This is handsfree

[juddian]

shep532:

the maoster:
Yar dee year dee yar, just so much pie in the sky. Raymond Baxter reliably informed me that by the year 2000 I’d be wearing a silver suit and holiday inn on Mars.

I do quite like my silver suit though.

Maybe that’s what pilots said in 1914 or so when the first auto pilots were devised. It’ll never happen

Good point, transfer the software straight to lorries, you don’t see them aeroplanes tailgating, knocking cyclists flying nor ramming each other up the arse on the M6…er hang on

[wetback]

shep532:

the maoster:
Yar dee year dee yar, just so much pie in the sky. Raymond Baxter reliably informed me that by the year 2000 I’d be wearing a silver suit and holiday inn on Mars.

I do quite like my silver suit though.

Maybe that’s what pilots said in 1914 or so when the first auto pilots were devised. It’ll never happen

Still waiting to see pilotless commercial flights though shep…over a hundred years later■■?

[shep532]

■■■■■■■:
Still waiting to see pilotless commercial flights though shep…over a hundred years later■■?

You are quite right - apart from the ones currently bombing certain countries whilst being flown by some guy in an air conditioned room in another country I doubt we’ll be seeing pilotless planes in our lifetime

Of course we aren’t going to see driverless HGVs on our roads for a very very very long time - but a vehicle that can help make the drivers job easier by taking care of the throttle, steering and a few other bits and bobs - just as autopilots in planes do now - that will happen sooner than most expect.

[albion1971]

shep532:

■■■■■■■:
Still waiting to see pilotless commercial flights though shep…over a hundred years later■■?

You are quite right - apart from the ones currently bombing certain countries whilst being flown by some guy in an air conditioned room in another country I doubt we’ll be seeing pilotless planes in our lifetime

Of course we aren’t going to see driverless HGVs on our roads for a very very very long time - but a vehicle that can help make the drivers job easier by taking care of the throttle, steering and a few other bits and bobs - just as autopilots in planes do now - that will happen sooner than most expect.

Of course it will but some do not want to believe it. It will be a gradual process starting with as you say the electronics taking care of the controls. I would imagine motorways will be the first roads to actually have driverless vehicles in their own dedicated lanes.
It will be very interesting to see the progression over the next ten years but as the technology is already available I honestly do not see downside or why it will not happen.
It will definitely help to cut the accident rate and the horrendous amount of unecessary deaths on our roads.

[raymundo]

Freight Dog:
Yes Albion but it doesn’t state whether it is actually driverless cars or cars that can drive themselves whilst monitored. I suspect the term “driverless” is being used for sensationalism. I can’t see a car without a single human being inside being allowed onto the roads next year.

If there was no one in it why would it need to be on the road ?

[albion1971]

raymundo:

Freight Dog:
Yes Albion but it doesn’t state whether it is actually driverless cars or cars that can drive themselves whilst monitored. I suspect the term “driverless” is being used for sensationalism. I can’t see a car without a single human being inside being allowed onto the roads next year.

If there was no one in it why would it need to be on the road ?

Testing testing for the future maybe.

[notimetoulouse]

Westworld he we come

or a three way stand off between robo driver robo forkie and robo office clark

[freight_dog]

raymundo:

Freight Dog:
Yes Albion but it doesn’t state whether it is actually driverless cars or cars that can drive themselves whilst monitored. I suspect the term “driverless” is being used for sensationalism. I can’t see a car without a single human being inside being allowed onto the roads next year.

If there was no one in it why would it need to be on the road ?

I did consider this response before posting. It was to take it to the extreme to seperate the difference between a driverless car and a car that can drive itself under set circumstances but still requires qualified Supervision that is falsely referred to as driverless by the press.

That said. Taxis enroute to pick someone up? LGVs don’t carry passengers so if truly driverless would be empty. If cars were to be truly driverless why limit the scope of operation as it currently is because cars currently require people inside to operate them? For example you left you car at the pub, got a taxi back and now want it back home? If the car really is truly driverless it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to be able to remotely pass it instructions to start and where to go. That said if it were driverless you could at that stage fall asleep on the back seat as it glides you home in your stupor

True autonomous driverless cars are not going to happen next year or in the next 5 years. I’ll eat my hat if they do. One day, maybe.

Like inventing the locomotive and forgetting to invent the track it’s all well and good inventing cars that appear to be able to handle driving under delicate conditions but until the highways infrastructure is sorted to be compatible and less fraught with odd wiggly lanes without passing places, trees falling on roads in the middle of nowhere, maintenance issues and general complete chaos that is today, It’ll just be a supervised advanced “autodriver” version of cruise control with the steering added with the ethical and legal onus still on a human driver/commander.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:
I don’t think any time soon there will be completely driverless anything. The roads are too screwed up. I think the vehicles will be able to drive themselves on certain allowed roads such as motorways provided they’re monitored. Suppose the idea being safety and efficiency.

I don’t buy into this idea that automation doesn’t buy goods in shops and spend money therefore that will stop progress of automation.

Automation has been going on years and that argument hasn’t stopped companies if they think it’s more efficient or cheaper. Started with the Luddites and mills. Factories became more automated, people were forced out of work. Computer aided design has allowed drawing offices to be replaced by one man and a computer station.

A friend of mine worked as an engineer on large ships. The ship was originally built to crew 38. But when he was on this thing there were only 15 crew including 4 engineers. Overnight the engine room was run unmanned. Any alarms and he was woken up. So not replaced completely but still cut down the amount of manpower needed.

Originally docks employed thousands of steevadores and loaders. The move onto containers with robotic cranes happened ages ago. Compare the reduction in staffing to the 1970s.

I still don’t believe that lorries will be completely unmanned any lifetime soon. As said the roads here confuse even the fastest computer on the planet. The brain!

Firstly we’ve already got the situation in automotive terms that the technology contained in modern vehicles is sufficient to render them an unsustainable economic write off when it inevitably goes wrong in the longer term.To the point where residual values become effectively non existent.So that’s the economic argument out of the window.

As for automation historically not resulting in a situation of making itself redundant because it doesn’t comsume its own products we’ve not ‘yet’ reached the critical point where jobs aren’t replaced at the same rate as they are taken.

IE a CNC machine tool doesn’t get rid of the machinists job it just changes the way the machine is used.Even in that case that change can/did result in plenty of old school machine tool operators walking away because they ( rightly ) didn’t want to change working on the basis of physical direct inputs to numerically programmed automated ones.On that note there is a difference between human interaction with machinery which is at least mostly dependent on human inputs v computer controlled.

In which case,while the Luddites were arguably taking a way over pessimistic view of ‘progress’,assuming the nerds tip the balance in favour of computerised automation over humans,that issue will be something totally different and which definitely won’t end well both economically or in human terms.Which in this case would probably translate as the ‘driver’ ( computer systems monitor ) being asleep or not alert enough at the vital point if/when the computer goes into fault mode or not even having the required skills to ‘drive’ the wagon even if he’s awake because his ‘skills’ have been taken away by the computers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_A … light_1951

Let alone not being at the top of the over subscribed list,or even wanting the job if he gets it,when it is time to make the career change to automated truck repair technician.That’s assuming we’ve even got a road transport industry in an environment of economic collapse in which the computers aren’t buying anything and not paying for the redundancy/unemployment/retirement benefits of all those who they’ve put out of work.

[boredwivdrivin]

There are 2 aspects of this that have been overlooked

First the yank retailers ( amazon google ) are trying to get urban deliveries off the road and into drones .
This would , i presume , involve trunking between manufacturers and urban drone hubs . this could easily be achieved by automated trucks , as they would be travelling defined routes constantly .

Secondly the big advantage of driverless trucks is not so much the wages saved ( clearly they would need expensive technicians to service them ) but the fact they could operate 24/7

[carryfast]

boredwivdrivin:
There are 2 aspects of this that have been overlooked

First the yank retailers ( amazon google ) are trying to get urban deliveries off the road and into drones .
This would , i presume , involve trunking between manufacturers and urban drone hubs . this could easily be achieved by automated trucks , as they would be travelling defined routes constantly .

Secondly the big advantage of driverless trucks is not so much the wages saved ( clearly they would need expensive technicians to service them ) but the fact they could operate 24/7

In an environment of similar ever increasing automation,in numerous employment sectors not just transport.That obviously just means ever increasing levels of automated capacity and ‘efficiency’ in an environment of ever decreasing demand for what the online retailers are selling because of unsustainable levels of unemployment.In which those left in work making and maintaining the machines won’t be able to subsidise those out of work until they too become just as redundant as the machines they make and maintain anyway.Bearing in mind that we’re mainly talking about transport and retail of imported goods made in cheap labour countries and you’re effectively talking about the automation of the transport and retail sectors which form a massive proportion of the country’s remaining overall employment.IE what could possibly go wrong.

[freight_dog]

I still stand by saying the lack of buying ability of automation will not stop the progress of automation. Because, this is already a truth. Progress of automation is already a fact, automation has progressed for the last 140 years or so and the creation of newer roles did not keep step with the rate of unemployment.

This saturation point where jobs created is outstripped by jobs replaced to such a level that there’s such unemployment that there is no one to buy products? I don’t feel it will happen like this. There will be no sudden triangulation point. You could argue that point came and went when the amount of low skilled roles disappeared in the early 20th century.

Take your historical CAD example. I don’t think what you say is hitting the most restrictive point. Whether they were unwilling to change roles a CAD/CNC machine did replace more jobs than were created in their direct field. So even if twenty men wanted to be programmers or even had the education, there perhaps would only be four operator roles available. Which was one of the reasons for the automating the drawing office in the first place perhaps. It did happen.

It may well reach a natural state at which unemployment shows its increasing hand as a direct result of automation. How do you define that point? What happens at that point? It is arguable this point has come and gone. The automation in the early 20th century was replacing a countrywide manual workforce faster than than the creation of new roles. Of course, other new clerical roles associated with this brighter, more globalised world were created but there was significant delay in education and social expectations before these roles were open to the vast unemployed.

Will some great arbiter of development restrain the further use of automation on a Tuesday afternoon? How will this arbiter possibly rewind the clock?

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:
I still stand by saying the lack of buying ability of automation will not stop the progress of automation. Because, this is already a truth. Progress of automation is already a fact, automation has progressed for the last 140 years or so and the creation of newer roles did not keep step with the rate of unemployment.

This saturation point where jobs created is outstripped by jobs replaced to such a level that there’s such unemployment that there is no one to buy products? I don’t feel it will happen like this. There will be no sudden triangulation point. You could argue that point came and went when the amount of low skilled roles disappeared in the early 20th century.

Take your historical CAD example. I don’t think what you say is hitting the most restrictive point. Whether they were unwilling to change roles a CAD/CNC machine did replace more jobs than were created in their direct field. So even if twenty men wanted to be programmers or even had the education, there perhaps would only be four operator roles available. Which was one of the reasons for the automating the drawing office in the first place perhaps. It did happen.

It may well reach a natural state at which unemployment shows its increasing hand as a direct result of automation. How do you define that point? What happens at that point? It is arguable this point has come and gone. The automation in the early 20th century was replacing a countrywide manual workforce faster than than the creation of new roles. Of course, other new clerical roles associated with this brighter, more globalised world were created but there was significant delay in education and social expectations before these roles were open to the vast unemployed.

Will some great arbiter of development restrain the further use of automation on a Tuesday afternoon? How will this arbiter possibly rewind the clock?

In the case of the CNC machine tool operator example it’s easy to confuse jobs lost because of de industrialisation and resulting loss of the manufacturing sector in general with those potentially lost due to CNC automation.I’d say the former way outweighed the latter.With even now still strong demand for CNC machine operators.

IE a ‘change’ ‘in the way’ humans interacted with machines not net ‘replacement’ ‘by’ the machines in that case.Arguably as I said to the point where that change resulted in even more demand because many of those who liked doing the job prior to that change no longer liked working with in a less skilled numerical and monitoring role interaction,as opposed to their previous more skilled human input dependent interaction.Which in the transport environment might possibly translate as ‘drivers’ eventually resisting the change from their previous driving role to that of automated vehicle monitoring operative by walking away and looking for whatever niche sectors still requiring drivers to drive still remain.Thereby actually creating an anomaly which would show a distorted over optimistic view of the employment effects of automation.Which you seem to be basing your view on.

Whereas net overall ‘replacement’ of the workforce by machine automation is a totally different thing.Which is what we are arguably discussing here and so far no we haven’t seen that situation ‘yet’.At which point the issue of the machines collapsing the economy,because of the paradox,between a workforce that doesn’t consume its own products and services,or pay taxes to support the humans it has put out of work,would become clear.IE the Luddites were spot on.It’s just that they were around 200 years too early in their resistance.In which case it isn’t a case of can we put the genie back in the bottle by telling the nerds to zb off and stuff their technology it’s a case of can we afford not to.

[freight_dog]

No confusion. Felt you were incorrect saying people didnt want the newer roles. As I said, automation has effectively replaced workers in their fields before. It’s a matter of numbers.

The case of CNC machinery IS comparable to the displacement of large numbers of manual workers, if sticking to the point of the discussion. It is just yet an example, no different from the Arkwright machinery and the mills during the industrial revolution. The mechanism exactly the same at heart and has been going on since the 1800s. Machine comes in, needs 1 to work it. 9 go out the door, 1 stays.

My view, not the one you think I was reffering to is to do with this notion of “robots don’t buy food”. For the reasons mentioned before. It’s insidious and companies, industry and firms will always seek to keep up with the Jones’ to remain competetive. As I said. Who is the great arbiter? At what point will they say no more and how will it be reversed?

If I were a young person in certain roles, I’d draw cold comfort from the robot/buying power concept acting as a natural mediator and keeping my job safe.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:
No confusion. Just felt you were incorrect saying people didnt want the newer roles. As I said, automation has effectively replaced workers in their fields before. It’s a matter of numbers.

My view, not the one you think I was reffering to is to do with this notion of “robots don’t buy food”. For the reasons mentioned before. It’s insidious and companies, industry and firms will always seek to keep up with the Jones’ to remain competetive. As I said. Who is the great arbiter? At what point will they say no more and how will it be reversed?

If I were a young person in certain roles, I’d draw cold comfort from the robot/buying power concept acting as a natural mediator and keeping my job safe.

Exactly it’s all about the critical tipping point in numbers where we see a net ‘replacement’ of humans with automation.On that note I’d doubt if even the most believing of the employers side of the argument wouldn’t suddenly realise that their fortunes are based first and foremost on the continuing consumption/demand and payment of/for their products and services.Bearing in mind that it’s only the continuing large scale employment of humans that can provide that demand and consumption and payment.In addition to the very real issue of diminishing counter productive returns of too much unnecessary technology which over removes human input from the loop.

It’s then just a question of if/when that realisation takes place before or after it is too late.In which case I’d agree with you all the signs don’t look good in that regard.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:

Freight Dog:
No confusion. Just felt you were incorrect saying people didnt want the newer roles. As I said, automation has effectively replaced workers in their fields before. It’s a matter of numbers.

My view, not the one you think I was reffering to is to do with this notion of “robots don’t buy food”. For the reasons mentioned before. It’s insidious and companies, industry and firms will always seek to keep up with the Jones’ to remain competetive. As I said. Who is the great arbiter? At what point will they say no more and how will it be reversed?

If I were a young person in certain roles, I’d draw cold comfort from the robot/buying power concept acting as a natural mediator and keeping my job safe.

Exactly it’s all about the critical tipping point in numbers where we see a net ‘replacement’ of humans with automation.On that note I’d doubt if even the most believing of the employers side of the argument wouldn’t suddenly realise that their fortunes are based first and foremost on the continuing consumption/demand and payment of/for their products and services.Bearing in mind that it’s only the continuing large scale employment of humans that can provide that demand and consumption and payment.In addition to the very real issue of diminishing counter productive returns of too much unnecessary technology which over removes human input from the loop.

It’s then just a question of if/when that realisation takes place before or after it is too late.In which case I’d agree with you all the signs don’t look good in that regard.

Totally agree. Only thing I doubt any employer having the foresight to fall on their sword by themselves over a notion and deautomate their business.

[plugster]

best thing to start the ball rolling would be fully automated RDC mode… from thr gate the truck takes over… no need to leave the cab as POD would and really already should be electronic…truck takes you to a bay and reverses its self on…then an army of auto unloaders takes over and tips you in 10 mins flat all checked and weighted…most of this tech is already about just a case of a firm willing to invest in it…imagine being in an rdc 20 mins gate to gate billions would be saved every year