# Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars



## GHook93 (Aug 21, 2016)

'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future

The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.

There are 2 sides of the coin. 
(1) The liberals will scream those poor uber drivers are losing their jobs to a greedy corporation, yet the reality is if uber didn't do this another company would have and then put them out of business. Think blockbuster refusing to change and Netflix innovations them out of the market place. So it would have occurred either way. Humans have been innovating and making things better since the dawn of time. Driverless cars were inevitable.

(2) The heartless conservative will say get a different job and cry on someone else's shoulder. Yes everyone loves innovation until it is their job automated out of existence. The reality is automation continues to grow the amount of jobs continue to shrink. Ex. The amount of people required to make a car has decreased 1000 fold in a just a few decades. The manufacturing and assembly sectors have been hit hardest, but won't end there. Low level service jobs are going to get hit hard. But it won't stop there, the medical field, legal field, accounting field, and really all white collar jobs will be reexamine and the list goes on and on. The number of people entering the workforce will only grow and the job market will only decrease. 

What is going to be the solution? I don't know, but I doubt it won't involve less government intervention!


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 26, 2016)

Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.


I realize technology has always made many jobs obsolete in time, but a wave of robotics eliminating blue and white collar jobs might be the straw that breaks the camels back


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

We'll absorb this new phase of robotics as we've always done.  New jobs maintaining the machines will created and the old, unnecessary jobs will disappear.  ATMs, self-checkout, 100K miles between tune-ups, cell phones replacing pay phones,..  The list of downsizing and obsolescence is endless.

Short haul drivers will complain.  Long haul drivers, that's when truckers are replaced, then there'll really be squawking.

You can't fight the tide of technology.  Adapt or perish.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 27, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> We'll absorb this new phase of robotics as we've always done.  New jobs maintaining the machines will created and the old, unnecessary jobs will disappear.  ATMs, self-checkout, 100K miles between tune-ups, cell phones replacing pay phones,..  The list of downsizing and obsolescence is endless.
> 
> Short haul drivers will complain.  Long haul drivers, that's when truckers are replaced, then there'll really be squawking.
> 
> You can't fight the tide of technology.  Adapt or perish.



True, but machines are doing more and more. I don't think this phase will be business as usual.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 27, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > We'll absorb this new phase of robotics as we've always done.  New jobs maintaining the machines will created and the old, unnecessary jobs will disappear.  ATMs, self-checkout, 100K miles between tune-ups, cell phones replacing pay phones,..  The list of downsizing and obsolescence is endless.
> ...


I think it will be of the magnitude of the industrial revolution.  It will change a great number of things, but the overall effect will better most people's lives.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> 
> 
> I realize technology has always made many jobs obsolete in time, but a wave of robotics eliminating blue and white collar jobs might be the straw that breaks the camels back


There's no slippery slope.  If there are no jobs, if we have tens of millions of unemployed Americans (80 million of them being armed!), WHO'S GOING TO BUY THOSE FUCKING CARS?


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 27, 2016)

Crowdsourcing individuals willing to use the cars they already have in exchange for a few bucks has always been short term thinking and opens Uber/Lyft up to all sorts of vulnerabilities in the coming years.  Some of these valuations for companies that have little more than an app to their name are just out of control.


----------



## peabody (Aug 27, 2016)

I like that driverless cars get to decide whether you live or die. 

Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill


----------



## BettyYeti (Aug 27, 2016)

I would love to have all cars driverless.  It should make the roads just that much safer, until all the cars get hacked which is a risk all right.

You stare at your phone and the car handles the road.  Good plan.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 27, 2016)

I foresee, look forward to, a day when I can summon an autonomous car as I'm getting dressed.  It will arrive at my doorstep and recognize me as I approach, opening the door and asking my destination.  Upon arrival, with the swipe of my hand, I confirm that the trip is over and approve the charge to my account.

When I leave, the same process.  We won't need to own cars because we can summon one at any time.  No insurance, no maintenance, no traffic woes because all the cars and trucks will move efficiently place to place, not the way humans drive.  The only visible traffic signals will be for pedestrians and those on two wheels - car and truck traffic will be controlled electronically.

I'm no spring chicken, but I think I'll live to see the day with this is the norm.  I also hope to see the day when schoolchildren ask, "Teacher, did we really used to burn irreplaceable fossil fuel for personal transportation?"


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> I foresee, look forward to, a day when I can summon an autonomous car as I'm getting dressed.  It will arrive at my doorstep and recognize me as I approach, opening the door and asking my destination.  Upon arrival, with the swipe of my hand, I confirm that the trip is over and approve the charge to my account.
> 
> When I leave, the same process.  We won't need to own cars because we can summon one at any time.  No insurance, no maintenance, no traffic woes because all the cars and trucks will move efficiently place to place, not the way humans drive.  The only visible traffic signals will be for pedestrians and those on two wheels - car and truck traffic will be controlled electronically.
> 
> I'm no spring chicken, but I think I'll live to see the day with this is the norm.  I also hope to see the day when schoolchildren ask, "Teacher, did we really used to burn irreplaceable fossil fuel for personal transportation?"


That's a good scenario, but much more likely in cities than rural areas.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 27, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> 
> 
> I realize technology has always made many jobs obsolete in time, but a wave of robotics eliminating blue and white collar jobs might be the straw that breaks the camels back



Government funded supplemental income for the unemployed, working poor, and underemployed will just keep increasing.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

peabody said:


> I like that driverless cars get to decide whether you live or die.
> 
> Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill


Thanks for the article.  Robot ethics goes back to the 1950s when scientists/science fiction writers like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke began postulating future events such as this technology. 

It's a technical problem which will be resolved.  The good news is that such scenarios will be very rare since most of the programming will be to avoid such scenarios.  Ten people magically appearing in front?  Unlikely.  Sensors along the road can be fed to all cars detailing the movements of pedestrians.  Programming in the cars will tell them to slow down prior to it becoming a problem.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Government funded supplemental income for the unemployed, working poor, and underemployed will just keep increasing.


You mean the standard LW solution of "Let's just print more money!"?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 27, 2016)

This is just history repeating itself.  There has always been a certain portion of the population that resists progress and technology because it hurts their bottom line and they aren't willing to adapt to the changes of time.  Buggy whip makers demanded the government bail them out when the automobile started going mainstream.  Candlestick makers weren't thrilled about the invention of electricity.  Video killed the radio star and now you have taxi companies and union backed politicians all over the country trying to stop rideshare because it's infringing on their monopolies.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 27, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Government funded supplemental income for the unemployed, working poor, and underemployed will just keep increasing.
> ...



No I mean that low income people get the same number of votes as you do.  

If you have viable solution to putting people to work in good paying jobs in the face of automation and low wage foreign competition,

then you should post it.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Aug 27, 2016)

This driver-less car idea isn't going to work. The technology to make it near flawless is two decades away at least. People will die and they'll have to stop using it until technology is invented that actually works. We're talking about two tons of steel hurtling down the road at up to 70 mph and no one in control? The easiest example, a dog runs out in front of one of these cars and it swerves to miss it or hits it causing a fatal pile up. The list of these potentially deadly occurences is endless. Jesus adult human beings paying attention to what they are doing die in car crashes, you think there is any software that is even close to what a 3 year old child would do in such a situation?

Automated aircraft are possible because the air is strictly controlled, aircraft rules keep aircraft seperated, and you don't have to worry about killing someone every single moment your vehicle is in motion. In a car you do, you come across thousands of possible disasters every time you get in your car. And yes there are very small numbers of aircraft collisions, almost all are due to pilot error. Landing an aircraft is, relatively speaking, not that difficult. If the aircraft holds proper speed and descends at a prescribed rate and angle it will invariably contact the runway on it's own. Automatic systems CAN do this already.

It won't work with cars for a very long time. Too many variables.

The OP's point about less jobs and more people is a good one though. At some point all human societies are going to have to go away from the "you don't work you don't eat" philosophy as there just will not be enough jobs. I think companies will in fact be forced to forego some automation and keep people employed as they are the ones who will have to pay these people whether they are working or not.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 27, 2016)

And by the time driver-less cars have been perfected, we'll have flying cars, so it will be pointless anyway.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> If you have viable solution to putting people to work in good paying jobs in the face of automation and low wage foreign competition,
> 
> then you should post it.



It's up to each one of us to pave our own path in life.  If you're going to wait around for someone else to do it for you then you're probably going to fail.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 27, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If you have viable solution to putting people to work in good paying jobs in the face of automation and low wage foreign competition,
> ...



So you would blame the mass poverty in a place like Africa on all those poor kids not showing some initiative?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The problem in Africa is mass corruption and oppressive government.  Is it your position that the United States is overrun with tyrants and tribal warlords?


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> *No I mean that low income people get the same number of votes as you do.  *
> 
> If you have viable solution to putting people to work in good paying jobs in the face of automation and low wage foreign competition,
> 
> then you should post it.


Yeah, that's a problem that will fix itself one way or another. 

My solution is long term: better birth control and sex education and a push for low income women to voluntarily have abortions and sterilization.  Push low income men to have vasectomies.  This could be done by offering enticements such as education and the promise of a better job.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> So you would blame the mass poverty in a place like Africa on all those poor kids not showing some initiative?


Wow!  Look how strong you are!  You make moving those goalposts around look easy!

I strongly doubt those "poor kids" in Africa will be losing jobs to Uber or automation anytime soon.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 27, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




It's my position that when 1000 Americans line up to try for 100 jobs at a Walmart, it's not the fault of the people that there aren't enough jobs to go around.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 27, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > *No I mean that low income people get the same number of votes as you do.  *
> ...



Why push 'low income' men to have vasectomies?  The children of higher income people are going to take jobs as well.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> It's my position that when 1000 Americans line up to try for 100 jobs at a Walmart, it's not the fault of the people that there aren't enough jobs to go around.


Correct.  They are partly to blame.  Their parents are also partly to blame for both birthing them and inadequately raising their children.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why push 'low income' men to have vasectomies?  The children of higher income people are going to take jobs as well.


The higher income people are already exercising self-control. Otherwise they wouldn't be higher income, would they?


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 27, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> 
> 
> I realize technology has always made many jobs obsolete in time, but a wave of robotics eliminating blue and white collar jobs might be the straw that breaks the camels back



Most people seem determined to ignore the fact that the very technology they love so dearly is already built on the belief that human existence as a whole is obsolete.  They propagate the very belief every time they so much as google search a question that should be asked to a person, settle for an auto-fill function that doesn't quite give them what they actually want, etc.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 27, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> ...



Nice post, very succinctly stated.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

SYTFE said:


> And by the time driver-less cars have been perfected, we'll have flying cars, so it will be pointless anyway.


Funny but, 1) untrue, driverless cars are a lot closer than flying cars and 2) the flying cars will probably be pilotless.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 27, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> > And by the time driver-less cars have been perfected, we'll have flying cars, so it will be pointless anyway.
> ...



Don't you crush my dreams of piloting a flying car!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Perhaps they should strive to be something more


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

SYTFE said:


> Don't you crush my dreams of piloting a flying car!


I'm certain it will be like "piloting" a drone; most of the work is done by the drone's computer.  You'll just push a joystick in the direction you want to go.  It does the rest.  It'll have a full auto and a "manual" mode, but I doubt it'll be truly manual like flying a helicopter.


----------



## initforme (Aug 27, 2016)

If and when the first driverless car kills someone i fully support the lawsuit that sticks it to uber.  Sue them big time i fully support you.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 27, 2016)

initforme said:


> If and when the first driverless car kills someone i fully support the lawsuit that sticks it to uber.  Sue them big time i fully support you.



Actually the lawsuit would end up going against the manufacturers.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

initforme said:


> If and when the first driverless car kills someone i fully support the lawsuit that sticks it to uber.  Sue them big time i fully support you.


It'll be even more entertaining when the first "love robot" kills it's rapist "master".  It'll bring up all sorts of interesting questions.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Actually the lawsuit would end up going against the manufacturers.


Agreed.  Who, in turn, would pass it to the insurance companies who, in turn, would pass it off to consumers with higher rates.   And the world goes round and round and round!


----------



## initforme (Aug 27, 2016)

So the average consumer gets the hurt....aint america great?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2016)

Self-driving cars will make traffic worse.

Consider these situations.

You have a job in town, one that does not provide parking. You have to pay for parking. So, what's the cheapest thing to do? "Drive" to work, then tell your empty car to drive back home and park, then tell it to come back at quitting time and get you.

Or, even worse, think of that happening with special event parking. No need to pay to park at the big game. There's just the problem of 20,000 empty cars suddenly converging at the stadium at the end of the game.

Or, you have an errand to run. You'll only be inside for 30 minutes. So, you tell your empty car to keep circling the block until you're done.


----------



## initforme (Aug 27, 2016)

Cheap labor...american business rule no one.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Self-driving cars will make traffic worse.
> 
> Consider these situations.
> 
> ...


Possibly, but how about car pooling?  Why shoulder the entire price of a $100,000 vehicle that spends 20 hours out of every 24 sitting?  Why not have it be a "Mom Van" type vehicle which spends 10-15 hours a day running people around to do errands among a group of people who bought shares in the car?  

Alternatively, as someone already posted, why buy a car at all when, for a few bucks, you can be taken wherever you want to go whenever you like?  Anyone remember the robot taxi "johnnycab" in the first "Total Recall"?


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

initforme said:


> Cheap labor...american business rule no one.





initforme said:


> So the average consumer gets the hurt....aint america great?


Says "In It For Me".  ROFL


----------



## Anathema (Aug 27, 2016)

You will NEVER find me in a car that is not being controlled by a human being, preferably myself. I have ZERO faith in a computer driving in traffic.

BTW - I HATE flying for the same reason.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 27, 2016)

Anathema said:


> You will NEVER find me in a car that is not being controlled by a human being, preferably myself. I have ZERO faith in a computer driving in traffic.
> 
> BTW - I HATE flying for the same reason.


Ride a horse.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 27, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> ...



Good question. There will always be jobs, but there could be less of them.


----------



## Anathema (Aug 27, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Ride a horse.



I have. Very enjoyable activity. Not practical for work. I will still NEVER ride in a driverless vehicle.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 27, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> ...




That might be where it is headed.

Communism and socialism requires a slave class that works hard and doesn't complain. That is why it has always failed because socialism always destroys incentive. Slavery is outlawed and is not efficient means for difficult tasks.

However computer and hypothetically robots do what they are programmed. 

Could robots bring about the left's Marxist dream? Maybe

If that is the case humans will become fat, lazy and stupid. We will devolve. Think the humans on the movie Wallie


----------



## pwjohn (Aug 27, 2016)

Where are they? I haven't seen any driverless cars on the road!


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 27, 2016)

They're being introduced in Pittsburgh.

ALT VEHICLES: Driverless Uber arrives, and Pittsburgh hops aboard


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 27, 2016)

pwjohn said:


> Where are they? I haven't seen any driverless cars on the road!



Google is testing their cars in CA, TX, WA, and AZ.  Google Self-Driving Car Project

Ford is testing in CA, AZ, and MI.  True self-driving cars will arrive in 5 years, says Ford

According to that Ford article, they want to have fully self driving cars, without even the option for human control, within 5 years.  That sounds unrealistic to me, but I certainly haven't paid close enough attention to know.

I think the roads would be much safer if most people got around in self driving cars.  I worry about the possibility that a somewhat even mix of traditional and self driving cars could end up being more dangerous than one or the other, though.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 27, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> According to that Ford article, they want to have fully self driving cars, without even the option for human control, within 5 years.



And then when the police want to arrest you they will tap in to the system and override the car's inputs, causing the car to deliver you to the PD front doorstep.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 27, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> 'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future
> 
> The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.
> 
> ...




I tried to get some discussion of this topic here

CDZ - How Will the Robotics Revolution Impact the Democratic Party?

and here

CDZ - How Might We Soften The Blow of The Third Industrial Revolution, the Age of Robots?

and here

These Are The Careers to be Impacted By the Coming Jobless Economy


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 27, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Google is testing their cars in CA, TX, WA, and AZ. Google Self-Driving Car Project
> 
> Ford is testing in CA, AZ, and MI. True self-driving cars will arrive in 5 years, says Ford
> 
> ...



Self driving cars is kind of like computer software.  They tell you never buy version 1.0, wait for version 1.2 because that's the version where they got all the bugs out of version 1.0. 

Software, phones, games are all great during the test process, but once you pass it out to tens of millions of people, that's where you find the problems. 

Don't get me wrong, I think self-driving cars would be great, especially for those that like to attend bars and not stop drinking.  It could save a lot of lives.  It would be great for senior citizens as well.  It would save many store front windows from being driven through.  But I think it will not come without it's own problems at least for some time.  Then we have the insurance companies to consider since insurance companies run our entire country.  Will the rates be cheaper or more expensive for self-driving cars?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> > Where are they? I haven't seen any driverless cars on the road!
> ...


That will take some getting used to.

No matter how congested and seemingly chaotic traffic may be (think Bangkok), there aren't many collisions because the people drive with a pretty good idea what the other fellow is likely to do, and accommodate that in their own driving behavior.

Robots don't have human emotion and don't drive emotionally.  They drive safely.  Human drivers will have to get used to being in traffic with other cars that drive safely instead of normally.

One can adjust to driving where the rules of the road are a lot different, but there are going to be collisions caused by human drivers who are still trying to learn how to accommodate the robotic vehicle.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

I was thinking about autonomous cars and that they would need no traffic signs nor signals.  I don't see any reason why, once it starts on its journey, it would ever have to stop until it got to its destination.

Vehicles may arrive at an intersection of paths, even a lot of vehicles at one time, but still never have to stop completely because they will be funneled through the intersection by software, which will guide every one of them through in an orderly manner as they arrive.  They will be communicating electronically with each other as they approach a perceived intersection of paths and will assert or yield right-of-way as needed without ever having to stop.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 28, 2016)




----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 28, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> That will take some getting used to.
> 
> No matter how congested and seemingly chaotic traffic may be (think Bangkok), there aren't many collisions because the people drive with a pretty good idea what the other fellow is likely to do, and accommodate that in their own driving behavior.
> 
> ...



Although self driving cars may be safer, it may be more hazardous and annoying to other drivers on the road. 

I'm a tractor-trailer driver locally here in Cleveland.  About ten years ago my employer purchased a tractor with a VoRad® system on it.  It was doppler technology used to supposedly help the operator of the vehicle. 

It had a buzzer in the cab that constantly went off on the highway if you got too close (according to the system) to the vehicle in front of you.  When using cruise control, it would take over the accelerator of the vehicle.  If I got more than 60 feet of the vehicle in front of me, it would quickly slow down.  Even if I kept a good safety distance so that didn't happen, it would only be a couple of seconds before somebody switched lanes in front of me and the system would once again react. 

It was annoying as all hell to me and the drivers around me.  Because once somebody got out of my way, the system would automatically accelerate to the speed I originally set on the cruise control.  In short, my vehicle was constantly speeding up and slowing down.  

Other truck drivers who were trying to pass me once my truck slowed down would get mad as hell and curse me out over the radio because when the vehicle in front of me left, my truck would speed up and they thought I was Fn with them.  It was awful. 

Because I had no ability to disable the radar, I finally took some tin foil to work and wrapped it around the radar in front of the truck.  My employer was pissed, but I explained that if somebody was following me too close on the highway, and that truck let off the accelerator, I could get rear-ended.  

Self driving cars would not only do that, but apply the brake as well once "it" determined you were too close.  So you would have a bunch of cars speeding up and breaking quickly on the roads and highways.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > That will take some getting used to.
> ...


All those problems are understandable when the vehicle is rogue, i.e., not in contact with the other vehicles around it.  If vehicles on the road were in constant communication with the ones in their vicinity (as mentioned in my previous post), there would be few surprises.  All would know and process (in a manner appropriate for them) the same information that every vehicle gets from its sensors.  

For example, if a human driver cuts in front of an autonomous vehicle, forcing it to abruptly slow down, all the other AVs in the vicinity would know that the human had just done that and would each react appropriately to the initial event, not just to the action of the AV most affected.  Every AV in the area would react appropriately for itself to that movement because it would know why the first AV had to slow down.

That should smooth out changes in speed and direction as this information is constantly being processed by everyone in the area.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> We'll absorb this new phase of robotics as we've always done.  New jobs maintaining the machines will created and the old, unnecessary jobs will disappear.  ATMs, self-checkout, 100K miles between tune-ups, cell phones replacing pay phones,..  The list of downsizing and obsolescence is endless.
> 
> Short haul drivers will complain.  Long haul drivers, that's when truckers are replaced, then there'll really be squawking.
> 
> You can't fight the tide of technology.  Adapt or perish.


One nuke and the savagery of manual labor will return...


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2016)

Just because they have driver-less autos doesn't mean people will use them..


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > We'll absorb this new phase of robotics as we've always done.  New jobs maintaining the machines will created and the old, unnecessary jobs will disappear.  ATMs, self-checkout, 100K miles between tune-ups, cell phones replacing pay phones,..  The list of downsizing and obsolescence is endless.
> ...


There's that danger.  Nature might have a way of keeping us from getting "too" technically dependent too fast.  We just might blow ourselves up on some pretext and return to the stone age and Mother Nature will just nod.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Just because they have driver-less autos doesn't mean people will use them..


True.  Some will never set foot in one.

But that won't last long.  The people here today who refuse to touch a computer are dying off every day, and the people behind them can't imagine life without a computer with them 24/7.  Changes like this are resisted by some, but that resistance lasts only as long as they do.


----------



## Silhouette (Aug 28, 2016)

*Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars*

Yea!  Automation kills even more jobs!  

Do these cars pay taxes every month, buy homes, sundries or go on vacation?  Just wondering how dangerous they are for the economy; let alone the road....


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

Silhouette said:


> *Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars*
> 
> Yea!  Automation kills even more jobs!
> 
> Do these cars pay taxes every month, buy homes, sundries or go on vacation?  Just wondering how dangerous they are for the economy; let alone the road....


 We're going to have to sort that out, because there's no stopping technological progress.  We're going to have to learn to look at a lot of things differently and do a lot of things differently.

And that will lead to friction.

That's what I meant when I brought up the Industrial Revolution.  Lots and lots of changes and a lot of complaining.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 28, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Good question. There will always be jobs, but there could be less of them.


Less of that type, but not jobs.  If there is a problem, as the colonialists used to say, "The natives will become restless".  It means protests and, if no resolution, riots or even revolution.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 28, 2016)

Silhouette said:


> *Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars*
> 
> Yea!  Automation kills even more jobs!
> 
> Do these cars pay taxes every month, buy homes, sundries or go on vacation?  Just wondering how dangerous they are for the economy; let alone the road....


Luddites are a bigger danger.  "_Who wants to fly?  Those fucking things are dangerous!!!_"

"Landing on the Moon is impossible"

"Mr. Gates, it's the hardware.  No one cares about the software".


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 28, 2016)

Anathema said:


> I have. Very enjoyable activity. Not practical for work. I will still NEVER ride in a driverless vehicle.


So have I.  It depends on where you work.    You choice.  There's always bicycles.


----------



## Anathema (Aug 28, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> So have I.  It depends on where you work.    You choice.  There's always bicycles.



29 miles, highway, each way. Twice a week lugging a 25 lb. bag of martial arts gear. Not practical.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 28, 2016)

Anathema said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > So have I.  It depends on where you work.    You choice.  There's always bicycles.
> ...


Your choice.   Both to be a Luddite and to live so far from work.


----------



## Anathema (Aug 28, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Your choice.   Both to be a Luddite and to live so far from work.



I work in a semi-urban area. I live in a more rural area. I will not live in that urban environment. It's antithetical to common decency.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 28, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> All those problems are understandable when the vehicle is rogue, i.e., not in contact with the other vehicles around it. If vehicles on the road were in constant communication with the ones in their vicinity (as mentioned in my previous post), there would be few surprises. All would know and process (in a manner appropriate for them) the same information that every vehicle gets from its sensors.
> 
> For example, if a human driver cuts in front of an autonomous vehicle, forcing it to abruptly slow down, all the other AVs in the vicinity would know that the human had just done that and would each react appropriately to the initial event, not just to the action of the AV most affected. Every AV in the area would react appropriately for itself to that movement because it would know why the first AV had to slow down.
> 
> That should smooth out changes in speed and direction as this information is constantly being processed by everyone in the area.



Well maybe in 50 years from now or so when most cars are that way. 

But for now, I see a lot of danger in such cars.  As far as computers go, many of them have faults.  I've owned a cell phone for over 20 years, never owned one that didn't have some kind of problem.  Same thing with computers, and I only use Macintosh. 

The feds forced industry to manufacture trucks "greener."  In order to operate all those pollution gadgets, it takes computers; not just one computer, but several that have to interact with each other all the time. 

Sounds great when testing them, but once out on the road in millions of trucks, that's when you find the problems, especially here up north when temperatures get below zero.  

Now trucks have problems constantly.  90% of the time, it's some environmental thing gone wrong or the computer that runs it.  They are constantly in the shop.  Years ago when I first got into it, there were no computers in trucks, and they started every morning.  The only time you seen an engine light was when something was seriously wrong, and even then, you never had a problem with that under 100,000 miles. 

Since the feds forced these computers into trucks, I've picked up brand new vehicles from the dealer and had to bring them back under 10,000 miles.  

Until electronics becomes faultless, I foresee a lot of problems in our future with these cars.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 28, 2016)

There are a lot of bugs to be worked out and it will take time.  But IMO it is inevitable.  I don't think this is a fad.  I foresee in my lifetime driverless ocean liners, trucks, trains and passenger planes.  The movement will be driven not only by innovative fervor, but by its tremendous financial potential.

If we can manage our nuclear arsenal with computer systems, we should be able to operate an automobile safely.


----------



## my2¢ (Aug 28, 2016)

It'll be the auto insurance companies that'll decide if driverless cars fly or not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 28, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> There are a lot of bugs to be worked out and it will take time.  But IMO it is inevitable.  I don't think this is a fad.  I foresee in my lifetime driverless ocean liners, trucks, trains and passenger planes.  The movement will be driven not only by innovative fervor, but by its tremendous financial potential.
> 
> If we can manage our nuclear arsenal with computer systems, we should be able to operate an automobile safely.



I agree.  It will happen, it's just a matter of when.  

I don't foresee a highway with mostly or even partially unmanned vehicles anytime in the next ten years or so.  Price will be a consideration.  I think they will be very expensive at first.  When they first come out, I think there will be a lot of problems that come out as well.  

When they do become practical, it may reduce a lot of accidents and deaths caused by drunken drivers. I know if I was a younger person today, I'd be saving my money now to buy one so I could go anyplace I desire and drink as much as I wanted where I wanted.  

I was born at the wrong time.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 28, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> 
> 
> I realize technology has always made many jobs obsolete in time, but a wave of robotics eliminating blue and white collar jobs might be the straw that breaks the camels back


 What if it was done in a different way.
 What if for instance I bought a driverless car, I allowed UBER to use my car for a fee.
 Uber could send the car out on runs and I could sit home and collect a percentage.
 Same with other technology that will be coming up, send your own out to work instead of you going.
 Would be much the same as the welfare people now, they send the responsible people out to work each day, while they sit home and take a percentage of what that person made.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

my2¢ said:


> It'll be the auto insurance companies that'll decide if driverless cars fly or not.


Maybe those cars purchased for personal use.  There will be some of those, but I think companies providing AV on-call will be the bulk of the market, and they'll be of a size to bond their vehicles themselves.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 29, 2016)

Maryland Patriot said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting no one sees the slippery slope of robots eliminating jobs.
> ...



In theory yes. But there aren't any full driverless cars. Tesla requires a driver to tap the wheel every 30 mins or so. They will have to build a fleet of their own off this tech they are designing


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 29, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> And then when the police want to arrest you they will tap in to the system and override the car's inputs, causing the car to deliver you to the PD front doorstep.


As should happen to anyone too stupid to know what the "manual override" does or where the fuse panel is located.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 29, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> 'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future
> 
> The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.
> 
> ...


Anyone have their PC do exactly what they want every time?
Siri always answers you accurately every Time? (Look what my auto spell just did!)


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Anyone have their PC do exactly what they want every time?
> Siri always answers you accurately every Time? (Look what my auto spell just did!)


Yet PCs have taken a huge leap in just this century alone.  Siri didn't even exist four years ago.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

My car is a lot more sophisticated than my coffeemaker.  My AV will be a lot more sophisticated than my PC.


----------



## Silhouette (Aug 29, 2016)

Silhouette said:


> *Uber Rolling Out Driverless Cars*
> 
> Yea!  Automation kills even more jobs!
> 
> Do these cars pay taxes every month, buy homes, sundries or go on vacation?  Just wondering how dangerous they are for the economy; let alone the road....





Al Azar said:


> We're going to have to sort that out, because there's no stopping technological progress.  We're going to have to learn to look at a lot of things differently and do a lot of things differently.
> 
> And that will lead to friction.
> 
> That's what I meant when I brought up the Industrial Revolution.  Lots and lots of changes and a lot of complaining.



When it's your job that's gone, then we'll "have to sort out all your complaining".  And when the economy collapses because nobody can afford the products the robots are making, then we'll also have to "sort it out".  But why do the math now?  Let's just continue on in a state of pure ignorant bliss!

Canadians did the math.  They require a certain percentage of jobs be actual humans, even if they're easily automated.  I guess they figured out how to do basic math.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Silhouette said:


> When it's your job that's gone, then we'll "have to sort out all your complaining".  And when the economy collapses because nobody can afford the products the robots are making, then we'll also have to "sort it out".  But why do the math now?  Let's just continue on in a state of pure ignorant bliss!
> 
> Canadians did the math.  They require a certain percentage of jobs be actual humans, even if they're easily automated.  I guess they figured out how to do basic math.


Well of course we can solve this problem, and perhaps every problem, by government mandate.  Do you want to open that can of worms?

We can't do the math now because we don't have all the factors now.  The transition is going to take a long time.  It won't take as long as it took to replace horse-drawn vehicles with self-propelled vehicles, but we will adjust in same way.  Some people will have to learn new skills in their profession, some people will have to shift to other professions, and some people will just whine and demand to be supported by others.

This isn't anything new in our evolution.  It's just a new phase.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

This discussion reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when I was young.  It was about his Uncle Aaron.

Uncle Aaron worked at Studebaker in South Bend.  He didn’t build cars, he was a blacksmith.  He built wagons and carriages, what Studebaker manufactured in those days.

Around the turn of the century the Studebaker brothers got very interested in horseless carriages and invested heavily in that new technology.  Within a few years almost all their production was trucks and automobiles.

So how did that affect Uncle Aaron?  Well, he adapted.  Instead of smithing to build wagons, he learned a new skill set so he could stay on and build trucks and cars.  What choice did he have?  He was a responsible man with a family to support so he did what he had to do - adapt to an ever-changing world.

What he didn’t do was throw up his hands and sit on the porch and grouse about how unfair it all was while others supported him because he was too proud to take other work, work that might have been “beneath” him.

Some jobs will fall by the wayside when we move forward.  It’s always been that way.  What the people who hold those jobs do about that is entirely up to them.  Think about how many telephone servicemen and installers we had just 30 years ago, jobs that don’t exist today.  What did those people do?  How about TV and radio repairmen?  Encyclopedia and brush salesmen?  Did they starve in the streets or did they adjust, taking work in different fields when theirs became outdated?

The evolution of robotics may look scary, but it’s nothing new.  We will adapt because we have no choice but to adapt.  Luckily, we should have plenty of time because this technology is far more complex than setting up a cellular phone network.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 29, 2016)

"The future has arrived. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.”
– William Gibson


----------



## g5000 (Aug 29, 2016)

A century ago, we employed 50 percent of our population in agriculture to feed our nation.

Now, due to the wonders of technology, it only takes about 3 percent of our population to feed us, and they are producing more food than in all of human history.

What would you make of someone decrying the loss of agriculture jobs who felt we needed to employ 50 percent of the country on farms?

You'd say there were seriously misguided, yes?

It's the same thing with these demagogues and manufacturing.

Let's travel back in time 60 years...

FARMER: What will my toddler son do when he grows up if he isn't going to be a farmer, dad blast it?

PSYCHIC: (_*peers into crystal ball*_) Your son is going to be in charge of the maintenance for satellite uplink/downlink terminals at Verizon.

FARMER: What's a satellite, and WHAT THE HELL IS A VERIZON!?!

PSYCHIC: I don't know, but if I were you, I'd be whipping him with a switch if he doesn't get straight A's in mathematics and science.

FARMER: Will he be handsome? Will he be rich?

PSYCHIC: Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> This discussion reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when I was young.  It was about his Uncle Aaron.
> 
> Uncle Aaron worked at Studebaker in South Bend.  He didn’t build cars, he was a blacksmith.  He built wagons and carriages, what Studebaker manufactured in those days.
> 
> ...


Uncle Aaron was what we would consider an responsible man. 
 Problem is that we are not talking about the same thing. Studebaker switched product line from one labor intensive line to another, Uncle Aaron was able to adapt and keep working because Studebaker still needed craftsman, and Uncle Aaron had already proven his value to them.
 Had Studebaker gone from their labor business model to a robotic model, Uncle Aaron might not have been so lucky. His options would have been to change to robotics repair or become unemployed.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > This discussion reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when I was young.  It was about his Uncle Aaron.
> ...


Or go into a different line of work, like auto mechanics.  When you're on the front lines, you have an opportunity to see things up close and learn.

It's not an ideal analogy.  It's just something that was in the back of my mind as I was thinking on this topic and it finally popped into the front, so I thought I'd share it.  I guess I remembered it because, at that age, I never knew that Studebaker started out making wagons.  I thought that was cool.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 29, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> 'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future
> 
> The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.
> 
> ...


I was wondering about all those poor Indian/Russian taxi drivers. Um, we trusted them when they didn't seem to even understand English or basic traffic laws. What do we do with all those "immigrants" losing jobs to  robots?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

MaryL said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > 'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future
> ...


 Motel night managers.

Easier travel -> more travel -> better for the lodging industry -> increased demand for desk clerks.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


 And then, we get Uber robot motel managers. Then what?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Hey, every time one door closes, another opens.  This is the land of opportunity.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


 Unless all these robots are union-made, we're going to need an awful lot of robot repair technicians by then.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...


And those technicians will be sentient robots. And they won't need unions, all robots don't care about income or health benefits.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


 I'm not comfortable projecting that far into the future.  For now, I'm looking forward to my first ride in an AV, taking me to where I want by voice command.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 29, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > And then when the police want to arrest you they will tap in to the system and override the car's inputs, causing the car to deliver you to the PD front doorstep.
> ...



Your optimism is admirable, but mistaken.  There will be no manual override.  The whole point is to remove direct human control from the equation.  Just ask Google.  They insist that humans are already more dangerous than robotic driving.  Fucking idiots can't seem to get it through their heads that it's the automation that makes things dangerous for humans.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 29, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 29, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



At that point we won't need to work, the robots will do it all.

























Or maybe kill us.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 29, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...


Relax, The robot overlords will lets us kill each other first, they don't care.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 29, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



It's not sarcasm.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

MaryL said:


> I was wondering about all those poor Indian/Russian taxi drivers. Um, we trusted them when they didn't seem to even understand English or basic traffic laws. What do we do with all those "immigrants" losing jobs to robots?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 29, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Why does automation make things dangerous for humans?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 29, 2016)

g5000 said:


> A century ago, we employed 50 percent of our population in agriculture to feed our nation.
> 
> Now, due to the wonders of technology, it only takes about 3 percent of our population to feed us, and they are producing more food than in all of human history.
> 
> ...



Farmers left the fields because there was a plentiful jobs that were higher paying, in the city and not nearly as back breaking. That was the difference.

You do have a very good point. However not all revolutions are the same. The industrial revolution brought a ton of jobs and opportunity. The cyber/computer revolution did the same. However the rise in automation which will eventually lead to smart robots will have a different effect. This revolution will not be like the past. 

Many jobs will be fully automated. Service jobs will be automated, manufacturing will be automated, but so will many white collar jobs. I could easily see many field of law getting automated, accounting will foresure be automated, so many fields will be automated and I don't see replacement jobs taking it's place like in past revolutions.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need.  There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.

Consider this.  Suppose workers are making $20/hr and someone comes along with a robot that can do the same job for the equivalent of $10/hr.  Bad news for the workers, right?

But only until the maker of the robot becomes so essential that he figures he's entitled to charge more for his popular robots.  Then the human worker may look like the better deal.

The dynamics generally find a mean.  Things average out over time.  There will be bumps along the road but resistance to change should ensure that transition to widespread automation will be manageable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need.  There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.
> 
> Consider this.  Suppose workers are making $20/hr and someone comes along with a robot that can do the same job for the equivalent of $10/hr.  Bad news for the workers, right?
> 
> ...



I won't be here when that time comes, but I wonder....... we have a working society of people that can do different things.  You can't make a lawyer out of a plumber.  You can't make a plumber out of a lawyer.  

The jobs being taken over by automation are those that manual labor currently does.  So what will we do with the people that are only geared for manual labor?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Anyone have their PC do exactly what they want every time?
> Siri always answers you accurately every Time? (Look what my auto spell just did!)



I would be happy if they could just get voice recognition down to a science; especially with those stupid automated phones.  The machine prompts you to tell it what your problem is, so you do, then it replies "I did not understand your answer."  Well no shit, maybe because you're a stupid machine????  

Then you have to stay on the phone hitting multiple buttons trying your best to speak to a real human being.  It's aggravating.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need.  There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.
> ...


 Won't we always need electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, boilermakers, the trades in general?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> Won't we always need electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, boilermakers, the trades in general?



Yes we will, but I work with some people that don't have the intelligence to do simple multiplication.  That's not a putdown, it's just the way it is.  I actually feel bad for those people because it's not something they can control.  They are good people too.  They come to work everyday, work hard, are very responsible, but because of their limited intelligence, there is only so much money they can make because there are only so many jobs they can do. 

Once even those jobs are gone, then what?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 29, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > Won't we always need electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, boilermakers, the trades in general?
> ...


There will be Smart Devices that will perform a lot of those measurement functions.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > Won't we always need electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, boilermakers, the trades in general?
> ...


I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that over any 20-year period you pick, there will be jobs at the end of the period that didn't exist at the beginning, and jobs we had at the beginning are gone for good.  It's a continuous process. 

It's not as if on Jan 1, 2020, 40% of our workforce will be getting pink slips.  It's a process, not an event.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that over any 20-year period you pick, there will be jobs at the end of the period that didn't exist at the beginning, and jobs we had at the beginning are gone for good. It's a continuous process.
> 
> It's not as if on Jan 1, 2020, 40% of our workforce will be getting pink slips. It's a process, not an event.



Oh, I understand that.  But it's not like we are going to ever eliminate lower intelligent people.  They will always be there today, in 20 years, in 50 years, in 100 years.  

Back in the 70's when unions were strong and automation weak, a lower intelligence person could make a living, and a good one at that depending on where they were able to gain employment.  You didn't need to be a genius to mount tires onto cars on an assembly line, or ride around on a floor sweeping machine for 50K a year, or sit at a table and inspect parts for defects.  So those people had the ability to make a living. 

What automation didn't take over, outsourcing did, and now such jobs are located outside of the country.  The people that do those jobs in the US today make very low wages.  And like I said earlier, automation targets those jobs, and when those jobs are gone, these people will have no way to make a decent living.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 29, 2016)

So what shall be done?  Should the government create make-work jobs, lot do you think the private sector will step to the plate?


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 29, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Because automation does not care if it kills you.  It merely wants to complete its algorithm.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 29, 2016)

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have their PC do exactly what they want every time?
> ...


Voice recognition, oy vey.
Call Mary.
Calling Jim Davidson.

I'm never using an automated car.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 29, 2016)

No driverless rides for me. A Rollercoaster without the rails? Pass lol


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 29, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have their PC do exactly what they want every time?
> ...


Huge leap into the shitter.  My 286 with a 12mb hard drive was more reliable.  These days programmers are so lazy basic programs are 300MB and require an update every week.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland (Aug 29, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> So what shall be done?  Should the government create make-work jobs, lot do you think the private sector will step to the plate?



I think it's more in the power of the consumer.  Let's take a look: 

The American consumer is obsessed with cheap.  That's the reason Walmart is number one today; that's the reason our jobs went overseas; that's the reason online shopping is becoming more and more popular.  

But let's say that the American consumer rejected foreign products.  They refused to shop at Walmart.  They boycotted companies that used foreign customer service.  They boycotted companies that offered Spanish instead of English.  Do you think we would have a job problem today?  

Everything including the demise of American jobs is driven by consumer demand--not politics.  If we are to change our course, it's up to the consumers to do it.  

But as long as our only concern is cheap, we will see more and more self-checkout lines at our stores.  We will see more and more people flocking to stores that carry foreign and slave labor products. We will have more and more foreign customer service from India.  We will have more and more automation.  

It's all up to the consumer, and that includes those who might patronize self-drven automobiles by a taxi service.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 30, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Huge leap into the shitter.  My 286 with a 12mb hard drive was more reliable.  These days programmers are so lazy basic programs are 300MB and require an update every week.


And in your day you'd walk to school through the snow barefoot uphill.....both ways!  

IMO, it isn't laziness so much as 1) the drive for companies to issue new products quickly and 2) increased sophistication of hackers means programs have to be constantly updated to plug holes or shore up defenses.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Huge leap into the shitter.  My 286 with a 12mb hard drive was more reliable.  These days programmers are so lazy basic programs are 300MB and require an update every week.
> ...


It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.


Programs are now so complex that it would take years to debug them with pure research alone.  By issuing them after basic research and letting users use them 100,000 times a day, bugs are found, fixed and issued for free.   To spend years doing this themselves would not only be cost prohibitive, but by the time the program is released, it's outdated.  

I see this problem with government-issued equipment and programs.  By the time it's tested, manufactured and issued to personnel, it's 5 years out of date behind what civilians have off the shelves.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > It's laziness. There isn't a software ever released now that's not riddled with bugs.
> ...


Programs are only complex because software developers are lazy.  Word processors do little more than they did 15 years ago yet take up 800% more hard drive and sends the latest Intel processor into conniptions out of the blue.  Most testing is done by customers now.  They toss something that almost works out there and wait for the failure reports to come in.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Dude, you're still living in a 286 world.  You said it yourself. 

Think what you want.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Facts is facts.


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Facts is facts.


Agreed.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 30, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.



Automation is the reason why people think there's nothing wrong with texting while driving.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Automation doesn't miss seeing you because it's busy texting, either.
> ...



Sorry, what?


----------



## SixFoot (Aug 31, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> I foresee, look forward to, a day when I can summon an autonomous car as I'm getting dressed.  It will arrive at my doorstep and recognize me as I approach, opening the door and asking my destination.  Upon arrival, with the swipe of my hand, I confirm that the trip is over and approve the charge to my account.
> 
> When I leave, the same process.  We won't need to own cars because we can summon one at any time.  No insurance, no maintenance, no traffic woes because all the cars and trucks will move efficiently place to place, not the way humans drive.  The only visible traffic signals will be for pedestrians and those on two wheels - car and truck traffic will be controlled electronically.
> 
> I'm no spring chicken, but I think I'll live to see the day with this is the norm.  I also hope to see the day when schoolchildren ask, "Teacher, did we really used to burn irreplaceable fossil fuel for personal transportation?"



In 20 - 30 more years, 3D printers will be recycling common household trash. Even the garbage man isn't safe, but manufacturing itself is set to become a household norm.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 31, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Ask your smartphone.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



1.  I don't have a smartphone
2.  I think you may be confused as to the concept of automation


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 31, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Let me explain it this way....

We live in an instant gratification, where typing two letters into a web browser takes you directly to pages, a quick spoken word into a smartphone tells you how to drive somewhere, etc.  The modern digital age is training people to be mindless bags of organic matter.  It is training people to expect whatever they want, whenever they want, because they want.  Want it, and it will be delivered.

And to make matters worse, the more people _want_ the more devices are modified to _automate_ that which is desired.  We went from wanting to talk with someone, to wanting to talk with someone _anywhere _(cell phones), to wanting to talk with someone _now_ (text messaging), to wanting to talk with them _face to face anywhere_ (mobile data), etc.  And then, people didn't want to wait the extra half second to navigate their device to the appropriate app, so the devices were modified _even more_ with quick launches, etc.  And they couldn't bother with the time it takes to write a text, so the devices were modified to _write texts out of what you speak, and to read them to you_.  Now, people can't be bothered to deal with _actual human interaction_ anymore.  They've got their heads so far up the asses of machines they can't be bothered with actually living their lives, they need an app for that.  This is all part of a cycle of increasing automation, increased demand for instant gratification, and increased belief in technological inerrantcy.

So in the case of text messaging while driving.....people use their phones to navigate with google maps, and associate their phone with things that are _good_.  Their phone sends them a text message.  Their phones are _good_, therefore what their phone tells them is also a _good_ thing to so.  Therefore, they read the text message while driving.  This causes an accident, which is _bad_.  The proposed solution is for the phone to do the driving; the _phone_ is good, it's _people_ who are bad and dangerous.  When in reality, the _phone_ is the source of the problems to begin with.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 31, 2016)

All this instant gratification, that for younger folks is all they've ever known, is going to come back to bite us big time someday.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Wow.  That's pretty ridiculous.

First, let me just point out that we didn't go from people wanting to talk anywhere with cell phones to talking to someone now with texting.  Texts are, in fact, almost always going to be a slower form of communication than a voice conversation.  I don't think most people will read as quickly as someone else will talk, and I certainly don't think most people are going to type as quickly as they can talk.    I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.

Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars.  The only human interaction that may be affected by this would be with people like taxi drivers.

Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed.  Texting may have caused more distracted driving accidents, but there were quite a few of them before texting or even cell phones.  People ARE dangerous when it comes to driving.  Here, let me give you some links to motor vehicle deaths : FARS Encyclopedia Fatality Facts

Your posts seems to be more anti-technology in general than anything specific to self-driving cars or even automation.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 31, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.



Which is why so many people get angry if you don't text back right away.



> Second, I'm not sure how complaints about less human interaction due to technology are relevant to a discussion about self-driving cars.



It is subtracting "human" from both sides of an equation.  Both cases are an instance of removing humans from the equation.



> Third, people were being killed in cars long before texting existed.



You're the one who brought it up.  Now you don't want to talk about it??


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 31, 2016)

SwimExpert said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I think texting is more about a different type of communication rather than talking now.
> ...



People get angry if you sit on the phone without saying anything during a conversation.  How does someone wanting a text reply right away make texting about talking to someone 'now' where a traditional phone conversation is not?

There is a big difference between people interacting with other people socially and whether or not humans are better drivers than a self-driving car.

I brought up texting just as an example of people causing accidents rather than automation.  I could just as easily have said reading a newspaper, or eating, or any other way people get distracted while driving.  Or I could have brought up drunk driving, which would not be an issue with self-driving cars.  Or I could point out that some people are simply reckless, bad drivers.  Far too many, actually.

Self driving cars need to be exhaustively tested, but I don't see how automation is inherently more dangerous than people.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 31, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need.  There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.
> 
> Consider this.  Suppose workers are making $20/hr and someone comes along with a robot that can do the same job for the equivalent of $10/hr.  Bad news for the workers, right?
> 
> ...



Say the so called burger maker robot takes off. Say it costs $100k and $5k in annual maintenance. Say it takes the place of 10 workers who cost the company $30k a piece. That is a $195k saving year one.


----------



## SwimExpert (Aug 31, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


----------



## Al Azar (Sep 1, 2016)

GHook93 said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like there will be a lot of opportunities in writing code, and those workers are going to need the same products and services as today's workers need.  There will surely be wrinkles, but I doubt that the fabric of society will tear.
> ...


The robot maker may price his product at $100K initially, but once the owner makes the switch, Burgerman 2.0 is introduced, which does a lot of things that the restaurant owner wished his model did, and it costs $300K and $10K/yr to maintain.

One way or another, if the Burgerman is any good, it is going to become popular and the price will rise to meet demand.  The initial savings goes right out the window and the restaurant owner is now completely dependent on a single burger-making system which either works fine or doesn't function at all, rather than a team of employees which can be replaced, increased or decreased as needed to keep the operation going.

It may, in the long run, work out cheaper for the restaurant, but in the short term it could cause fatal problems that would have been only hiccups when working with a human team.  A machine that's offline for a week or ten days is no different than a week or ten-day long strike, except that a strike is both predictable and preventable.


----------



## sealybobo (May 8, 2019)

GHook93 said:


> 'We're just rentals': Uber drivers ask where they fit in a self-driving future
> 
> The technology is already there. They just need to beta test it and prove it is safe and reliable. Then the "expensive" drivers are cut from the cost margins. No thank you, no parting gift, no well wishes, no here is something to get by on since you made it possible for the company to make billions, NOPE it will be 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' By 2018 it will start rolling out to every city across the globe.
> 
> ...


Uber drivers are complaining they aren’t being paid enough. At first they paid the workers well but slowly they have cut back so that now it’s no longer a good job.

I hope an Uber driver starts Iber. Get all the other Uber drivers to join you. Give them more pay and never cut their pay.

My Iber service will make every driver a part owner of the company.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Uber drivers are complaining they aren’t being paid enough. At first they paid the workers well but slowly they have cut back so that now it’s no longer a good job.
> 
> I hope an Uber driver starts Iber. Get all the other Uber drivers to join you. Give them more pay and never cut their pay.
> 
> My Iber service will make every driver a part owner of the company.



And despite the less pay Uber still loses money.  Uber is paying drivers less because the drivers are willing to work for less.  If they start running into a shortage of drivers they'll have to start paying more again.  It's that simple. 

There is actually an attempt to have a nationwide driver strike today for Uber, but I doubt it will be successful.

Why Uber and Lyft drivers are striking  - CNN


----------

