Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Suncor trials driverless trucks

  1. #1

    Default Suncor trials driverless trucks

    The days of people earning almost 200k per year to drive oil sands trucks may be almost over:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...jobs-1.3832921

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    They have for awhile moa. It's not perfected, if the road is bumpy or slippery, they stop. I think these are a long way away...

  3. #3

    Default

    They are being used successfully in Australia.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Don't they have a driver with them? I read they did. I'm talking about the ones moa posted about, and how it will take time for all this.

  5. #5

    Default

    From a recent discussion Stephen Hawking gave:
    However, before moving to another planet, Hawking said that there's another challenge: the battle against technology. He explained that despite the potential of technology giving way for possible ways of human survival, artificial intelligence can also wipe out humans.


    “Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded.” Hawking said back in May.


    Original article: http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...-humans-go.htm

    In addition ... in a recent article on "linked in" (sorry can't find original article) he also commented that the rapid rise of technology displacing humans is leading to mass inequality, which in itself will lead to a clash between the have and have nots with the potential to end society as we know it..... or words to that effect as I am paraphrasing after reading the article a couple days ago. I'll take another look later and post the link if I can find it.

    The overall point being ... I'd rather have people employed driving the trucks than another group on unemployment.

    IMO


  6. #6

    Default

    There are no drivers. AFAIK, One operator at a remote location monitors 5 trucks



    “It’s not a fantasy,” gushed Alister Cowan. “At an average of $200,000 per person, you can see the savings we’re going to get from an operations perspective.”

    Faced with an acute shortage of workers and demands to cut spending, Canada’s largest oil company is rushing to develop and deploy a fleet of automated heavy haulers to roam its mines in the oilsands.
    http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/201...ompany-excited



    Driverless Trucks Part 1: Who's at Risk? by Frank Blau
    http://www.hni.com/blog/driverless-trucks-whos-at-risk
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 05-12-2016 at 11:56 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    I'll wait and see, our son is involved with this..

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    From a recent discussion Stephen Hawking gave:
    However, before moving to another planet, Hawking said that there's another challenge: the battle against technology. He explained that despite the potential of technology giving way for possible ways of human survival, artificial intelligence can also wipe out humans.


    “Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded.” Hawking said back in May.


    Original article: http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...-humans-go.htm

    In addition ... in a recent article on "linked in" (sorry can't find original article) he also commented that the rapid rise of technology displacing humans is leading to mass inequality, which in itself will lead to a clash between the have and have nots with the potential to end society as we know it..... or words to that effect as I am paraphrasing after reading the article a couple days ago. I'll take another look later and post the link if I can find it.

    The overall point being ... I'd rather have people employed driving the trucks than another group on unemployment.

    IMO

    True artificial intelligence including the ability to self-replicate may well be an existential threat to biological life, but the "rapid rise of technology" has been displacing human labour for 250 years. Inequality has always been a problem, as has the luddite response of "technology is bad, it will put people out of work". The real solution is to find ways to share the wealth of automation more equitably.

  9. #9

    Default

    I take the perspective that there is "useful" technology" that makes areas of employment safer (ie: eliminating the need for workers to personally go into reactor sites would be an extreme example) and then there is technology that is designed simply to eliminate the "cost" of employees. I'm all in favor of the former but not a proponent of the latter.


    Inequality has always been a problem, as has the luddite response of "technology is bad, it will put people out of work". The real solution is to find ways to share the wealth of automation more equitably.
    And hows that working for us as a species? From looking around the globe ... not well IMO.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    I take the perspective that there is "useful" technology" that makes areas of employment safer (ie: eliminating the need for workers to personally go into reactor sites would be an extreme example) and then there is technology that is designed simply to eliminate the "cost" of employees. I'm all in favor of the former but not a proponent of the latter.


    Inequality has always been a problem, as has the luddite response of "technology is bad, it will put people out of work". The real solution is to find ways to share the wealth of automation more equitably.
    And hows that working for us as a species? From looking around the globe ... not well IMO.
    Much of what we have today that is of high consistent quality and is priced low, is due to automation. The printing press is a good example. Actually, it's a great example. So, limiting the moral cost - benefit calculation to safety issues misses a lot of potentially worthwhile benefits.

    Here's my view on automation, plus trade deals, rent controls, fines, etc. And that is that change isn't always bad if adjustment time, training, insurance, etc is provided. In the case of removing tariffs and improving free trade, job losses occur as more 'competitive' countries destroy domestic businesses. That's fine if the country wants free trade, but in exchange for benefits to everyone in cheaper goods prices and to select winning industries, the losing industries and workers should get substantial aid packages so these previously valued "assets" to the nation can remain valued assets in a new form. (Shutting down coal in Britain is a good example of ****-poor change management. Some areas have never recovered and families and communities are essentially destroyed. EU policy continued the destruction and we can now see the rural pushback. Same I suppose with Trump's electoral base. )

    So economic reality and progress might demand change and create winners and losers but the losers need to get help and that help may have to span a generation or two. In the case of rent controls, they repeatedly fail one side or the other because they are fixed and lack provisions to adjust for inflation, demand, etc. over time.

  11. #11

    Default

    KC

    You and I are not far off in our positions but you like many (and I think unconsciously in many cases) reduce people to numbers. as you stated ... winners and losers ... not people and families.

    Seems many are quite happy to have people become numbers as it may be easier for them to deal with the results of actions. But personally I have a bigger and bigger problem with it.

    IMO

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    KC

    You and I are not far off in our positions but you like many (and I think unconsciously in many cases) reduce people to numbers. as you stated ... winners and losers ... not people and families.

    Seems many are quite happy to have people become numbers as it may be easier for them to deal with the results of actions. But personally I have a bigger and bigger problem with it.

    IMO
    My sense of "winners and losers" encompasses people, family, businesses, sectors, regions, provinces, ethnic groups, etc. Spending much of my career where numbers ruled (often huge numbers) I'm very cognizant of the immense failings that come about from a limited focus on just numbers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •