Lloyds Bank to axe hundreds of jobs / and now RBS

[Abraxaz1]

Agreed but as said, banning manually driven cars is a pretty unlikely scenario. Are you going to remove all the pedestrians, motorbikes, cyclists, workmen, emergency services vehicles as well?

If you have looked at the tesla autopilot it already deals pretty electively with these, there's a video of one taking emergency action after a truck tries to take it off the road.
Most of these autopilots happen to contain multiple cameras and also both infrared and normal light spectrum. This when combined with sonar systems means that a computer can be fully aware of its surroundings all the time something a human driver is unable to do.
As for workmen, when they start building work traffic control can be notified, this will allow redirecting vehicles or produce a a slow calm flow of traffic instead of the start stop we have at the moment.

Emergency vehicles will be easy as all cars will be linked, just upload route and current location to automation control and the vehicles will take avoidance action.

End of the day all the problems you have come up with can be programmed out or systems be installed to tackle the issue and mitigate it.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

The main problem is not the technology but rather support for implementation. I can imagine many players in different industries would want to prevent it from happening and not to protect jobs but rather to keep their industry alive, competitive and needed.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So in your mind at some point in future a law will come into effect stating that all manually driven cars may no longer be driven on the road. Not gonna happen I'm afraid.

I think so, yes.

Had an incident a few weekends ago where I happened upon some temporary traffic lights were stuck on red on a three-way junction. All the drivers with a Mk1 Human Brain figured this out and managed to navigate the hazard with caution in a safe manner. A driverless car would have been stuck there until the workmen turned up on Monday lol. I was always taught that rule one for driving in the UK was "expect the unexpected".

Google have already programmed in such a scenario and it's in their proposal for amended traffic regulations that the UK government have started a consultation on (i.e. to ensure driverless cars are viable and our traffic regulations are compatible).

You keep thinking you've found a "gotcha" as to why it wont work but trust me, much cleverer people than you at Google and the DfT are way ahead of you

Agreed but as said, banning manually driven cars is a pretty unlikely scenario. Are you going to remove all the pedestrians, motorbikes, cyclists, workmen, emergency services vehicles as well?

No, just "manually driven" cars, as for all the other categories they kill a tiny amount of people in comparison to "manually driven" cars. An automated car will be able to deal with a poor cyclist or wayward pedestrian way better than 90% drivers.

Your prediction that automated cars will lead to more deaths is in no way backed up by the research and trials already undertaken. For example, 2 million road miles logged for the 48 Google driverless cars including mixed traffic and city streets in LA and only 16 accidents, all of which were minor. That's a comparable accident rate to driven cars, which is pretty impressive after only 5 years of testing. Last year, that accident rate was only 1/4 of driven rates - extrapolate that improvement and it's pretty obvious that within 10 years accidents rate will be inconsequential..

 

[Haggisman]

Being a logical thinker doesn't help when the problem is illogical. Make no mistake - driverless cars/trucks will result in more deaths on the road.

You really don't have a clue do you? Do your claims have any basis in facts/evidence/trials? Do you have any experience in traffic management, software & algorithm development, machine learning? Or are you just throwing out random sound bites in the hope that someone might actually believe them?

I'm guessing your exposure to driverless car AI is limited to games like GTA?

 

[scorza]

I think so, yes.



Google have already programmed in such a scenario and it's in their proposal for amended traffic regulations that the UK government have started a consultation on (i.e. to ensure driverless cars are viable and our traffic regulations are compatible).

You keep thinking you've found a "gotcha" as to why it wont work but trust me, much cleverer people than you at Google and the DfT are way ahead of you

Oh good - the people at DfT are on the case. Got a source for that claim?

No, just "manually driven" cars, as for all the other categories they kill a tiny amount of people in comparison to "manually driven" cars. An automated car will be able to deal with a poor cyclist or wayward pedestrian way better than 90% drivers.

Your prediction that automated cars will lead to more deaths is in no way backed up by the research and trials already undertaken (for example, 2 million road miles logged for the 48 Google driverless cars including mixed traffic and city streets in LA and only one minor accident).

Yes because motorbikes are notoriously safe. What research and who paid for it? You wouldn't be using driverless cars an excuse for SJWing now would you?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Oh good - the people at DfT are on the case. Got a source for that claim?

Sure

PG 14, items 1.9 and 1.10:-

1.9 The Government recognises the significant benefits that driverless and automated vehicles will bring. As a result it is working to support their development and introduction.

1.10 As part of the 2013 National Infrastructure Plan, the Government pledged a review of the legislative and regulatory framework to enable the trialling of driverless cars on UK roads.

Still think driverless cars aren't coming to the UK? Maybe you should source your evidence to the contrary?

Yes because motorbikes are notoriously safe.

Motorcyclists generally kill just themselves, not other people, unlike car drivers. Same with other road users (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc).

You wouldn't be using driverless cars an excuse for SJWing now would you?

SJWing? Grow up.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I'm never one for posting news articles, but this paragraph caught my attention. Especially since I made a similar comment in another thread this week regarding the announced facebook AI bot

http://news.sky.com/story/1682564/lloyds-to-axe-hundreds-of-jobs-in-latest-cull

"Antonio Horta-Osorio, Lloyds' chief executive, said 18 months ago that the rise in digital consumption of banking services was a key driver of changing headcount needs."

another instance of technology doing people out of jobs. I do wonder how this will all play out over the next 10-20 years. In the future, if AI can do a good enough job, surely that means thousands of people being made redundant.

Who is designing, building and testing these system?

You guessed that right. new peeople. new jobs

 

[StriderX]

Who is designing, building and testing these system?

You guessed that right. new peeople. new jobs

But much less of them.

 

[jonneymendoza]

But much less of them.

Nope. Loads more. Systems need maintaining and upgrading every time.

Getting into IT is good for people. It's the current trend for a good while. So while labourer lose jobs IT jobs pop up. These things don't magically appear mate

 

[Glaucus]

All driving jobs that's for sure - there's no way Google's driverless car will ever hit the streets of this country. I confidently predict this.

Where do you get this nonsense from, not only is uk testing started. Uk government want to push driverless car.

Up to now, the scope for testing driverless cars has been limited, but today (11 February 2015) industry has been given the green light for testing on public roads.

The UK’s regulatory environment now sets it apart as a premium location for developing new technology, with tremendous potential for reducing accidents and making traffic flow more smoothly.
Transport Minister Claire Perry said:


“Driverless cars are the future. I want Britain to be at the forefront of this exciting new development, to embrace a technology that could transform our roads and open up a brand new route for global investment.

“These are still early days but today is an important step. The trials present a fantastic opportunity for this country to take a lead internationally in the development of this new technology.”

Business Secretary Vince Cable said:


“The UK is at the cutting edge of automotive technology - from the all-electric cars built in Sunderland, to the formula 1 expertise in the Midlands. It’s important for jobs, growth and society that we keep at the forefront of innovation, that’s why I launched a competition to research and develop driverless cars. The projects we are now funding in Greenwich, Bristol, Milton Keynes and Coventry will help to ensure we are world-leaders in this field and able to benefit from what is expected to be a £900 billion industry by 2025.

“The government’s industrial strategy is backing the automotive sector as it goes from strength to strength, we are giving business the confidence to invest over the long term and developing cutting-edge technology that will create high skilled jobs.”

The day an AI can successfully fool a human, is the day that everyone picking up phones and writing emails for a living are permanently put out of work.

That's several hundred thousand people.

It's already slowly started. Microsoft Cortana bots are an interesting concept and are essentially what you describe. They'll only get better with time.

At some point there will be a tipping point where we dont replace obsolete jobs. Although imo we're still a fair while away from that.

 

[glenimp617]

Nope. Loads more. Systems need maintaining and upgrading every time.

Getting into IT is good for people. It's the current trend for a good while. So while labourer lose jobs IT jobs pop up. These things don't magically appear mate

No chance

Today yes, tomorrow maybe, in 100 years..... nope

You're telling me it takes 50,000 IT engineers to look after an AI chat bot network (which has already been designed remember) which has replaced 50,000 telephone support staff.

People can't be made redundant until AFTER a replacement system has been put in place. Computers can do the work of many men, that is the entire issue here.

Like I said earlier, IT systems become faster, easier and cheaper over time.

 

[jonneymendoza]

We won't be here in 100 years so as long as what we do in IT doesn't harm the planet. Why care?
In fact. IT tech could save this planet.

 

[stuman]

Agreed but as said, banning manually driven cars is a pretty unlikely scenario. Are you going to remove all the pedestrians, motorbikes, cyclists, workmen, emergency services vehicles as well?

no, but then the blame lies squarely with the people that act all illogical.

the cars will be able to react far more efficiently than a person and will be programmed to do all they can to avoid the situations. so, if the person is still involved in the accident then, it is solely the person who screwed up.

 

[dowie]

 

[scorza]

no, but then the blame lies squarely with the people that act all illogical.

People are always going to be illogical, if our new robot overlords can't cope with that then the system will fail.

the cars will be able to react far more efficiently than a person and will be programmed to do all they can to avoid the situations. so, if the person is still involved in the accident then, it is solely the person who screwed up.

There will always be something unpredictable to cause problems

 

[BDEE]

We won't be here in 100 years so as long as what we do in IT doesn't harm the planet. Why care?
In fact. IT tech could save this planet.

Who is "we". Humans? Or just those of us alive now?


Who cares is those of us with kids and grand kids who at the moment many people are wondering how on earth they will make a way for themselves in this world.

 

[Haggisman]

Nope. Loads more. Systems need maintaining and upgrading every time.

Getting into IT is good for people. It's the current trend for a good while. So while labourer lose jobs IT jobs pop up. These things don't magically appear mate

Let's look at self checkouts as an example. I've generally seen about 6 self checkouts per staff member. So that's 5 jobs "lost". Are you really saying it takes 5 people working full time to upgrade and maintain 6 self checkouts?

 

[stuman]

People are always going to be illogical, if our new robot overlords can't cope with that then the system will fail.

why should they have to? they will be safer than humans so progress. not perfect, but better.

i like driving, but i can see where progress is.

traffic will also be better managed with constant average speeds and safe stopping distances and no phantom traffic jams.

There will always be something unpredictable to cause problems

yes, but we're not looking for perfection, but better than human is now possible.

 

[Haggisman]

There will always be something unpredictable to cause problems

Exactly, and whereas a person is likely to panic and make a rash decision, potentially resulting in a bad crash, an AI can assess all variables and make the safest decision within a fraction of a second.

Can a person work out if a car travelling at 29.3755mph on a surface with a coefficient of friction of 0.683 can stop within the 4.864m required to not hit that child? Or would the best course of action be to steer 32.8 degrees to the left, which would hit the lampost with the passenger side of the car (which is currently unoccupied) but avoid the parked car, thus minimising the risk of injury to the occupants...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

There will always be something unpredictable to cause problems

With enough data and computing power, nothing is unpredictable.

Besides, humans aren't great at dealing with the unpredictable anyway.