this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
255 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

34904 readers
285 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill to require human drivers on board self-driving trucks, a measure that union leaders and truck drivers said would save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 115 points 1 year ago (20 children)

I'm sorry, but do people actually think human drivers in autonomous vehicles will make them safe?

Imagine sitting and watching a robot do its job for hours - do you think you'd be attentive to safety problems after all that time?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Have you never seen the traffic jams caused by these things getting confused and not being able to figure a way out?.... the drivers there so people don't get stuck behind them for an hour while someone from fuckyoutech comes out to fix it.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, but I have sat in a traffic jam caused by a human driver who caused a multiple car pile up because they wanted to be slightly ahead.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's almost like more than one thing can be bad. Autonomous cars are just a shitty bandaid solution that doesn't fix the problem.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Exactly. We should instead get autonomous trains, and fix our cities to be train friendly.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Autonomous cars are the only viable solution in the near to mid term. Human drivers are awful. Building out mass-transit and transport infrastructure is a generations-long process and very politically unpopular. Autonomous vehicles will have issues that can only be ironed out in live testing. Which sucks but that's how all innovations go.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Autonomous cars are decades away from hitting any level of meaningful saturation. Might as well work on the more practical solutions....

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's more practical? Redesigning all of US's cities to work without cars? High-speed cross-country rail? Mass transit in every town?

That's more practical than passing regulations that allow the few companies even attempting automation to test it? This is just a "if it's not perfect don't do it" mentality that stops any attempts at progress.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (20 children)

That's fair, but I was more concerned about an accident being caused where the "driver" has seconds to react to a mistake the car is making. After sitting doing nothing for hours there's no way they'd be attentive until it's too late.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And the human driver would certainly be used as a scape goat should anything bad happen.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a real thing, they are called operators and it is their job to oversee the cell, start and stop jobs, resolve bottlenecks, identify upstream problems and gracefully handle them, and emergency stop the system when needed.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Yeah, part of my job making car parts is as an operator for a cell. Im constantly moving, troubleshooting, doing minor maintenance, and actively engaged in the process.

A driver-operator would be sitting down doing mostly nothing. Totally different

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I imagine they could do just as well having an operator sit in a cubicle all day flipping between video feeds of a dozen different vehicles. Then when manual control needs to be taken over they could operate it with a joystick or something and play truck simulator.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

union leaders and truck drivers said would save hundreds of thousands of jobs

There might be good reasons to have human drivers in autonomous trucks, at least for a while. But “saving jobs” is not one of them.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It certainly is one of them. You can’t virtually close an entire sector of jobs all at once without serious repercussions to the economy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if it comes with a tapering requirement over several years I think it's an excellent idea that saves jobs and also helps ensure safety.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wont be all at once. Those changes usualy go very slow. Especialy in the buisness sector.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Target. Walmart, Amazon, UPS,Lays, Annheiser-Bush …just a few companies who have already begun testing automated replacements. If you think they aren’t all biting at the bit to pull the trigger on this the second they can, you’re naive. They’ll see insane overhead price reductions and increased productivity, all leading to higher profit margins. The slow change already started years ago. You can retrofit an existing big rig for less than half the salary of a driver and utilize 3x the work hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can't believe they bothered to try to pass it. From an outside quick glance, it seems like a brilliant idea. But then you have to remember WHY they're doing this. They want to ship 24x7 and not have to pay a person. Slapping a co-pilot in there is counter-intuitive to their end game. Not to mention humans do NOT have the required attention span for this. We can often do stupid shit, completely sober, while driving, with DECADES of experience.

If the autopilot is even 80% effective, we're going to get bored, sleep, read, fuck around on our devices. Maybe jerk off? Who knows?

We're not ready for this step, not yet.

Bet they'll be needing a lot of mechanics when the time comes, though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Safety be damned! We have corporate profits to consider here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yes because theres nothing safer than a truck driver thats been awake for 24 hours because their schedule is so tight they dont really have time for sleep. /s

The actual issue is that autonomous driving will make millions of peoples' jobs obsolete not that it couldn't be as safe as a person driving if not more so.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are two issues. First, self-driving cars just aren't very good (yet?). Second, it will make millions of people's jobs obsolete, and that should be a good thing, but it's a bad thing, because we've structured our society such that it's a bad thing if you lose your job. It'd be cool as hell if it were a good thing for the people who don't have to work anymore, and we should structure our society that way instead.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We've entered the Twilight zone. Where Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom are on the same side of a debate, and they're fighting against Tucker Carlson and the unions.

Edit: piped link

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

a debate

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, said driverless trucks are dangerous..." Well are they dangerous? Is there any data to back up that claim? And is there data to back up the claim that keeping the driver in the vehicle makes it safe again?

I hate this "save the jobs" attitude. How about we not save the jobs and pay them to get other jobs or even pay them to stay home?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

driverless trucks are dangerous

because trucks with drivers aren't

._.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This can only end well. I can't wait for the personal injury lawsuits to start rolling in.

Also, having worked in a warehouse, who the hell is going to hand over the paperwork? Do you know how many places don't use electronics that talk to each other? Do you know how many times I, working at a modest size business, had to sign my damn name? Half the time it doesn't even need to be there, they just use it to make sure somebody looked at the pallet of merchandise to make sure it was correct. This is going to blow up in everyone's face, literally and metaphorically.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the plan for a lot of trucks is for them to do the long haul part without a driver. But the "last mile" is done by drivers that drop the load, do the paperwork and back to the depot to snag another trailer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, basically it's a way to avoid using trains

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Having a required human driver in the trucks for if/when the self-driving portion of the truck suddenly bugs out or gets into a situation where it cannot get itself free would probably save them a lot of headache and business when suddenly that truck gets into a situation it cannot correct itself.

Hell, we've already seen times when that would've saved lives like the time self driving taxis ended up blocking an ambulance en route.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if these vehicles could be remotely piloted by a human when they become gridlocked, rather than have someone sitting in the cabin the entire time. Seems like just sitting in an autonomous vehicle while it drives long distances would be a particularly terrible job.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You could get payed to just sleep or play games, seems like a dream job for some people.

But remote controlled driving also seems like a pretty good idea, if it works reliably

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Companies will put the staff back in the trucks when it becomes apparent how easy it is to stop them and steal everything from the back.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›