Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Computers do a lot more complex things, so I'm sure they'll manage. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
These autotrucks have now logged a lot of miles in testing (and continue to do so.) They're probably to the point where they're running into (figuratively, hopefully) anything they'd likely to in commercial use. It would be interesting to see their safety statistics vs human drivers. This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW, | |||
|
| Member |
What happens when all those sensors get coated with ice, brown ice, snow, ect, heavy rain, fog. They need to be 100% reliable in all conditions. | |||
|
Member |
If computers can do more, faster, and more precise than a human, then why do we still have pilots in cockpits of airplanes? Why not just have a computer do all the flying? It is disingenuous to say that a computer can handle all the variables of a heavy truck, but is incapable of handling an aircraft. If we can bomb the jihadists from Nevada, why do we need pilots in the plane, or at all? Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus | |||
|
Member |
Your question may have been "tongue in cheek" rhetorical. However...the outcome of US Air Flight 1549 (Sully's adventure on the Hudson) would have resulted in TOTAL aircraft loss and 100% casualties had humans not been on the flight deck. Big Dick Dan, the remote "pilot" from Jerk Water USA sitting at the console screen of his A320 in some office building, wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what action to take should that situation arise again. The day the FAA removes pilots from the flight deck will be the day I end my air travel. I don't care how much more productive, faster, and precise and computer is vs. a human. There are several things a computer lacks preventing it from becoming a "being"...reasoning, judgement, and experience. "If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24 | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Airliners have pilots more because passengers demand them. Airliners have computerized autopilots. Currently the autopilot flies the plane for much more time than the pilots do. I know they now have autoland systems. And give the state of antonymous, UAVs, they could probably do the entire flight routine themselves. However, they're not currently programmed to deal with those, the pilots are expected to take over. Could they? If the autopilot was being used, and it was programmed to deal with an engine out situation, the flight 1549 situation might of had a better outcome than it did (meaning the jet would have landed on a runway, and the passenger stayed dry.) In the aftermath of the incident. Computer simulations were run to determine if Sulley's actions were correct. What it showed was that if Sulley had reacting nearly instantly and perfectly, he could have gotten the aircraft down on a runway (either LGA, or Teterboro.) But given the time it took for the human pilots to determine the situation and figure out a course of action, the only viable action was ditching in the Hudson. Would a properly programmed computer autopilot be able to make the determination and figure out it had the altitude and airspeed to make it back to an airport quickly enough? I think it would be very likely. Of course, if it didn't, and had to go into the water, could it handle that? I'm not so sure. Of course the bigger question is not if the computers are perfect and would never have a crash. The question is are the computers better and safer than human pilots? What percentage commercial aircraft accidents are the result of pilot mistakes, negligence, or even outright malice?
| |||
|
| Member |
It was rhetorical, designed to illustrate the disingenuous idea that a heavy truck is easily automated, while an aircraft absolutely needs a human. You can’t have it both ways. We may get to full automation one day, but I won’t be around to see it. Automation works great in a controlled environment, but it doesn’t do well with the unusual. I surmise that the average trucker experiences the unusual way more often than an airline pilot. Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Notice that they're automating trucks, not buses (yet.) The passengers in the truck aren't buying the ticket.
| |||
|
Member |
It’s also partly why I would favor legislation that would make it unlawful to operate autonomous trucks without a human being ready and able to take over if needed, deal with maintenance or repair issues, diagnostics, etc. If these automation systems are able to do things so much more safely and efficiently than humans then they should pay for themselves in the long run. Maybe they should mandate computerized autopilot systems AND drivers in commercial trucks. It would be the best of both worlds and again shouldn’t result in significantly more cost in the long run due to increased efficiency. In your own home automate whatever you want, but when it might affect other humans like on a public highway, public airspace, etc. I will fight as long as I live to ensure that a human has the ultimate last say on how some piece of equipment that could affect others is operated. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” | |||
|
| Big Stack |
That's not going to happen. The big pot of gold here is getting rid of the driver salaries and work time limits. The industry will push back hard against what you want. And from a safety standpoint, it wouldn't make a difference. And without the need to actually drive the truck, the human backup won't be concentrating on the road, and wouldn't be able to get his head in the game quickly enough to deal with anything the computer can't.
| |||
|
| Member |
Bingo. Without eliminating the driver there are no cost savings. Furthermore, since 75% of all accidents involving a big truck are caused by other vehicles, an autonomous truck wouldn’t be any safer unless all the other vehicles were also autonomous. You must eliminate the driver to make this feasible. You also must figure out how to get all the other stuff done that a driver normally does. Here’s one example: log truck drivers are also required to fight fire, stack the dolly, drive on dirt roads, and throw the cables. When will the AI start doing that? Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Well, you are mixing up your argument. Can a plane takeoff, fly, and land autonomously? Sure. So far we don't have them doing it without pilots in the plane as it would like make the passengers nervous and it would take years to retrofit the aircraft, although don't fool yourself there are efforts to make that happen or reduce the number of pilots required. And don't let the fleshbags in the cockpit fool you - a robot (autopilot) is doing 95% of the flying, if not more. As to bombing people with drones, the whole target ID / authorization process is a bit messy because us humans can't make up our minds on who to kill, or make up clean rules to decide - so it's hard to make a robot / computer do things we can't make 'cut and dried'. But if it was as simple as "destroy every tank you find", the drones could do it without fail. Look at the rockets we are flying to space. A far more complex task that driving a truck or a plane. 100% automated. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Note: Fully automated aircraft. No pilot (even a remote one) needed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...man_RQ-4_Global_Hawk As stated it's unlikely passengers would feel safe in an automated aircraft, so we're not likely to see that for some time. I'm almost surprised Boeing Airbus, or any of the minor players have come out with automated versions of their cargo jets yet.
| |||
|
Member |
Sounds like the perfect storm for more darwin awards, automated of course. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
| Member |
Nope. And if it does figure it out, there will be no opportunity to make a bad situation any less bad by an otherwise experienced driver. There's no substitute for a good trucker in that scenario, none, nada. But THAT scenario will eventually be coded into the business model, aka acceptable death rates for a given volume and amount of legal payouts. Ford Pinto and shit like that. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
| Member |
I completely agree with what both of you are saying. Regardless of what anyone is saying to the contrary, the only reason why you would have self driving trucks is to eliminate the driver and their associated cost. That’s all that really matters to a lot of companies, not safety, not efficiency, merely the ability to save salary costs from drivers. I still oppose driverless vehicles, especially trucks and I would hope that other groups would fight for legislation that I would support just as vigorously as the trucking industry would fight against any legislation that wouldn’t allow for driverless trucks. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
I think we are a long way off from true 'driverless' vehicles, but if you enjoy air travel, you enjoy the blending of computer automation (autopilot) and human interaction (pilots). Still, the majority of aviation accidents are human error. I can see trucks with people in them, with the self-driving allowing for safer operation, less driver fatigue, etc. With almost 40K people killed on the road per year, humans driving is far from a 'safe' activity... | |||
|
| Member |
That’s spot on. As a driver assist technology, I think automation will be a tremendous asset to the trucking industry. Especially look ahead radars and lane keeping technology. Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus | |||
|
| Member |
Bingo. The Sully example shows a case where a human pilot saved people, but what about the dozens of others that resulted in a human pilot killing everyone? | |||
|
| Member |
According to a guy I know, They can make devices for people to interact with people, and they can make computers to interact w/ each other. but people and computers interacting is 20 to thirty years out, and then ! only under closely regulated and very specific circumstances . Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency. Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024