3 ms·

Why is this veto controversial? If autonomous trucks are proved to be just as safe as a human driven truck, why should there be a safety driver.

sharts 3y ago
Seen the autonomy problems with Cruise?
DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
The key word here being if, i.e. iff.
- adasdasdas 3y ago
  Ok, but the bill is ignoring the if which is idiotic
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    It’s not. The federal government has safety requirements.
    - adasdasdas 3y ago
      I'm saying the bill would still require a safety driver even if AV trucks are proven to be just as safe
for1nner 3y ago
(edit for clarity: I'm ignoring the reality of current self-driving tech/safety for the sake of the philosophical argument) it's cheaper and faster to fire truck drivers and then hire the folks who can run the dispatch/diag/driving software - even if (philosophically) we should want to redirect drivers' skills/experience and retrain them, there's no economic incentive. So, utterly reasonably, unions and labor organizations and the general public push back against wanton job cuts and firings-due-to-obsolescence (though this is not an america-unique problem). I think largely as a species we've yet to crack the code on "hey this wave of tech is going to make X obsolete, maybe we should account for the folks doing X" - certainly one of the weak spots of free market capitalism.
- adasdasdas 3y ago
  Yea totally, earth spins much faster these days and its difficult to keep up. Numerous studies have shown that, past a certain age, retraining is almost pointless, younger folks still have a chance. But, no matter what, we need to push back against bad faith stuff like this, while we figure out our social problems.
innagadadavida 3y ago
Can’t we settle for a middle ground and require they must have remote human control in case of some unforeseen bug or conditions?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  If they do, then the connection will only work when hackers want to steal your trucks and fail when you need to monitor it. There's a reason why we don't have people remote-controlling trucks today.

sharts 3y ago

Seen the autonomy problems with Cruise?

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago

The key word here being if, i.e. iff.

adasdasdas 3y ago
Ok, but the bill is ignoring the if which is idiotic
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  It’s not. The federal government has safety requirements.
  - adasdasdas 3y ago
    I'm saying the bill would still require a safety driver even if AV trucks are proven to be just as safe

for1nner 3y ago

(edit for clarity: I'm ignoring the reality of current self-driving tech/safety for the sake of the philosophical argument) it's cheaper and faster to fire truck drivers and then hire the folks who can run the dispatch/diag/driving software - even if (philosophically) we should want to redirect drivers' skills/experience and retrain them, there's no economic incentive. So, utterly reasonably, unions and labor organizations and the general public push back against wanton job cuts and firings-due-to-obsolescence (though this is not an america-unique problem). I think largely as a species we've yet to crack the code on "hey this wave of tech is going to make X obsolete, maybe we should account for the folks doing X" - certainly one of the weak spots of free market capitalism.

adasdasdas 3y ago
Yea totally, earth spins much faster these days and its difficult to keep up. Numerous studies have shown that, past a certain age, retraining is almost pointless, younger folks still have a chance. But, no matter what, we need to push back against bad faith stuff like this, while we figure out our social problems.

innagadadavida 3y ago

Can’t we settle for a middle ground and require they must have remote human control in case of some unforeseen bug or conditions?

kmeisthax 3y ago
If they do, then the connection will only work when hackers want to steal your trucks and fail when you need to monitor it. There's a reason why we don't have people remote-controlling trucks today.