6 ms·

It's interesting that on the "what could go wrong" discussions on HN, the focus has been on the discussion of insurance and events like truck-jacking. Those ar

It's interesting that on the "what could go wrong" discussions on HN, the focus has been on the discussion of insurance and events like truck-jacking. Those are the issues of today. I think there's a far more interesting future at play. These trucks can and will put people out of work. Right now a large majority of the testing of autonomous vehicles is focused on "perfect environments". Yes, Google will say that test driving autonomous cars in San Francisco is far from a perfect environment; however, in a future where people are loosing their livelihoods, ways to hack autonomous vehicles will be explored, and I'm not talking about just hacking a vehicle CAN bus. All of these vehicles rely on technologies like radar, LIDAR, IR vision, etc. None of which are fool-proof and each of which could fall to very specific attacks. I hope that the auto manufacturers are considering this future. After all, we have technologies today like GNU Radio and the HackRF One which have brought what was once the domain of the nation state to the general public.

elchief 11y ago
25% of Americans were farmers 80 years ago. Now it's 1%.
- patcheudor 11y ago
  Farming is actually a great example. There were farmers who did fight back against farm machinery. Sabotage of tractors and equipment was an actual thing here in the US and abroad. You can even find whole groups of anti-tractor types in the American Amish country. These days it's sabotage against GMO crops. You'll find Monsanto and other companies will place their GMO test fields in regions of the country known to be sympathetic and/or will keep them under armed guard.
  - baddox 11y ago
    The views of the Amish regarding technology have absolutely nothing to do with employment rates.
    - patcheudor 11y ago
      But yet everything to do with this topic. The Amish believe one must work in harmony with nature. Tractors as an example threaten this harmony. I'm just waiting for some religion somewhere to state that self-driving vehicles are the work of the devil, or a threat to the Protestant work ethic. There might even be some political aspects of this a they are a signal of the coming "liberal leisure society."
      - baddox 11y ago
        > The Amish believe one must work in harmony with nature. I don't quite like that description either. I think it's more that they want to encourage interdependence within the community. They are not opposed to technology that they believe doesn't threaten that community dynamic.
- cmsmith 11y ago
  80 years is a very long time. It's long enough for two or three generations to grow up, decide what they want to do for their career, notice their dad's career outlook doesn't seem to be on the rise, and go to work in a factory or office. If the number of truck drivers goes down by 90% in the next 80 years, that would be fine. If it goes down by 90% in the next 8 years, then we'll have a lot of mis-trained ex-truck drivers out there, and that's nothing to scoff at.
- swalsh 11y ago
  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics The Average age of current Truck Drivers is 51. Where is a guy, 14 years away from retirement who probably doesn't have a college degree going to go? I suppose he COULD get a loan, and try to get a degree, then pay off that loan and earn a living for another 10 years. Farmers transitioning is a bad analogy. People live longer, require more education, and have less control over their work life if they aren't tech-savy. I see 4 possibilities. We have an aging work population 65 and older working entry level skilled jobs to pay off college loans they got later in life. Or we have a larger "welfare" state, we have a better "public higher education" program, or we have more millennials taking care of their boomer parents because their parents couldn't find work, and social security hasn't kicked in yet.
the8472 11y ago
> These trucks can and will put people out of work. You're saying that as if it were a bad thing.
- vegedor 11y ago
  It's not even true, because as of now, for all the problems to be overcome, humans on board are still required. The next step would be remote pilots or supervisors, as with drones. It's a gradual transition so the market has time to adapt and find new niches. I don't think many ones are truck driver out of passion, so it's no loss. If there is no other work for them to be done, great for them. If the only remaining work requires higher qualifications, sure, that'll be a bummer for anyone who cannot adapt and therefore to a degree you could expect a niche or industry of extra schooling (eh, I'm at loss for a proper term) provided by incentive or gummint prediction.
- j2kun 11y ago
  It's still a much more serious issue than insurance, especially considering that truck driver is the most common job in many US states.
  - ddeck 11y ago
    There are definitely a lot of drivers, but the numbers that led to that claim are a little misleading [1]. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-most-common-job-in-your-state-2015-02-12 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-mo...
- task_queue 11y ago
  It's a good thing when people are put out of work because of "efficiency"
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    It's neither good nor bad. It's necessary. The benefits of autonomous vehicles will far outway any short term negative effects.
grecy 11y ago
It's interesting how many converstations on HN devolve into "This will put people out of work". Of course it will. Think of how many in industries related to horses (hay, stalls, cleaning, horseshoes...) were put out of business when the automobile was invented. Think of the guys that used to drive around and put blocks of ice in your fridge before electricity. Or countless millions of others that were put out of work when a better/different way was found to do something. It's fine. Those people will re-train. When there are no more coal plants there will be a lot more people working in the solar/wind business. It's OK, don't panic.
- remarkEon 11y ago
  Those people will re-train. No, people will re-train, but those folks directly put out of work in this instance will not likely turn around and immediately find work as a software engineer maintaining autonomous vehicles. In the long run society retrains, but there is a disruption period that affects real people.
  - grecy 11y ago
    Yes, and there always has been, and there always will be. Putting people temporarily out of work is not a reason to not move society forward.
    - remarkEon 11y ago
      Putting people temporarily out of work is not a reason to not move society forward. I do not see where I suggested that.
Lorento 11y ago
We still have train drivers, even though they're almost, but not quite, redundant. I can't imagine how trucks could be so automated that no driver at all is needed when we don't even do that with trains. Truck drivers will surely still be with us for long enough to retire.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  I also think it is weird that they don't start with trains. In Denmark the Metro is operated by a computer, but the whole thing is built around this. The next step to me is not a truck, but a "normal" train that still has to interact with the rest of the train network around it. Then we can move on to trams and then trucks and buses.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Truck drivers probably have a lot more accidents and job performance variability. Also, the railroad engineer's salary is probably an even smaller portion of the load's value than for a truck driver.
- Niten 11y ago
  Divide the hourly cost of a human railroad engineer by the total value of the goods they transport by train. Then divide the hourly cost of a truck driver by the total value of goods that can fit into a single truck. The latter ratio is orders greater, and that means there's a much higher economic incentive to replace the truck driver than there ever will be to replace railroad engineers. And I would wager this difference in incentives widens when the amount of damage done by inattentive truck drivers vs. inattentive engine drivers is taken under consideration. Besides, operators will probably desire a small crew to watch over their trains anyway for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether a human is in the pilot's seat.
brycehamrick 11y ago
Of course the underlying assumption here is that putting people out of work will negatively effect the economy or the well-being of individuals, which isn't necessarily the case. This is currently how our system works (so it will in the short-term), but if we want to collectively progress as a society I think most would agree that the average individual should have vastly more amounts of leisure-time in the future than they do today. Perhaps that means not everyone needs to work. I believe we're fast approaching the need to re-evaluate how we treat (un)employment and the role of individuals with an imposed obligation towards economic contribution, particularly due to the automation and/or efficiency we gain through technology. Will we always have enough work for everyone to sufficiently provide for themselves without "redistribution of wealth" programs? More importantly, if we force everyone to work to provide for themselves, is the work done actually creating value to society? Is it necessary?

elchief 11y ago

25% of Americans were farmers 80 years ago. Now it's 1%.

patcheudor 11y ago
Farming is actually a great example. There were farmers who did fight back against farm machinery. Sabotage of tractors and equipment was an actual thing here in the US and abroad. You can even find whole groups of anti-tractor types in the American Amish country. These days it's sabotage against GMO crops. You'll find Monsanto and other companies will place their GMO test fields in regions of the country known to be sympathetic and/or will keep them under armed guard.
- baddox 11y ago
  The views of the Amish regarding technology have absolutely nothing to do with employment rates.
  - patcheudor 11y ago
    But yet everything to do with this topic. The Amish believe one must work in harmony with nature. Tractors as an example threaten this harmony. I'm just waiting for some religion somewhere to state that self-driving vehicles are the work of the devil, or a threat to the Protestant work ethic. There might even be some political aspects of this a they are a signal of the coming "liberal leisure society."
    - baddox 11y ago
      > The Amish believe one must work in harmony with nature. I don't quite like that description either. I think it's more that they want to encourage interdependence within the community. They are not opposed to technology that they believe doesn't threaten that community dynamic.
cmsmith 11y ago
80 years is a very long time. It's long enough for two or three generations to grow up, decide what they want to do for their career, notice their dad's career outlook doesn't seem to be on the rise, and go to work in a factory or office. If the number of truck drivers goes down by 90% in the next 80 years, that would be fine. If it goes down by 90% in the next 8 years, then we'll have a lot of mis-trained ex-truck drivers out there, and that's nothing to scoff at.
swalsh 11y ago
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics The Average age of current Truck Drivers is 51. Where is a guy, 14 years away from retirement who probably doesn't have a college degree going to go? I suppose he COULD get a loan, and try to get a degree, then pay off that loan and earn a living for another 10 years. Farmers transitioning is a bad analogy. People live longer, require more education, and have less control over their work life if they aren't tech-savy. I see 4 possibilities. We have an aging work population 65 and older working entry level skilled jobs to pay off college loans they got later in life. Or we have a larger "welfare" state, we have a better "public higher education" program, or we have more millennials taking care of their boomer parents because their parents couldn't find work, and social security hasn't kicked in yet.

the8472 11y ago

> These trucks can and will put people out of work. You're saying that as if it were a bad thing.

vegedor 11y ago
It's not even true, because as of now, for all the problems to be overcome, humans on board are still required. The next step would be remote pilots or supervisors, as with drones. It's a gradual transition so the market has time to adapt and find new niches. I don't think many ones are truck driver out of passion, so it's no loss. If there is no other work for them to be done, great for them. If the only remaining work requires higher qualifications, sure, that'll be a bummer for anyone who cannot adapt and therefore to a degree you could expect a niche or industry of extra schooling (eh, I'm at loss for a proper term) provided by incentive or gummint prediction.
j2kun 11y ago
It's still a much more serious issue than insurance, especially considering that truck driver is the most common job in many US states.
- ddeck 11y ago
  There are definitely a lot of drivers, but the numbers that led to that claim are a little misleading [1]. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-most-common-job-in-your-state-2015-02-12 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-mo...
task_queue 11y ago
It's a good thing when people are put out of work because of "efficiency"
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  It's neither good nor bad. It's necessary. The benefits of autonomous vehicles will far outway any short term negative effects.

grecy 11y ago

It's interesting how many converstations on HN devolve into "This will put people out of work". Of course it will. Think of how many in industries related to horses (hay, stalls, cleaning, horseshoes...) were put out of business when the automobile was invented. Think of the guys that used to drive around and put blocks of ice in your fridge before electricity. Or countless millions of others that were put out of work when a better/different way was found to do something. It's fine. Those people will re-train. When there are no more coal plants there will be a lot more people working in the solar/wind business. It's OK, don't panic.

remarkEon 11y ago
Those people will re-train. No, people will re-train, but those folks directly put out of work in this instance will not likely turn around and immediately find work as a software engineer maintaining autonomous vehicles. In the long run society retrains, but there is a disruption period that affects real people.
- grecy 11y ago
  Yes, and there always has been, and there always will be. Putting people temporarily out of work is not a reason to not move society forward.
  - remarkEon 11y ago
    Putting people temporarily out of work is not a reason to not move society forward. I do not see where I suggested that.

Lorento 11y ago

We still have train drivers, even though they're almost, but not quite, redundant. I can't imagine how trucks could be so automated that no driver at all is needed when we don't even do that with trains. Truck drivers will surely still be with us for long enough to retire.

wodenokoto 11y ago
I also think it is weird that they don't start with trains. In Denmark the Metro is operated by a computer, but the whole thing is built around this. The next step to me is not a truck, but a "normal" train that still has to interact with the rest of the train network around it. Then we can move on to trams and then trucks and buses.
- baddox 11y ago
  Truck drivers probably have a lot more accidents and job performance variability. Also, the railroad engineer's salary is probably an even smaller portion of the load's value than for a truck driver.
Niten 11y ago
Divide the hourly cost of a human railroad engineer by the total value of the goods they transport by train. Then divide the hourly cost of a truck driver by the total value of goods that can fit into a single truck. The latter ratio is orders greater, and that means there's a much higher economic incentive to replace the truck driver than there ever will be to replace railroad engineers. And I would wager this difference in incentives widens when the amount of damage done by inattentive truck drivers vs. inattentive engine drivers is taken under consideration. Besides, operators will probably desire a small crew to watch over their trains anyway for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether a human is in the pilot's seat.

brycehamrick 11y ago

Of course the underlying assumption here is that putting people out of work will negatively effect the economy or the well-being of individuals, which isn't necessarily the case. This is currently how our system works (so it will in the short-term), but if we want to collectively progress as a society I think most would agree that the average individual should have vastly more amounts of leisure-time in the future than they do today. Perhaps that means not everyone needs to work. I believe we're fast approaching the need to re-evaluate how we treat (un)employment and the role of individuals with an imposed obligation towards economic contribution, particularly due to the automation and/or efficiency we gain through technology. Will we always have enough work for everyone to sufficiently provide for themselves without "redistribution of wealth" programs? More importantly, if we force everyone to work to provide for themselves, is the work done actually creating value to society? Is it necessary?