Slashdot Mirror


Self-Driving Cars Likely Won't Steal Your Job (Until 2040) (wired.com)

The self-driving robots are coming to transform your job. Kind of. Also, very slowly. From a report: That's the not-quite-exclamatory upshot of a new report from the Washington, DC-based Securing America's Future Energy. The group advocates for a countrywide pivot away from oil dependency, one it hopes will be aided by the speedy adoption of electric, self-driving vehicles. So it commissioned a wide-ranging study by a phalanx of labor economists to discover how that could happen, and whether America might transform into a Mad Max-like desert hell along the way. The news, mostly, is good. For one, self-driving vehicles probably won't wreck the labor market to the point where gig economy workers are hired out as mobile blood bags.

In fact, they'll eventually feed the economy, accruing an estimated $800 billion in annual benefits by 2050, a number mostly in line with previous researchers' projections. Two, robo-cars won't disappear the jobs all at once. "We have a labor market characterized by churning -- continual job creation and destruction," says Erica Groshen, a visiting labor economist at Cornell University and former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who worked on the report. "The challenge is to make the transition as smooth as possible."

129 comments

  1. That time table by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    sure sounds more reasonable than what I have been hearing.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:That time table by justthinkit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Truck driver is the number one job in most states. Tesla already has shown an electric truck, that is probably already self-drivable.

      This is going to hit a lot earlier than 2040.

      --
      I come here for the love
    2. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You’re a total retard if you think Tesla is anywhere near having real self driving. Tesla's auto pilot is the self driving equivalent of a carnival side show.

    3. Re:That time table by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, yes, I believe Tesla is much closer than 22 years away from having a self-driving truck. Far more than a self-driving car at least.

      Trucks drive a lot differently than cars. Most truck driving is highway driving. A large part of truck driving... especially the type that is is associated with jobs counts is logistical from business park to business park. It is entirely possible and likely that companies that are moving stuff from docks to warehouse or warehouse to warehouse can very easily be made self-driving friendly.

      Also, with the exception of managing traffic diversions due to construction (which I haven't seen yet on self driving vehicles), trucks can make the majority of their transit in the a single lane on the highway.

      Also, it could be possible for a business to arise for "last mile operators" who are vehicle operators that are responsible for navigating populated areas in trucks. As such, they would assist the truck from the loading dock to the highway and then be picked up by a shuttle bus. Then they could be delivered by a shuttle bus to the highway and assist trucks the last mile to the unloading docks.

      I am very much under the belief that we will accomplish self-driving trucks long before we achieve self-driving vehicles that could navigate my neighborhood.

    4. Re:That time table by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It sounds pretty stupid to me; why would slashdot readers be presumed to work as taxi or delivery drivers?

      I thought most of the people here did tech work.

      Self-driving cars will steal my job never; why would a software-writing AI be given a street-legal automobile as a freakin' case?! I'm thinking the AI that steals my job will fit in a standard 19" form factor server rack.

    5. Re:That time table by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

      Trucks drive a lot differently than cars. Most truck driving is highway driving.

      Even so, autonomous trucks will still require all the same "abilities" that autonomous cars will need. And then some more. They will still have to navigate normal roads (the "final mile" problem) and deal with the vagaries of other road users.

      So if the critical path to AV deployment is the technology, the limiting factor is still development of the systems needed.

      I can see that once AVs gain a foothold on roads, the pressure to go fully AV will be very strong and very rapid. Possibly to the point where supply cannot meet demand. The reasons being that an AV will (once the safety systems are sorted out) never be the cause of an accident, so the burden on human drivers will become immense. Even if there is doubt, the commercial interests behind AV technology will crush any ordinary driver trying to make a defence that the "other guy" (or AV) was at fault. And that will cause driver insurance rates to rocket - to the point where every human driver will face crushing costs.

      If I was a car maker, I would be looking towards making a "back-port" of all the smarts. One that could be fitted into existing vehicles - maybe even petrol ones - to fulfill the driver functions without having to replace the entire car. Just rip out thr driver's seat and controls and install a "black box" there, then cover the car with sensors.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    6. Re: That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked as a truck driver. What you can do is create self driving lanes - commonly travelled sections of Interstate that are self driven, but what people call "last mile" is actually almost the majority of the work by time. Go to every box store in your town, Ikea, Safeway, Lowes go around back and see the truck docks, that's the part of the country where much time is spent. That local driving often requires getting other drivers to backup to make tight turns, taking up multiple lanes. Even highway driving is complicated when contingencies arrise: How to place legally required emergency triangles for breakdown, manage fires? Throw chains? Slide tandem axles in route? And that's not even getting into hazmat protocols, when you have something like a dangerous chemical leaking.

      It's going to be awhile.

    7. Re: That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latency. Security. Redundancy. You know, good design decisions.

    8. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reasons being that an AV will (once the safety systems are sorted out) never be the cause of an accident, so the burden on human drivers will become immense. Even if there is doubt, the commercial interests behind AV technology will crush any ordinary driver trying to make a defence that the "other guy" (or AV) was at fault. And that will cause driver insurance rates to rocket - to the point where every human driver will face crushing costs.

      In a future where AV's have replaced *some* (not all) human drivers, the dumb meatbags will be having proportionately fewer accidents.. because of driver assist on the meatbag vehicles, and because the AVs will be able to anticipate the dumb meatbags and avoid them.

      So the insurance companies will be paying out proportionately (far?) less in claims.

      So meatbag driver insurance premiums should go down, not up.

    9. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a car maker, I would be looking towards making a "back-port" of all the smarts.

      Yes, of course. Car makers don't really want to sell new cars do they?

    10. Re:That time table by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't disagree with that but Waymo appear to be years ahead of the competition, 5600 miles on average now before the driver needs to intervene, 100 times further than uber vehicles.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:That time table by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you're going to need "last mile operators" why not just build a half decent train (railroad) network and use that? Self driving trains make a lot more sense than self driving trucks. Barring freak accidents, they don't have to be able to cope with other cars, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:That time table by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Even if they aren't all self-driving there's already been demonstrated examples where trucks have gotten from A to B without human intervention thanks to platooning. Just because a human driver still needs to be involved in one vehicle doesn't mean several others can't be autonomous behind them.

    13. Re:That time table by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It sounds pretty stupid to me; why would slashdot readers be presumed to work as taxi or delivery drivers?

      Because according to the Uber groupies here, being part of the exciting new gig economy by driving strangers around at 4 in the morning after you've already worked a 12 hour day coding is just...fun. Plus it's striking a blow for freedom: you don't have Uber drivers in Soviet Russia/North Korea after all!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:That time table by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      They will still have to navigate normal roads

      Huh? Most trucks aren't allowed on normal roads. They leave the warehouse and drive on the highway where the exit will take them right to the next warehouse. That's kind of why warehouses aren't actually positioned in city centres in the first place.

      and deal with the vagaries of other road users.

      See above: The other road users will be mostly trucks. The last mile problem for trucks is typically more accurately described as the last 200 yards. GP's point is that it's order of magnitudes easier to do this with a truck and they're right.

    15. Re:That time table by zifn4b · · Score: 0

      Why is this such a problem? Commercial truck driving has to be one of the most boring, lonely jobs available. Introducing self driving commercial vehicles not only eliminates this waste of use of one's existence but also makes commercial transportation more reliable. It's remarkable to me that when John Schumpeter's Creative Destruction happens again and again in Capitalism we have the same reaction as we did to the Ice Industry and the Tailor/Seamstress industry that became automated. The only concern is about the ability to obtain an income stream. I submit that all of this is evidence that the wage slavery aspect of Capitalism is counterproductive to technological progress and innovation. We should rejoice that we are reducing the need for tedious, manual labor so we can have more freedom to do what we want in terms of self actualization of our lives. That should equally be incentive to for innovation! Sadly, our systems (especially in the United States) are broken with regard to this very worthwhile goal. Too many memes about hard work = prosperity and happiness.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    16. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "normal road" then. Because short of the roads in my neighborhood, I see these trucks literally every day on every road I drive. And even within my neighborhood, I see them quite often, just not every day. I literally cannot name a single road I have driven remotely often that I have not seen these trucks on.

      Based on how you misspelled center, I assume you're british, and maybe they have different rules in the UK, but in the US, they most certainly will have to drive everywhere within cities.

    17. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will still have to navigate normal roads

      Huh? Most trucks aren't allowed on normal roads. They leave the warehouse and drive on the highway where the exit will take them right to the next warehouse. That's kind of why warehouses aren't actually positioned in city centres in the first place.

      If you're talking about semis (a tractor and a trailer) you're very wrong. Even in NYC, some things can only be carried on big rigs. In less congested cities, semis go everywhere on regular city streets all the time. Every building with a loading dock is your evidence if you somehow have never seen them. They even go into residential neighborhoods for moving or shipping.

    18. Re:That time table by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      It's possible those are a small minority of the tractor/trailer traffic, so OP might still have a point.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    19. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that there are some differences. For example an autonomous truck is going to need to figure out whether or not it fits under a low overpass. Cars? They don't need to think about this. But every year some trucks manage to hit overpasses where they don't actually fit. There are always measurements on these overpasses saying what the clearance is. And an automated truck is going to need to figure this out. Either via the route calculated for it (ie avoid low overpasses) or on the fly (I can't fit under this so I need to take the off-ramp and enter the highway again after this overpass). So sure, there are some thing that software for cars does not need to even consider that trucks do need to understand and react to.

    20. Re:That time table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be fair, these cars will, at some times, require a lot of compute resources. At other times when there is not a lot of traffic or some other condition they will not need as much. They can either be mining bitcoins or doing the job that you used to do. It would be a shame to leave those compute resources unused.

    21. Re:That time table by bigpat · · Score: 1

      sure sounds more reasonable than what I have been hearing.

      Sure, it usually takes 15 to 20 years for even a wildly successful technology to permeate an economy from the first commercial implementations... Blackberry (1999) and Palm both had successful smartphones in the early aughts, but the technology really didn't take off until 2008-2012 time frame. And you could argue the less powerful Palm PDAs of the 1990s and were the pioneers in that commercial space and smartphones today are just the evolution of those devices.

      The twenty teens for smart cars are like the 90s for smartphones. That doesn't mean we won't see fairly widespread adoption of smart cars. We already have many cars with semi autonomous driving and supervised autonomous driving and I see pretty well developed plans for fully autonomous cars to be rolling out into select markets in the next 5 years.

      So in 5 years you will be able to buy rides on fully autonomous vehicles in more places around the US, probably dozens of cities and more around the world and more consumer focused cars will have more semi autonomous features including maybe one or two with fully autonomous capabilities. In ten years you will have a few more car companies with at least one fully autonomous vehicle to buy and probably autonomous car services in every major city, but with costs that are merely competitive with human driven car services like Uber today.

      That gives another ten years for market penetration to where I think by 2040 it is reasonable to expect the majority of cars on the roads, at least in some areas of the US, will be autonomous.

      But a lot will depend on the cost of full autonomy versus semi autonomy. Right now it appears that semi autonomous safety features on the market today add about $3000 to the cost of a car. That represents additional computing power, sensor packages and likely largely software development costs. Representing around some $50 per month on a 3 year lease depending on how you depreciate that feature... which is good on a luxury car or an up-sell on a middle priced model, but $3000 is still a lot of money on the bottom third of the car market, so it really will take a large reduction in costs and increase in computing power to get that down to really fully dominate the market.

    22. Re:That time table by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      They will still have to navigate normal roads

      Huh? Most trucks aren't allowed on normal roads.

      You'll need to provide a link for that. In every state I've ever lived in, trucks can go anywhere that isn't specifically marked "No Trucks".

    23. Re:That time table by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      1) You don't get to decide what work other people should find to be a waste of one's existence. Plenty of people would rather not have to deal with coworkers or customers, and like time on the road.
      2) As much as I'd like to live in a word where automation makes it possible for everyone to live without worrying about where the money for food, rent, utilities, etc comes from, we're not on that path. The people whose jobs get automated don't get taken care of - they get screwed. And I don't see any reason to think that's going to change any time soon.

    24. Re:That time table by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      So you've never noticed the bridges near you with height/weight limits? Height/weight limits which preclude a very many large trucks?

      All bridges have them, and a lot of them won't safely support a semi. Drive off any major road sometime, and you'll see plenty of them. They're not marked "no trucks", but they are definitely "no trucks" given the height/weight limits.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    25. Re:That time table by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've worked in plenty of warehouses that took deliveries from semi's in city centers.

    26. Re:That time table by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, economy gigs you!

    27. Re:That time table by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. I drove a car on a beach therefore all cars should need to be able to drive on a beach to be roadworthy right?

    28. Re:That time table by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Trucks need to drive on normal roads to get to the highways, and they need to deliver to stores which are often in urban areas.

    29. Re:That time table by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Trucks need to drive on normal roads to get to the highways

      No, some trucks need to, and re-read my post because you seem to have missed its point.

      and they need to deliver to stores which are often in urban areas

      No, the kind of trucks we are talking about are not allowed to drive in urban areas.

    30. Re:That time table by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like to live in a word where automation makes it possible for everyone to live without worrying about where the money for food, rent, utilities, etc comes from, we're not on that path.

      We won't EVER be "on that path" while you consider your self interest more important than technological progress and innovation. It's known as Tragedy of the Commons. This site's community has gone to hell. It's no longer intellectuals and insightful people. It's infested with toxic luddites. You'll reap what you sow tho. Mod me into oblivion but you will reap what you sow and you know what? People like me that said "I told you so" will let you fall into the abyss without extending a helping hand.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    31. Re:That time table by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You're a damned fool if you value technological "progress" and "innovation" more than your own ability to provide for yourself and your family.

      Also, you might want to actually read that article you linked to. This is not a case of a public good being destroyed by people acting in their own best interest. It is a case of people being skeptical that those who are pushing advances have considered the consequences of their actions, and that those who hold all the resources will be at all interested in providing a livelihood for those people that these advances impoverish. It seems to me to be a pretty healthy skepticism based on knowledge of history and economics.

      Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a Star Trek type society where people are free to pursue their interests rather than be tied to work that is unfulfilling and unhealthy. But I have yet to see any sort of credible plan to get us there. Technology is not the only barrier, and it's idiotic to pretend that it is.

  2. the legal framework self driving cars will take ti by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the legal framework self driving cars will take time as well the uber death likely slowed things down.

  3. Lot of potential by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a lot of potential and not just on the road. Out here on the farm and in the forests self-driving tractors, skidders, buncher grabbers, conveyers, wagons and delivery vehicles have a lot of potential. They are levers that amplify us. Just as it is easier to hammer in a nail with a hammer than your hand it is easier to move round bales of hay with a tractor than by hand. Self driving tractors would let me instruct them to put out hay to our pastured pigs in the winter (hay replaces fresh pasture) rather than my having to drive the tractor. Then I am freed up for other tasks.

    1. Re:Lot of potential by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It makes a lot more sense to develop self driving on equipment like that, with few obstructions and on private property, then to develop it on public roads.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Lot of potential by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      I have a client that is a harvesting company they are starting now in the south and will work their way to the Dakotas. Partly Self driving Harvesters are already being tested in the fields. But they still have an operator in the cab. Since I am not with the crews I am not sure of the extent.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    3. Re:Lot of potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes a lot more sense to develop self driving on equipment like that, with few obstructions and on private property, then to develop it on public roads.

      Why do you think private property has 'few obstructions'?

      Self-driving cars cheat. They get the map of the area from Google (or whoever), do some graph analysis, then keep their eyes out from a fairly uniform set of obstacles.

      - Private property is not mapped (unless you map it yourself).
      - Private property won't necessarily be relatively uniform terrain.
      - And it will have a different (but not zero) set of obstacles. Like a random cow.

      I'm not saying it isn't a feasible potential market, just be careful thinking it's significantly easier. It's different.

      Captcha is adultery. You have to watch out for Stormy Daniels' tour bus?

    4. Re:Lot of potential by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Just as it is easier to hammer in a nail with a hammer than your hand

      Wuss.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Lot of potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of potential and not just on the road. Out here on the farm and in the forests self-driving tractors, skidders, buncher grabbers, conveyers, wagons and delivery vehicles have a lot of potential. They are levers that amplify us. Just as it is easier to hammer in a nail with a hammer than your hand it is easier to move round bales of hay with a tractor than by hand. Self driving tractors would let me instruct them to put out hay to our pastured pigs in the winter (hay replaces fresh pasture) rather than my having to drive the tractor. Then I am freed up for other tasks.

      That sounds more like a robot

    6. Re:Lot of potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harvesters are an interesting application. Add in the various sensor suites that estimate crop quality/yield and there's a lot of short term and long term data analysis work to keep the guy in the cab busy - scheduling, effects of irrigation and fertilizer, soil quality, etc.. Until they automate that part too, then it's just a matter of debugging software and watching ads to enable the "harvest next row" function.

    7. Re:Lot of potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pros drive nails with their penis, just 'not right now'...Anybody got a picture of Hillary?

  4. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. The churning labor market idea is obsolete by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We have a labor market characterized by churning -- continual job creation and destruction,"

    That is OLD SCHOOL THINKING. No longer applicable.

    That will no longer be true once AI and automated systems capabilities generally get better than the corresponding human ability.
    Example: There's a technology that is better now at detecting certain types of tumours in images than radiologists.

    We have to change our analysis of future job prospects, and not just rely on "something else will come up for people to do."

    There will be a cross-over point for each type of job when automated system will be better at it and more cost effective than a person.
    That will start happening to more and more job categories (or at least their most important tasks) faster and faster, as AI and automation continue their rapid advancement in capability.

    Automation and AI are improving fast.
    People are not.
    Get used to it.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

      The truth is, the days of getting a good job and sitting back, waiting for retirement are gone. Everyone must take personal responsibility for their own education, continuous professional/trades planning and training. Those that do not or are not able, will suffer for it. I know it is sad, but that is the truth everyone working in our current and our future economy face.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    2. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want job security? Become a plumber or electrician.

    3. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      How come in the last few years, whenever somebody says the words "personal responsibility", he always uses it to justify horrible things happening to people?

    4. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's a secure job if a few people become plumbers and/or electricians, but if a million people become plumbers and/or electricians, the hourly rate gets driven into the ground. Besides, can't say I've ever talked to a life long plumber that seems joyful about his job.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said be a plumber or electrician if you want job security. He didn't anything about enjoying your job.

      Also, many people are too stupid, or don't have the right work ethic, to be decent plumbers or workers. But surely there are enough people with those qualities to drive the rates down, if they chose to (or had no other reasonable alternatives).

    6. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There will be a cross-over point for each type of job when automated system will be better at it and more cost effective than a person."

      No, there won't. There will simply come a point when "intelligence" will no longer have an important economic value. Which ought to make all those folks going to college in order to get a "good paying job" a little uncomfortable. Why do we need doctors with technical knowledge when AI can provide it better and cheaper. On the other hand, we will probably still need people to comfort patients and persuade them to take their meds. But that doesn't require 10 years of training and deep knowledge of medicine.

    7. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *All* human action is speculation. That includes all decisions about employment, investing, etc. It has always been a speculative enterprise, and always will be. There has never been such a thing as true financial security, nor truly guaranteed retirement.

      As the economy changes, people will make different plays, which will just create more change. Your predictions are worth less than the space they take up on slashdot's servers.

    8. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      can't say I've ever talked to a life long plumber that seems joyful about his job.

      I have met few people in any trade or profession that seem joyful about their job.

    9. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's a technology that is better now at detecting certain types of tumours in images than radiologists.

      In one, carefully curated study. When doctors start actually being replaced by that technology, we can say it's better, but for now all we have is a preliminary study. Here is just one of many reasons it matters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Horrible things" are going to happen anyway, there is no need to justify it. It's called progress. But why lament it? The end of the working class and, in due time, the middle class is the best thing that could happen to mankind. The enlightened and sophisticated will thrive, the deplorables will disappear. I see no downsides.

    11. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Oxygen99 · · Score: 1

      Yep, It's the fundamental mistake people who use the lamplighter or buggy whip analogy make. AI isn't coming for one job. It's coming for all jobs.

      Including making bad analogies.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    12. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think the "churning" is supposed to be from one job type to another. As they say, if you're a buggy whip maker, you'll just have to train to be a software developer. Or something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      That is OLD SCHOOL THINKING.

      That may be true this time, however, the same thing has been said for every previous technological advance. THIS time there will be nothing else for the field hands to do. THIS time auto workers will have nowhere else to go. THIS time secretaries won't have any other job.

      If you could predict what the next major employment sector will be, you would be a very rich person.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    14. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by ranton · · Score: 1

      There will simply come a point when "intelligence" will no longer have an important economic value. Which ought to make all those folks going to college in order to get a "good paying job" a little uncomfortable.

      There will likely come a point when most highly skilled knowledge jobs no longer have an important economic value, but intelligence will still be valuable for tasks which require more problem solving and creativity than amassed knowledge. Doctors and pharmacists are two jobs which require significant knowledge but not much unique and novel problem solving. I can imagine a world within the next 20 years where over 50% of our doctors are not needed, perhaps even 90+%. But I agree with others on this forum that nurses will be even more valuable in that world than they are today, in most part because of the aging population.

      The intelligence which will still have significant economic value is the ability to differentiate your product in the market place, invent something new, design scalable business processes, make your work force more efficient, etc. But overall I agree that most people going to college for "good paying jobs" are in for trouble because we may only need a small fraction of today's knowledge jobs in the very near future. We see that in the lawyer position today, where if you cannot make it into an elite school you probably need to rethink your career path. The same may soon be true for nearly all college educated career paths.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    15. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I concur.

      And an often missed issue is even if someone is correct in saying, "AI won't replace my job before I retire.", they are ignoring that entire industries are going to be replaced by AI. If their job is tied to one of those, it may not be replaced by AI, but rather destroyed by it. And even if AI doesn't destroy your industry, it might shake it well enough that a lot of companies go out of business, and that could include the one you work for in your "safe from AI" job.

      I analyze and design a lot of systems and processes for my organization to make it more efficient and reduce errors and issues. I'm well aware that AI can't do this currently, but I'm also aware that a) it will be able to at some point in the near future, and b) most of what I'm doing is to make up for the shit work that people who might be replaceable by AI do. And even if my org doesn't go for AI, how will we fare when competing against those who do? Or if we try to be an early adopter, will we crash and burn?

      Massive disruption is often a good thing in the long term, but pretty shitty to live through in the short term and aftermath.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by hdyoung · · Score: 1

      Labor churn is currently happening, and it will for quite some time. Yes, at some point, computer and robotic systems will probably get good enough to render most human labor obsolete and surpass human mental activity at the highest levels of strategy and creativity. The uncertain question is when. Next decade? No way. In 50 years? Maaayyybeeeee but I'm very skeptical. I'm guessing more like centuries. And that's only if we don't experience planet-wide wars or major civilization setbacks.

      In other words, don't expect that sweet AI-driven UBI anytime soon. Get out there and hustle!

    17. Re:The churning labor market idea is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right about the fate of all the plebs out there, I give it 3 generations before the last one is exterminated by one of the robot dogs from that black mirror episode. But you are hilariously wrong if you think there will be a middle class as we know it around by then.

  6. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uber or not, it's going to take a long time to work out who takes responsibility when something bad happens and there is no steering wheel. You can't hold a person responsible for an accident when they are always just a passenger and never a driver. It's their property and they should cover it against theft and damage by vandalism and other unfortunate events. But someone else has decided how that vehicle will behave in every possible situation, so a person should not insure for what it does.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Self-driving cars are toast... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    The hype has overcome the reality of what can be delivered. Self-driving cars don't work yet. They don't.

    .
    I challenge anyone who says they do work to cross the street on a dark, windy, snowy night while self-driving cars are coming at them.

    Then there is the liability aspect. Who is responsible when a self-driving car goes awry?

    Toast.

    1. Re:Self-driving cars are toast... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      No one?

    2. Re:Self-driving cars are toast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crossing the street on a dark, windy, snowy night while there are cars on the road is a ridiculously stupid thing to do, no matter who or what is driving them.

      Self driving cars work when they are as-safe-as human drivers. They don't have to be laws-of-physics-violating superior in order to qualify as "working."

  8. Not a problem... by cre1mer · · Score: 1

    Retirees will outnumber workers in 2030. More retirees mean fewer jobs.

  9. That's only 22 years away by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    most of the people reading this will still be alive then. For the older set who actually have the time an inclination to vote now's the time to do something about it. If the younger lot can't work your retirement's going to collapse with the rest of the economy. If you let that happen then you won't even be left with dog food.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's only 22 years away by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      What are we voting for? Saving the buggy whip makers?

    2. Re:That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is sad that people are so weak in imagination or indoctrinated into the existing system that they can't imagine how we might manage a future in which fewer, or eventually no, people have to work. That is what I dream of for my children.

      It will come. America seems set on resisting it to the end. Other countries will embrace it in our place. We will wall ourselves off and sabotage it for as long as possible because it doesn't provide as well for allowing an elite few to maintain their exclusive position.

      It would be nice if we'd stop debating the fact and work toward providing for a smooth transition in all fields, but it won't happen.

    3. Re:That's only 22 years away by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Every time someone talks about a future where people can afford to live and not work, they get called down as a communist. I think many people can envision a world like that. Heck, Star Trek was about a world like that. But what is difficult to envision is how we transition to an economy like that because it requires the people with all the power to give up what they have so others can live. People get called communist, and reminded communism never works. People imagine it all the time, and then get ostracized for it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re: That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious, how many kids can each couple have in This Star Trek world you envision, or is there no set limit?

    5. Re:That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism has trouble when some people have to be forced to work what appears to be worthwhile jobs while others either do nothing or 'make-work'. You can image the unrest that may breed.

      However, in a 'utopian' fully automated world, where only machines are required to 'work', people can be allowed to follow whatever path/hobbies/'work'/sports/socialising they choose.

    6. Re: That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There shouldn't need to be a limit. When women are educated and child mortality is low, as it is in first world countries, then families tend to be small, with average rates below equilibrium, which without immigration will lead to reduced population.

      Long term, there might even be an issue with underpopulation, though given the current world population, that'll be a long way off.

    7. Re: That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long term, there might even be an issue with underpopulation, though given the current world population, that'll be a long way off.

      A global pandemic is not if, but when.
      More likely in the next 1-20 years we are going to see a variant of the H1-N1 that will "remove" 1/3 - 1/2 of the worlds population.

    8. Re:That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's rich. I'd like that Utopian future too. But, since we know how this works - money gets concentrated into a few hands - what makes you think the rich will feed your kids who don't work? If they don't have something (work) to trade for their food, are the greedy wealthy going to just give them food for free? It is not in human nature to do that. They will just starve. Look at any large city today and see the homeless. People barely give them anything. As AI continues its advance, wealth will become more and more concentrated. And, here's a hint. It won't be to you and me. It will be to a-holes like Larry Ellison. He isn't going to feed your kids.

    9. Re: That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Midwest has families popping out up to seven to ten kids because the bible says go forth and multiply.

      Granted, the US is fast slipping off the first world countries list, so maybe your statement doesn't apply to us.

    10. Re:That's only 22 years away by dissy · · Score: 1

      If you let that happen then you won't even be left with dog food.

      Actually, retraining the displaced market and economic analysts into a future job of becoming dog food was our plan all along!

    11. Re:That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is sad that people are so weak in imagination or indoctrinated into the existing system that they can't imagine how we might manage a future in which fewer, or eventually no, people have to work.

      The problem you face is that resources are fixed. While it is true that many people would (and currently do) happily live a life of leisure effectively below or near what we would currently consider the poverty line, there are some currently in power who do not want that. There are some who say government is populated mostly by sociopaths. If this is true, then they view "the workforce" as a necessary evil; a collective entity which uses "their" resources but provides more value than the resources consumed, so "the workforce" isn't just tolerated, but instead encouraged to grow. But if "the workforce" becomes irrelevant for manufacture of new wealth, then they're a drain on resources. A group of sociopaths in control of a robotic army will probably decide to slowly or quickly reduce the size of the resource drain. It has happened before when armies were human and not wholly staffed by sociopaths.

    12. Re:That's only 22 years away by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      It is sad that people are so weak in imagination or indoctrinated into the existing system that they can't imagine how we might manage a future in which fewer, or eventually no, people have to work.

      I don't think anyone has a problem imagining that world. I think they have a problem imagining how we could possibly get to such a world. The big problem is that the incentive for implementing automation is to not have to spend the money on workers. If the owners of the means of production aren't willing to pay people to do work, why on earth would you expect that they'd be willing to pay people to NOT do work?

    13. Re:That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek was a bad SF series written by an untalented hack. It only survived because it was more passable than other SF drivel on TV and there was a bunch of very vocal losers who screamed and hollered and stomped their little feet until they got some attention, and the same untalented hack used this to pressure the network into producing more drivel, which was swallowed like honey by legions of losers. Wouldn't work in today's TV environment, and that crap like Star Trek survived that long says very little about its quality and a lot about the stupidity, lack of taste and general unpleasantness of its way-too-vocal fans. But I digress: Star Trek is related to reality just as saturday morning cartoons are. Anybody who thinks that pile of badly written shit can be used as a model for the real world needs psychiatric help.

    14. Re:That's only 22 years away by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

    15. Re: That's only 22 years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed that part where he said EDUCATED women. I'm sorry but if you believe the shit an imaginary sky fairy tells you, you are not educated.

  10. Public roads make a lot of sense too! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    One of the companies in the self driving car space I follow news from is Voyage. One of the areas they have a test vehicle in right now is a retirement community.

    This is a really great use I think of self-driving car tech, because it gives residents who may have trouble driving as they age a convenient and safe taxi they can use 24x7.

    These are public roads but are a good first step as retirement community roads are more laid back than most neighborhoods...

    There are a ton of older drivers that self-driving car tech would help get around, and even better it is replacing drivers that are usually among the more dangerous compared to the average driver so even growing pains of self driving car tech still make for a net win overall.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Public roads make a lot of sense too! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I can understand that. They can move slower too, so would be less likely to miss stuff. It's possible to map a small area accurately, and you control what happens so if there is construction, lets say, the contractors that do the construction can be relied to update the map properly or use markers that are sure to be understood by the cars. You can make sure all the signage is in good shape too, and people are less likely to mess with them.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  11. They can be driven remotely from Mexico by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Semi intelligent cars will not be fully autonomous for a long time. But they can be driven remotely. One operator in Mexico could monitor several trucks at the same time while the drive down the freeway. If the computers get confused they call for help and stop if none is forthcoming.

    Missile firing drones have been flown remotely for years. A car/truck is harder because reaction times need to be faster. But a computer in the loop can solve that.

    That is the future. Outsourcing to cheap labor.

    1. Re:They can be driven remotely from Mexico by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      One operator in Mexico could monitor several trucks at the same time while the drive down the freeway.

      Meanwhile in Ontario, Canada, a girl gets a ticket for looking at her Apple watch while driving.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:They can be driven remotely from Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought she was stopped at a traffic light?

    3. Re:They can be driven remotely from Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about being distracted by a remote-driving app while driving? Everyone needs to work 2-3 jobs simultaneously in the new economy...

  12. Securing America's Future Energy by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    Securing America's Future Energy is a lobbying organization that represents oil companies like Chevron. So this is just junk. Slashdot needs to stop reposting this drivel.

  13. Well, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    signed, a helicopter pilot

  14. responsibility for their own education 50K a year by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    responsibility for their own education 50K a year + the cert treadmill = big loans with small hope of paying them back.

  15. The singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But.. but.. that's 5 years after the Singularity is supposed to take place.

  16. Like we are in a Blender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We have a labor market characterized by churning -- continual job creation and destruction"

    With the parts becoming smaller and smaller and having less and less significance. I wonder how long before we start to see real violence in opposition to the idea that a few people will get all the benefits of technology and the rest of us will end up as their servants or worse, nothing at all.

  17. Churn can burn by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "We have a labor market characterized by churning -- continual job creation and destruction...The challenge is to make the transition as smooth as possible."

    Those displaced by new technologies on average do not recover back to the level they were. They take an economic hit. Similar applies to offshored careers.

    Therefore, just because new jobs are created by new technologies or offshoring, that does not mean people don't suffer.

    You are whacking one group to benefit another. Imaging robbing $1000 from 100 people each, but giving a different group of 100 people $1200 each. There first 100 are not going to be happy just because the average benefits to the aggregate population have increased. They'll tell you to stick your averages where your aggregates don't shine.

  18. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think owners are also liable for damages caused *by* their property, unless they can transfer that liability back to the manufacturer or some other party.

    For example, if your appliance starts on fire and burns down your apartment building, you may be liable for the damage to neighbors. More so if you didn't maintain it properly or if you misused it. Less so if it can be shown to have a design flaw that makes it dangerous when use as intended. More so again if it was recalled for that defect and you didn't heed the recall...

  19. Crap! Now I'm scared by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I'm a coder - and this is the first time I've heard that self-driving cars would be moving into my field!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Crap! Now I'm scared by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      They will when they crash through your office wall.

    2. Re:Crap! Now I'm scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current office is on the second floor, so I guess we're assuming Uber's incompetence with self-driving tech will get combined with their completely out-there claimed flying car plans. Seems about right.

    3. Re:Crap! Now I'm scared by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My current office is on the second floor, so I guess we're assuming Uber's incompetence with self-driving tech will

      They're not Daleks, but nearly as effective.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Crap! Now I'm scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current office is on the second floor, so I guess we're assuming Uber's incompetence with self-driving tech will get combined with their completely out-there claimed flying car plans. Seems about right.

      Do you have a parking garage next to your building?

  20. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. Slow decline by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Maybe in 2040, there will be no jobs, but in the 2020's driving as a job will be in a steady decline.

    This is just like printing over that last several decades. It hasn't gone away, but is a fraction of what it used to be.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Slow decline by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 0

      I am at a division of a mega-corporation we have been a Cisco Gold Partner for years.

      Recently, we shut down most of our data center business because there's no value in it anymore. We sold off or laid off most of the data center workers and we were one of the biggest in the country a few years ago. What's funny is that 4 years ago, people said cloud would never take over... the developers apparently didn't agree and while no one in their right minds would us IaaS in the cloud because it's expensive and stupid, SaaS took over most of the stuff and business software was placed on PaaS. So, there's simply no reason anyone would run a data center in-house anymore unless they would rather spend years and years supporting legacy systems as opposed to investing in progressively moving to more modern systems. I will admit though that the selection of PaaS is still weak. They're either highly proprietary or too "first gen" to invest in at this time... at least when thinking 20 years ahead.

      We also were the country's #1 Cisco Unified Communication's partner. That means telephones and video conferencing. We are shutting down that entire division because it's not interesting anymore. As soon as virtual switchboard applications were supported on mobile devices and integrated with telephone providers, we no longer needed or wanted desktop phones. And since Skype for business is so much better than the Cisco offerings, we don't even use the Cisco stuff in-house, we just use Skype. So why waste money on Cisco UC solutions anymore. Of course, we also use Facetime and Google Hangouts and whatever. There are hundreds of apps out there.

      Both data center and UC died in two years.

      I think the next thing to go will be wireless networking and all the infrastructure associated with it. The prices on 4G LTE are a little high now. 40GB/month still costs about $50-60 a user, but that includes telephone and messaging as well. But it costs $40 for 15GB which is basically a base business user plan. If we add $10-$20 a month per user, for a 5000 employees, that's $50,000 a month. And of course if you have 5000 employees, you'll negotiate better prices than that.

      So, at $50,000 a month, it costs $1.8 million for 36 months or $600,000 a year for enough LTE to replace your enterprise wireless network.

      Consider an organization with 5,000 employees will likely have 500 access points to support them spread across buildings and locations. A Cisco 3802 sells for about $750 in this market (the one I measured the cost of LTE in) and that would be $375,000 for access points, two Cisco 5520 controllers would cost about $50,000 for that many access points. Then there's Cisco Prime and licenses for the access points. Let's assume we're running the professional version. So between software, licenses, additional data center resources, that's about another $300,000. Let's assume at least $1 million so far given my rounding errors.

      Then you need to have networking ports with enough capacity to handle the wireless. You'll also need a WAN solution to provide office connectivity to transport the data. You'll also need edge security solutions at every site able to secure the access points and the switches. Let's assume the additional infrastructure cost for that same 36 months will be about half a million.

      Then you need consultants and installers and cablers, You need software updates, security patches, operations... I'll place that at about $1.2 million.

      So... to run your own wireless network, there is probably about $3 million vs. $1.8 million to just pay for more bandwidth on LTE. Thanks to MDM solutions, it's becoming easier and easier to support desktop devices via LTE as well.

      So... we expect when 5G comes out, bandwidth will be even cheaper. Always on laptops are shipping more and more already.

      Wireless networking will be dead and it will also decimate about 30-50% of the wired networking market.

      So what about security products...

      I can go on an on about this... but the fact

  22. Just for the fun of I'll see your troll by presidenteloco · · Score: 0

    and raise you a:

    Meanwhile, you'll be defiantly sitting out in the backyard on your broken down tractor's seat with a straw in your mouth shouting yeehah! while you wave the confederate flag and down contraband turpentine as you pretend in your mind to be cruising down the main street (well the only street really) of Lower Trump's Rump, Kentucky in search of painted trailer trash... In your dreams.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  23. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Uber or not, it's going to take a long time to work out who takes responsibility when something bad happens and there is no steering wheel.

    This is already "worked out". Manufacturers are responsible for their products. When brakes failed on Toyotas, it was Toyota's problem. When Tesla Autopilot crashed into a truck the same color as the sky, it was Tesla's problem.

  24. Rental Car Industry by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Cars that can park themselves, and a kiosk for customers to select various services. Hertz has one of these two items already

  25. I walk for work by Pitt64 · · Score: 1

    how long

  26. The interstate is always under construction. Snow by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Take any of those long cross-country trips you're talking about with a lot of highway miles and you're probably going to come across at least one place where the road is under construction, probably several. Often enough, that's out in the boonies where there isn't a continuous feeder, so there is a detour through the town square - exactly the kinds of situations automated systems can't deal with are going to happen. Drive across several states and very likely part of the journey is going to be through a snowstorm or downpour. Not just on SOME trips, which would be a deal killer, but on MOST cross-country trips you'll run into one or more of these things.

  27. vocabulary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Disappear" is a transitive verb now? Hmm...interesting.

  28. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Mkkby · · Score: 2

    Self driving will be an unreliable novelty until major road improvements are made. A system of cameras/radar fails under too many circumstances. There will have to be road bed sensors marking out the lanes. There will have to be a central control unit that controls traffic flow. There will have to be 5g wireless comm that has very little lag and very high reliability. None of this is happening in under 20 years, and gov't hasn't started the clock yet.

    Electric cars will be a drain on the economy. Higher adoption rates will run smack against grid improvements. There will be a need for many more charging stations. Since charging takes hours, we would need probably 10x as many as there are gas stations. Once again, the clock hasn't started on this yet.

    Where will the money come from in a sluggish economy with debt out the kazoo at every level? Answer, it won't. Not for decades.

  29. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Mkkby · · Score: 2

    This is not true. You are only responsible if you are NEGLIGENT. Look up the legal meaning of that word.

    If your toaster causes a fire, that is not your fault unless you were careless or used it improperly. For example you were using it to light newspapers. Or you knew it was faulty (perhaps it sparked before) and you didn't do anything about it.

    There is no way you could be held responsible for a self driving car with no user controls. Unless there was reason to believe you didn't properly maintain it, or you hacked the software, etc...

  30. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    Higher adoption rates will run smack against grid improvements.

    I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Higher adoption rates would make the electric vehicle fleet a dispatchable sink of electricity that would allow for higher penetration of renewable sources and increased generation capacity. These things can plausibly play very well together.

    Since charging takes hours, we would need probably 10x as many as there are gas stations

    Based on the average daily mileage of a typical vehicle, if you have hours to recharge it, a simple wall plug might be sufficient. A wall plug is much cheaper than a gasoline pump and the associated hardware and logistics.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  31. Exciting by Daralantan · · Score: 2
    I look forward to the future where the car slams through the window of my office then sits at my desk to get some work done.

    -That, or when we turn into Mad Max world and have guitar flamethrower cars.

  32. I call Bullshit. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    So these are self-drining. And while I agree they won't take my job any time soon - after all, I'm a computer experts of sorts - I know for a fact that the ones shown already have taken ~300 jobs.

    As soon as it is economically 10x more feasible to do automated driving - be it little bots or human-transporting "car-like" things it will happen. Even if that requires standardizing street signs and perhaps some guidance system for automated cars. Transport is 70 million jobs globally. At least. The incentive to cut those costs is presuring and it will happen once self-driving cars are feasible. And they are about to become.

    I recommend this video for a different take on this issue.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  33. SAFE says they are non-partisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But have ties to the Obama administration. They are essentially a lobbying group, and this piece is pure speculation and contrivance. They don't *know* anything, and what they want may or may not align with anything real now or in the future.

  34. Not obsolete, entire premise is flawed by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    I would argue that the churning labor market idea isn't just obsolete, it's flawed to begin with, hiding what really happened. What they fail to mention is that the people whose jobs were destroyed in previous technological revolutions struggled mightily to gain one of those newly created jobs. Much like how today you can't take an old mill worker and turn them into a AI coder, they couldn't simply take a serf, farmer or craftsman and turn them into a skilled factory worker. In the end, those people were lost, shuffled into slums or revolted in the political upheavals of the 19th century. The problem only "resolved" itself as they died out and their children, who grew up in the new technological age, took on those new jobs.

  35. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Negligent, of course, means that "you didn't have good enough lawyers", as you can be sued by anyone for anything in the US.

  36. Ritalin's widening gyre by epine · · Score: 1

    That may be true this time, however, the same thing has been said for every previous technological advance.

    You're doing inference from stupid. It's like wisdom of the crowds in reverse: round up all the people who've been gloriously wrong (over and over again) into a small pen, and then go opposite George.

    News flash: you can't squeeze a correct prediction out of a teapot of stupid people.

    The fall of Rome was predicted many times. These predictions were wrong every time—until it actually happened (only some historians dispute that this did ever happen; it kind of depends on how you choose to view Byzantium). Either way, the heyday years of the Roman empire did, indeed, come to an abrupt end (only historians dispute this too: some claim the end arrived in gradual stages).

    One of the rationales floating around before the crash of 2008 was "well, the housing market has never gone done, everywhere, all at once." Until it did.

    Let's just look at this from the point of view of sampling bias.

    Get a large group of people, have them all make predictions about some future bright line, sort those predictions into time sequence.

    Here's something that's guaranteed: if you get to the median prediction without it having come true (yet), half of all of the people can be entirely written off as Chicken Littles, while the other half can not (yet) be written off as Chicken Lates. Interesting asymmetry, isn't it?

    False positive, false negative; Chicken Little, Chicken Latte (as in, Nero cozied up to an espresso bar while Rome burned).

    And here your are trumpeting navigating through the rear-view mirror as some kind of great, refined wisdom.

    ———

    Last night I was reading Sapiens (2014) by Yuval Noah Harari. I was really looking forward to this book, but to be honest, halfway into the second chapter, I'm pretty bummed out by his cavalier roll-ups. Such an enormous step down after Sapolsky's Behave (2017).

    In any case, Sapiens is nothing but a litany of enduring, world-redefining change.

    It's one of the main reasons people tend to predict alarming change Real Soon Now: because that's what history is actually made from. (Only people tend to forget that history is denominated on a log scale, while the future is usually denominated on a linear scale, which goes a long way toward accounting for the tragic surplus on the Chicken Little side of the fence; that, and thrill-seeking eschatology boners.)

    ———

    I generally try to root my predictions about the future in the perceptions of people who can successfully translate from a log to a linear scale. Try it sometime. You might discover that No Change Ever is not the Bayesian all-world prior you imagine it to be.

    Over the last century or so, the number of borderline unemployable males in Western democracy has gone from about 5% to about 15% due to the relentless inflation in the norms of educational attainment.

    But a man could get by without an education, if he had physical competence and a work ethic, because there was always roofing to fall back on.

    Power your Home with Beautiful Solar

    Made with tempered glass, Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles. That's why we offer the best warranty in the industry — the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. Watch our hail test video to see how we take durability to a whole new level.

    Society is already failing to manufacture enough meaningful work to employ industrious, boisterous males who don't finish school.

    I suspect we're more likely to address this problem in future by changing the broken educational system (broken for those whom it least serves) than by making the demands of the modern workforce less cognitively arduous.

  37. Re: ANY DAY NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You kids are so cute with your shiney futurism. Enjoy a lifetime of no clean air or water, because monies!!

  38. Re: the legal framework self driving cars will tak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing there are no sunk costs in the economy otherwise your dreamy futurism might have to account for them and thatld just be too much reality for your dreams to handle son.

  39. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

    Self driving will be an unreliable novelty until major road improvements are made.

    The self driving will remain an unreliable novelty. We can barely fund the repair work needed bring our worst roads up to current standards. Major improvements to all roads to make them easier for automated vehicles that may or may not be coming? Flying cars will happen first.

  40. Depends on where you live by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    If you drive a truck on long hauls over the desert, or in flat areas with decent areas, it's going to be sooner than you realize.

    If you drive a truck in regions with marginal roads, bad weather (snow, ice, avalanches, floods, etc), it will be a while.

    For examples take a look at the current lineup of trucks sold by PACCAR. More than half are now hybrids or fuel cell/electric, with some degree of self-driving automation.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  41. Re: the legal framework self driving cars will tak by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Let me know when you'll have a cogent reply ready.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  42. Re:Jobs won't be replaced by AI anytime soon by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Let me just send you a case of beer by self-driving beer truck https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and delivery drone so we can drink to that proposition.

    Oh look at that, Google Tomorrow (next version of Google Now) already scheduled and ordered that on my behalf.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  43. Last mile operators need not sit in the truck. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    They could do it remotely. Which makes the AI much, much simpler.

  44. Harvesters are too expensive by aberglas · · Score: 1

    If you are talking about the big combine harvesters. The cost of the operator is relatively small, and you do not want anything to go wrong with that million dollar machine.

    But smaller scale things like a strawberry picker have much more potential. Labor is a high proportion of the cost there. Many more jobs to replace for the given amount of research expenditure.

  45. Very well said. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Very well said.

  46. Re:the legal framework self driving cars will take by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    No manufacturer seems prepared to treat software failure and mechanical failure as the same thing; even though with the on vent of self-driving, we are resting most of the passenger's safety on the ability for software to correctly interpret any situation. Feel free to cite references if you find any evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, Tesla has carefully structured their liability such that they can always blame the driver. Every accident by autopilot has been followed by comments to the effect of, "the driver must always pay attention".

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.