and repetitive tasks is good even if it leads to some job losses. Turning humans into robots by optimizing for every bit of near-term efficiency is not. My 2c.

thepete2 6y ago
Yes. Notice that if the goal was really "safety" (as stated), the company does not need a "live feed" ever, a warning to the driver is enough. After all his safety is in his own best interest.
- erikerikson 6y ago
  Maybe but the nuance of understanding and influencing complex situations through communication is beyond the scope of current AI techniques. Humans could be trained to observe and intervene in ways that will increase safety rather than increasing driver's cognitive load.
notthemessiah 6y ago
Corey Doctorow writes about the "turning humans into robots", or more specifically systems that "the machine uses the human for support" and describes them as "Reverse Centaurs": https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-centaur https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-... > Emmanuel Kant's "Formula of Humanity" told us that "treating people as means" was a violation of the supreme principal of morality – humans should be served automation, not harnessed to it.

EarlKing 6y ago

The outrage is twofold: 1. It's another example of Amazon blaming drivers for what Amazon themselves could control. 2. It's another example of Amazon doing something grossly invasive and of dubious effectiveness when simply tracking the hours individual drivers work and limiting them accordingly would get the job done.

jefftk 6y ago
1: It seems to me that this is Amazon trying to exert control, and that is part of what people are unhappy about? 2: Since drivers can work multiple jobs and do what they want with the time when they are not working for Amazon, I don't see how Amazon limiting the hours a driver works (which they likely already do) solves this problem?

Lendal 6y ago

I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From personal experience, I feel like that's what the quitting is truly about. I have quit a job before over surveillance cameras but that was back in 1980's, long before AI. The work environment there was oppressive, and not just due to the surveillance cameras. The business failed a few years later. I wasn't surprised. Blame was placed on external factors, but anyone who attempted to worked there knew it was due to the oppressive management style, of which surveillance cameras was just a tool. If this program fails, management will blame it on a failure of AI, because that is their character. But we all know that it's easy to place blame on something that can't fight back.

tomhoward 6y ago
> berated Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety? And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?
- bostonsre 6y ago
  > And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras. They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

> as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. That's the problem; nobody (rightfully) trusts Amazon to only have everyone's best interests at heart, or to not abuse this system. Because they have in the past, and they will in the future.

tomhoward 6y ago
What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. From what I can see, other commenters agree that if this really is just a safety measure and doesn't transgress worker privacies in other ways, then it would be OK. So how about the critiques focus on ensuring that this outcome is achieved? Unless everyone really thinks that no amount of safety is worth any risk of breaches of worker privacy? To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter. But I welcome responses that explain what incentive Amazon has to expand this system beyond improving safety for drivers and other road users.
- Arainach 6y ago
  > At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. Welcome to America, where the regulators are owned by the corporations and there's a never ending supply of hopelessly poor people desperate for jobs to replace anyone who quits. Your perspective is hopelessly naive.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    [Editing this with a re-write, as the first version was snarky, which I don't want to bring to the discussion] Your comment is unproductive as it's largely unfalsifiable ideological rhetoric (with the personal barb "hopelessly naive" thrown in to really poison the discussion). Granted: Corporate influence of government is a real issue; Corporate exploitation and mistreatment of workers is a real issue; But also: Democracy and government oversight of companies still exists, and still has a meaningful influence on the way companies operate; As does the fact that, whilst many people are struggling and desperate for work, there is not, in fact, a never-ending supply of workers who are both competent/capable of doing the work that Amazon needs, but also so poor and desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of maltreatment for an extended period of time. (If your whole argument hinges on that claim, which it seems to, you need to do some more work proving it, as it's a very big claim.) It's way late where I am so I'm exiting the discussion for some sleep, thanks.

z77dj3kl 6y ago

> ... Australia ... has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community I think this is it. Australians are okay with just about any kind of big-brother surveillance or nanny-stateism as long as it's sold to them with a good story. Australian roads are on par with other wealthy Western nations (US is an outlier), and Oz has an advantage of not having snow/ice and related hazards. The cops there are largely harassing people and raising money, it's not driven by an aim to reduce harm or protect drivers.

tomhoward 6y ago
> it's not driven by an aim to reduce harm or protect drivers Yeah, this is false. Australians like living in a place that has safe roads, and support governments that keep things that way. It makes for well-functioning health system and a harmonious society. I agree that Australia can be too nanny-statist; that's a separate matter. But it's not true that authorities don't care about reducing harm to people. Governments/authority figures who aren't serious and sincere about this topic don't stay in office very long.
- logifail 6y ago
  > Yeah, this is false. Australians like living in a place that has safe roads, and support governments that keep things that way (Counter-example) Approximately 70% of Germany's motorways have no speed limit, yet despite that and being very busy, they are still considered the safest roads in Germany. Full disclosure: I don't support the lack of speed limit, from personal experience when driving in Germany it appears to encourage tailgating and/or generally aggressive driving.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    Australia’s high-speed dual carriageway motorways are quite safe too, so speed by itself isn’t the issue. The riskier roads are single carriageway highways where vehicles with drowsy/impaired drivers can lose control and veer off the road into a tree or onto the other side of the road into an oncoming car. Notably, the most dangerous road in Victoria is the Western Highway, which is a single-carriageway road that joins two major cities that are about 9 hours drive apart, and is Australia’s second-busiest road for freight.

developer92 6y ago

Being constantly watched has negative psychological effects, check the old work on "panopticon" prisons.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

In my country truck drivers used to cause a lot of accidents because they were sleep depriving themselves. Now with technology every truck has a black box and their employers are heavily fined if they don't let their drivers rest enough. I don't understand the outrage either.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thesz 6y ago

Your comment prompted me to look at stats of injuries per km driven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... Australia is precisely at the middle. Right now it is 13th. So, I would like your opinion on driving in UK which has Isle of Man in it. It has much lower accidents rate per km driven. And also three times as much population. As for AI-reeve theme, AI is inherently biased - due to training sets used. Imagine being one with face expression that is a little bit closer to what AI considers not normal (slower blinking, less eye movement, etc - something like that). You certainly will be held to a higher standard than others just because chances are you will be considered not normal by AI. "I don't like your face, so I'll punish you for that" but from a robot. Russia have (and had from beginning of century if not earlier) a system that reads vital signs of train locomotive operators. It is consisted of special bracelet, pedal and series of signals. Bracelet reads heart rate and skin conductance and determines whether person has good health and is attentive. Pedal is used to tell the system that operator is attentive - it should be pressed after a signal is issued. If operator does not respond to series of signals, emergency braking is activated. That system works very well, we have rather low train accidents rate. But recently I heard about its replacement and it is all about face recognition, all for the sake of making it cheaper. And I guess it is as not good as the system employed by Amazon.

tomhoward 6y ago
Yeah I noticed that fatalities-per-billion VKT stat. One thing is that it's improved since the 2016 year that the Wikipedia data is from. In 2018 Australia's figure was 4.3, 7th on the list (though the UK isn't included in that report - recent UK figures seem hard to find). Australia's figure was better than the OECD average and much of Europe. But a reason for Australia's fatalities per billion VKT figure being so much higher than the UK would be its vastness, and the distances some people need travel in remote ares. According to this report [1] (see fig 1.1 - page 3), Australia's fatality rate increases dramatically the more remote you go. Presumably it's a combination of fatigue, the quality of roads and low police presence that leads to more dangerous conditions in remote areas. As for the rest of your comment, there's a huge assumption in all this that Amazon's primary goal here is punishing drivers, rather than just detecting if they're tired and activating a warning signal for their own safety. And surely as the training data includes all the drivers in their network it will become more accurate. [1] https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/international_2018.pdf https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/inter...