5 ms·

No, they won't anymore than an autopilot that can take off, fly and land has gotten rid of pilots.

by jpollock 11y ago

anigbrowl 11y ago
That won't take that long.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  I agree and I believe that at first automation won't be integrated in the boeings and airbuses but will grow and evolve from inside the drone industry.
vdaniuk 11y ago
That's not a good comparison due to the difference in risks and returns. Airplanes are expensive, are subject to international regulations and possess extreme damage potential. Trucks can be confined to desert roads (like in Australia), are relatively cheap and are subject to national regulations. Also AFAIK drivers are relatively more expensive than pilot in comparison with total cost of ownership.
greendesk 11y ago
I find myself in the strange situation where I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. The source of disagreement can be described as "time" - I consider not only the past, but the delay that happens after a technology is described to when it makes changes in our lives. It all takes time, and in the time to come, there is a chance that autopilots can take more responsibility from the pilot. Would you really be confident that in 20 or 30 years time, pilots will have the same job description as of today? Of course, a pilot in a passenger plane has a lot more responsibility than simply piloting the plane. For example, dealing with passengers or talking to ground control. The autonomous trucks will not take driver's seat overnight - the truck in question will be a decade-long testing phase, according to the article. What happens afterwards is anyone's guess.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Would you really be confident that in 20 or 30 years time, pilots will have the same job description as of today? Yes. "Autopilot" systems are, in terms of capabilities, well behind even current widely-deployed technology in ground vehicles. In the air, an autopilot system is essentially glorified cruise control, and nobody asks when cruise control in cars will take over for humans. Autoland systems are pretty far behind automatic parallel-parking features in modern cars; autoland requires significant human decision-making, human input and human oversight to function. And the purpose of autopilot/autoland is not to replace the pilot, but to relieve the pilot of mundane tasks the software can do perfectly well, freeing the pilot to do things software still is -- and likely will continue to be -- bad at. Unless, of course, you think friendly human-serving general-purpose AI will be available within the next two or three decades (I don't).
  - greendesk 11y ago
    >>Unless, of course, you think friendly human-serving general-purpose AI will be available within the next two or three decades (I don't). /sigh. A decade ago I started my bachelors. When I was in college, I expected that general-purpose AI will be readily available by this point. How naive I was! Currently, I doubt it will be available by that point in time. /sigh I do not know how much progress will be achieved within the next two or three decades. In the circumstances of passenger flights, keeping current solutions is likely a conservative and more pragmatic approach. With regards to my comment, I do not expect autopilots to substitute pilots. Instead, I expect that they should be able to handle additional tasks assigned from the pilots. For example, it was not a passenger flight, but a helicopter crashed in Nepal during the rescue from the earthquake. I wonder if its pilot had fore-warning from sensory information prior to the crash; and if they had not, how to design its warning system and if an autopilot could take control of the helicopter to land it safely. The sources I have read on passenger pilots use of autopilots is: http://flyingforeveryone.blogspot.com/2012/01/autopilot-myth-what-your-pilot-really.html http://flyingforeveryone.blogspot.com/2012/01/autopilot-myth... http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1802/why-do-we-still-use-pilots-to-fly-airplanes http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1802/why-do-we-s...
x0054 11y ago
You are right, just like AI that writes finance and sports articles would never displace journalists. Oh, hold on, it has. But surely a robotic assembly line would never replace honest and hard working American automotive workers..... just don't look at Detroit for conformation of that theory. At least all of our secretary and typist jobs are still safe..... well, not so much, but still, surely one can always go to a pharmacist school and get a high paying job after that. Right. What, AI is doing that now too, and better than humans ever could? Na.... Change is coming, and there are too many people who wish to hide their head in the sand rather then embrace this change, and figure out how to deal with it. We need a new economic model, because capitalism isn't going to work in a world where everything is created by machines (capital) and consumers have nothing of value to exchange for the goods that capital is producing. I am not arguing for communism, because we all know how well that has worked in the past. We need another solution. Unless, if AI is going to replace all the labor, why not also replace the consumers with AI :)
- cturner 11y ago
  > I am not arguing for communism, because we all know > how well that has worked in the past. We need another > solution. Do you have any ideas? Capitalism uses the market to allocate resources. Typically, when someone pitches an alternative it will boil down to some variation of government reallocation. This has many names, but all of them are a breeding ground for corruption and injustice. Maybe we haven't been looking hard enough. What if we start with your premise: capitalism is failing some regions. To avoid ending back at government-reallocation, we could add to it a second premise: the purpose of government is to enforce live-and-let-live and do absolutely no more. Within these rules, can we find something new? It might help to stop seeing government as a God-Object to stick new functionality into, and instead consider whether there should be other objects in play. So far I've got nothing. But I find myself thinking of business models, rather than social reform.
  - kolinko 11y ago
    the problem with communism was that it tried almost 100% government management and planning. Private iniative was forbidden, even in the areas in which it would be useful. (source: I grew up in a socialist/communist country) In that manner, capitalism with guaranteed income is different. You want to be rich, go ahead amd try your chances at trade, entrepreneurship etc. You see a market opportunity - go ahead and kickstart it. On the other hamd, if you lack a capability, or you prefer to do things that nobody will want to pay you for (art, raising children etc), the govrnment will keep you covered. Obviously there are problems to it, especially today when production costs are expensive. And there are implementation problems as well. But still, one system is the ultimate oppression, another one is ultimate freedom. Btw. The running joke in communism was: "yeah, our system is perfect, it's just the implememtation that sucks". I believe that communism was impossible to get implemented correctky, whereas capitalism + minimum income can be. Not today, but in a few years when the goods will be even cheaper.

No, they won't anymore than an autopilot that can take off, fly and land has gotten rid of pilots.

anigbrowl 11y ago

That won't take that long.

vdaniuk 11y ago
I agree and I believe that at first automation won't be integrated in the boeings and airbuses but will grow and evolve from inside the drone industry.

vdaniuk 11y ago

That's not a good comparison due to the difference in risks and returns. Airplanes are expensive, are subject to international regulations and possess extreme damage potential. Trucks can be confined to desert roads (like in Australia), are relatively cheap and are subject to national regulations. Also AFAIK drivers are relatively more expensive than pilot in comparison with total cost of ownership.

greendesk 11y ago

I find myself in the strange situation where I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. The source of disagreement can be described as "time" - I consider not only the past, but the delay that happens after a technology is described to when it makes changes in our lives. It all takes time, and in the time to come, there is a chance that autopilots can take more responsibility from the pilot. Would you really be confident that in 20 or 30 years time, pilots will have the same job description as of today? Of course, a pilot in a passenger plane has a lot more responsibility than simply piloting the plane. For example, dealing with passengers or talking to ground control. The autonomous trucks will not take driver's seat overnight - the truck in question will be a decade-long testing phase, according to the article. What happens afterwards is anyone's guess.

ubernostrum 11y ago
Would you really be confident that in 20 or 30 years time, pilots will have the same job description as of today? Yes. "Autopilot" systems are, in terms of capabilities, well behind even current widely-deployed technology in ground vehicles. In the air, an autopilot system is essentially glorified cruise control, and nobody asks when cruise control in cars will take over for humans. Autoland systems are pretty far behind automatic parallel-parking features in modern cars; autoland requires significant human decision-making, human input and human oversight to function. And the purpose of autopilot/autoland is not to replace the pilot, but to relieve the pilot of mundane tasks the software can do perfectly well, freeing the pilot to do things software still is -- and likely will continue to be -- bad at. Unless, of course, you think friendly human-serving general-purpose AI will be available within the next two or three decades (I don't).
- greendesk 11y ago
  >>Unless, of course, you think friendly human-serving general-purpose AI will be available within the next two or three decades (I don't). /sigh. A decade ago I started my bachelors. When I was in college, I expected that general-purpose AI will be readily available by this point. How naive I was! Currently, I doubt it will be available by that point in time. /sigh I do not know how much progress will be achieved within the next two or three decades. In the circumstances of passenger flights, keeping current solutions is likely a conservative and more pragmatic approach. With regards to my comment, I do not expect autopilots to substitute pilots. Instead, I expect that they should be able to handle additional tasks assigned from the pilots. For example, it was not a passenger flight, but a helicopter crashed in Nepal during the rescue from the earthquake. I wonder if its pilot had fore-warning from sensory information prior to the crash; and if they had not, how to design its warning system and if an autopilot could take control of the helicopter to land it safely. The sources I have read on passenger pilots use of autopilots is: http://flyingforeveryone.blogspot.com/2012/01/autopilot-myth-what-your-pilot-really.html http://flyingforeveryone.blogspot.com/2012/01/autopilot-myth... http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1802/why-do-we-still-use-pilots-to-fly-airplanes http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1802/why-do-we-s...

x0054 11y ago

You are right, just like AI that writes finance and sports articles would never displace journalists. Oh, hold on, it has. But surely a robotic assembly line would never replace honest and hard working American automotive workers..... just don't look at Detroit for conformation of that theory. At least all of our secretary and typist jobs are still safe..... well, not so much, but still, surely one can always go to a pharmacist school and get a high paying job after that. Right. What, AI is doing that now too, and better than humans ever could? Na.... Change is coming, and there are too many people who wish to hide their head in the sand rather then embrace this change, and figure out how to deal with it. We need a new economic model, because capitalism isn't going to work in a world where everything is created by machines (capital) and consumers have nothing of value to exchange for the goods that capital is producing. I am not arguing for communism, because we all know how well that has worked in the past. We need another solution. Unless, if AI is going to replace all the labor, why not also replace the consumers with AI :)

cturner 11y ago
> I am not arguing for communism, because we all know > how well that has worked in the past. We need another > solution. Do you have any ideas? Capitalism uses the market to allocate resources. Typically, when someone pitches an alternative it will boil down to some variation of government reallocation. This has many names, but all of them are a breeding ground for corruption and injustice. Maybe we haven't been looking hard enough. What if we start with your premise: capitalism is failing some regions. To avoid ending back at government-reallocation, we could add to it a second premise: the purpose of government is to enforce live-and-let-live and do absolutely no more. Within these rules, can we find something new? It might help to stop seeing government as a God-Object to stick new functionality into, and instead consider whether there should be other objects in play. So far I've got nothing. But I find myself thinking of business models, rather than social reform.
- kolinko 11y ago
  the problem with communism was that it tried almost 100% government management and planning. Private iniative was forbidden, even in the areas in which it would be useful. (source: I grew up in a socialist/communist country) In that manner, capitalism with guaranteed income is different. You want to be rich, go ahead amd try your chances at trade, entrepreneurship etc. You see a market opportunity - go ahead and kickstart it. On the other hamd, if you lack a capability, or you prefer to do things that nobody will want to pay you for (art, raising children etc), the govrnment will keep you covered. Obviously there are problems to it, especially today when production costs are expensive. And there are implementation problems as well. But still, one system is the ultimate oppression, another one is ultimate freedom. Btw. The running joke in communism was: "yeah, our system is perfect, it's just the implememtation that sucks". I believe that communism was impossible to get implemented correctky, whereas capitalism + minimum income can be. Not today, but in a few years when the goods will be even cheaper.