Sending a truck down an interstate for 20 hours has to be the lowest hanging fruit for self driving vehicles. When was the last time an entire category of jobs became obsolete fast enough that laid off employees blamed the technology? When long haul truckers are out of work, how will municipal bus driver unions react?
> When was the last time an entire category of jobs became obsolete fast enough that laid off employees blamed the technology?
Containerized shipping. Interestingly, it's in the world of logistics too. Longshoremen/dockworkers/stevedores used to be among the most common occupations in the US at the turn of the century, but now the industry employs a tiny fraction. A small group of a few hundred people can effectively run an enormous port like Oakland's.
Yes, the employees blamed the technology, but so did local governments. Places like Baltimore relied pretty heavily on the docks to supply their population with jobs; when those disappeared quickly many cities (especially on the eastern US coast) had a really tough time economically.
Apparently in some parts of the world the docks have been further automated that hardly any dockworkers are needed but for obvious reasons, in the US, they have been able to limit that somewhat. I guess it wont fully happen here until the current generation retires.
It always bothered me that they gave Sobotka the "We used to make shit in this country" line considering his entire job was importing stuff made in other countries.
I've watched through probably a dozen times, and yes I can definitely see that. My comment was probably letting my rust belt roots in Minnesota shining through. That and seeing and reading a lot of what David Simon has said outside of The Wire.
An actual long-haul trucker commented at length about this on a reddit thread. I can't seem to find it. The TL;DR was that tyhe actual driving of the truck was a no-brainer to automate away, but that despite being a large portion of the job from a time perspective, it was a small portion of the job functionally speaking. The majority of a long haul trucker's job is interacting with legal authorities at weigh stations, dealing with loading crews, performing required truck maintenance on the road, etc...
It was an interesting insight. I'm sure all of that could be automated away eventually, but no where near as quickly as the actual driving. I agree with other commenters in this thread that I see truck driving going the way of the train engineer quite soon, but that having truly driverless trucks is a bit further out.
The train engineer analogy is a good one, you would imagine that a single "truckgineer" so to speak could be responsible for managing a convoy of let's say 10-15 trucks which would make it much more efficient. In regards to fueling, would you make that more efficient by adding a larger fuel tank or fuel car?
> The majority of a long haul trucker's job is interacting with legal authorities at weigh stations, dealing with loading crews, performing required truck maintenance on the road, etc...
In other words, the parts that don't have to move much. You can keep a much smaller, more local staff that costs far less per volume of goods flowing. A single agent at a weigh station that handles hundreds of trucks a day, instead of a truck driver per truck. A set of contracts with local mechanics that get paged if a truck breaks down along the route. Loading crews can load trucks without a truck driver, And so on.
You don't need someone to attend the trucks -- you just need people at key points along the routes.
Or even simpler, have the self-driving truck, but keep the "driver" to do all the normal non-driving stuff. Would be a great opportunity to get a lot of reading done, for example.
Let's discuss a world where mobility doesn't mean mind dedication. With the few VR/AR things popping all around, handling a truck might just be a pause after a 2 hour meeting in your virtual office.
It seems odd that an autonomous truck should look like a normal truck. I would imagine going after specialized types of trucking, like moving containerized freight, first.
Trains seem like pretty low hanging fruit, since they don't have to deal with nearly as much problems as vehicles on the road. Yet train automation still hasn't put train operators out of work. I doubt that self-driving cars/trucks, which lag far behind self-driving trains, are going to cause much unemployment anytime soon.
For trains, where 1 person directs 200+ cars, the reward just isn't great enough. For trucks, where one person directs 1 truckload, it's 200+ times as rewarding.
Plus, almost every country in the world has stopped building infrastructure to allow trains to go where you'd want them to go. So trains are only useful for huge manufacturing firms and things like harbors. Goods trains don't even go to most airports anymore.
Bit of an aside, but I've often heard it argued that trains make more sense for passenger traffic.
The reasoning is that you can shift a lot of people into one central station, and they then deliver themselves over the last stage of a journey through ambulation.
If downtown Palo Alto near the station were full of skyscrapers, as its land value would justify, the Caltrain would be an effective commute for many more workers.
At least in the US, the FRA is a regulatory nightmare though and extremely red tape heavy. The lack of progress in train automation is partly caused by the heavy-handed rules the agency rights which push implementation costs through the roof.
It'll be interesting to see if the DOT reacts similarly in time to vehicle automation.
This. I worked in the PTC space in the early 2k's. The person that the FRA send to be their regulatory representative to our program did not trust transistors over electromechanical switches, because you couldn't see how the transistors were failing. As you can imagine, our progress was slow.
It does, and I wondered why Google hadn't targeted it first. Its simpler,and there is a compelling business case.
I wonder if their decision was driven by political savvy - self driving cars help the blind/elderly, and automate work most people are glad to see automated. Self-driving trucks are going to have a major employment impact which will likely draw political resistance.
I would say this is absolutely a political decision and a marketing decision. Google has gone to great lengths to help the public feel comfortable with autonomous cars, right down to the 'cute' buggy look of their vehicles. The trick is to move slow enough so people's interest out paces their fears.
The implications for self driving cars is nothing short of an existential threat for so many people in this world. As we know, it's just the beginning.
Similarly, Apple moved very slowly in introducing the iPad even though the under technology had been available for years. They started with the iPod, then advanced to the iPhone. At the time the iPhone caused a great amount of tribulation. People were very uncomfortable and large portions of the tech sector predicted it would be a monstrous failure. Their apprehension was cloaking a deep-seated unfirmiliarity (and maybe some fear). Once the iPad finally did arrive it was easily digested by the market. That was the mistake HP and windows made when they introduced the tablet in 2001. People had no concept of what a tablet is or how to integrate it in to their lives, so it was a miserable failure.
The lesson is don't move so fast that you scare your ultimate market, the people.
Is the premise here that Google could already have market ready self-driving car tech that they could be selling but they're going slower to make people comfortable? This is the first time I've heard such an argument. It's very interesting if true. Are there any data points to back that up?
Maybe some jobs will be replaced, but the industry is facing a shortage of truck drivers. One of the most common job listings on Craigslist is for truck drivers with paid training. The lifestyle of a truck driver can be brutal and unhealthy.
Auto truck driving won't remove truck drivers from their jobs too fast. There is a ton of science involved in trucking and good training is key. For this reason, a person will still be required for local driving.
At any one time, what percentage of the total truck drivers would you imagine are currently on the road vs maneuvering the last mile. The last mile might be a significant portion of where their skill shines, but it's almost certainly not a significant portion of the time spent.
If a driver spends 1 hour at each end of a 20 hour cross region trip, that could still be a 10 times decrease in the total number of skilled drivers needed. A handful of skilled drivers at each trucking destination could be sufficient.
I kind of wonder if the first thing that will be deskilled is the last 1000 feet.
A lot of shipments do go to places that get infrequent deliveries, but any place that is receiving trucks all day every day might decide it makes sense to program the maneuvers once and not let humans fool around with each truck anymore.
I'm assuming that the automation system will have equal or better fine grained control over the vehicle-trailer system, so you only need a driver when decisions are complex. For the last 1000 feet, the decisions are easy (go/don't go) but accurate control is important. Ford shipped a backup system on their trucks last year, so I don't think I'm way out on a limb.
I frown when we look at a technology negatively for the impact on the JOBS out there. Instead, let's take a look at the tech for the benefits it provides the person doing the job, how much it will improve the quality of life and the quality of work, and how much more a worker can accomplish.
Few people realize there is a caveat here too: Driver efficiency goes up and that means drivers can get paid more. The cost of driving goes down and that means more goods can be shipped.
I view this as a key task for societies: Insuring that quick changes due to technological progress (or any other quick changes that are hard for anyone and especially individuals to foresee and plan for, like natural disasters) don’t leave people behind, in destitution or poverty or without any perspective.
If the World’s societies were up to that task more frequently less talk about jobs would be necessary.
Natural disasters are obviously a quite different story (but one where some societies are at least marginally better at supporting people, mostly because everyone accepts that people are just blameless and that makes it somehow easier to help), but technological progress usually benefits some people immensely and frequently has a positive (on average) on society as a whole. (But even that rising tide can leave people behind and leave people behind until they eventually just die of old age. So not a pleasant situation and those people have to be taken care of.)
Because of this it should be no problem to temporarily support those who are left behind. If current assumptions hold that support might even just have to be quite temporary (since beyond a certain point people will just stop wanting to do certain jobs because it’s obvious those have no future), so it’s not like we have that obligation forever.
Obviously, if current assumptions don’t hold (and large segments of the population will be permanently out of a job with no way to really change that, even across longer timeframes) we have to look for alternate solutions, like basic income, but that doesn’t seem too difficult, either. We just have to want it.
Crashes don't matter very much, since a human vs a machine isn't going to change anything in that regard. Let's assume lack of oil implies mechanical issues (since... you know, fill it with oil before it leaves). In that case it's vastly cheaper to dispatch a mechanic when a problem arises then it is to have a fleet of drivers sitting in a vehicle.
Crashes in the sense of having to deal with the other driver, insurance, police, moving the vehicle away from the road... Those things that are easy for a human to do.
An autonomous vehicle can be designed not to be hijacked.
Simply remove all user controls, or lock them unless an authorized user is sitting in the seat.
If the vehicle stops for an 'emergency' reason, notify someone in central command immediately. At that point they can monitor the situation.
If the vehicle is stopped under an emergency, and notices that its door panels are being broken into, then it can notify central command so they can call the police.
All the while, it's recording from every angle possible.
----
On the other hand, regular trucks have a driver who has to leave the vehicle to take care of human business and can be kidnapped or threatened into any number of actions that'd help a robber complete their work.
Seems like an autonomous truck should be harder to rob than a normal one. If you want to hijack a normal truck you just wave a gun at the driver, kick him out, and take the wheel. An autonomous truck won't feel threatened by a gun and may not even have any human-operable controls.
I doubt armed security can legally do anything beyond defending themselves as it is, let alone sending drones.
I guess they'll just wire the truck to alert police and turn on lots of cameras. Police might respond quickly... at least until the number of false alarms (truck hits a hole a bit too heavy, alarm goes "ROBBERY!!!11!") stays low enough.
To provide some examples for others here. My dad has been doing truck driving for around 8-10 years so I've heard at least a few stories from it.
1) There are really 3 kinds of truck drivers. Each of the types of truck drivers have different problems. Local drivers will be the last to have any kind of automation as they have lots of stopping. The other 2 are both mainly highway driving, so at least that part can be partially automated.
(a) You have the long-haul drivers (which is what I think most people think about). These guys spend around a week at a time on the road and away from home. They are probably bringing stuff across the country, maybe with multiple pickup/dropoffs through their trip.
(b) Round trip drivers. These guys will move cargo between 2 hubs, but it's done in a single day. Start at one center, haul that to another center (where you unload and reload), then return back to your starting point. My dad does this. It's around 950 miles every single day (250k miles a year), doing the exact same drive.
(c) Local drivers. This tends to be delivery/pickup through some area. This covers Fedex/UPS drivers, various food delivery, and so on.
2) Weather. Weird shit happens on the roads. While some driving will be in good weather, dealing with rain, snow, and all the craziness that can come with that adds lots of complexity to an automated system. Example: ice fog. Driving through this can create a buildup of almost an inch thick of ice all over the forward facing parts of the vehicle. I'm sure this would cause problems for sensors and who knows what else. Ice fog result: http://imgur.com/xWWTC0S
3) Tires. Tires on trucks blow out a lot more than on cars (mainly because they can be made of patches, plus run tires at 110 psi). This is something that just has to be dealt with more regularly on trucks while on the road.
4) Brakes. Due to their weight, brakes on trucks can go out. If you've ever driven in the mountains you know about truck runaway ramps. And even beyond that, brakes on trucks lock up. Example, my dad's truck caught on fire due to the brakes on the back of the trailer locking up (but it wasn't something reported on, and you don't notice it from the cab). If you drive for a long distance with a locked up brake, the pad will get red hot, then eventually catch up fire.
The interesting challenges on a interstate are pretty similar as the usual challenges of autonomous vehicles, so what happens if there is a construction site, or if there are people on the road. (But you have to deal with that at a lot higher speeds.)
And Ars had a very interesting article on the validation of self-driving cars, the thing is humans are rather good at driving, to the tune of 10^8 km per fatal accident, so you need really huge statistics to validate self driving cars. I suspect that if you want to show that your autonomous truck is as save as a human truck driver, then you acquire another factor of 2 in the kilometers needed. (Actually I seem to remember that it is about a factor of 5, but that is entirely unsourced.)
It's a big step to go from interstate autopilots to having no human in the loop end-to-end. If autopilot systems improve safety and/or are autonomous enough that drivers can sleep and thereby make fewer stops, they'll certainly make sense. However, it may also make economic sense to keep a human on board to handle unanticipated issues or last mile tasks that may be harder to automate.
If the driver can sleep, than the car needs to handle everything that can happen on the interstate, including deer or people on the road. So I would guess that a interstate autopilot has the same difficult challenges, but 'simpler' things like navigation may be easier.
Basically my argument boils down to, it is easier to drive on an interstate on average, but for autonomous vehicles we are not interested in average and the hard challenges are similar to hard challenges for a fully autonomous car.
>If the driver can sleep, than the car needs to handle everything that can happen on the interstate, including deer or people on the road.
Interstates are less complicated overall. You don't get a lot of jaywalkers or bicycles doing unexpected things. Nor negotiation of left-hand turns, etc. What you do have is events happening at higher speeds but handling the car in front jamming on its brakes is probably easier in general for a machine that's always paying perfect attention. As a result, I do expect to see autonomous systems on limited access highways before I see them in a busy city.
That said, I fully agree that once you have full automation you can't depend on human backup that can take over quickly. Whether or not people are supposed to, they will doze off, read, text, etc.--even more than they do today.
> ... entire category of jobs became obsolete fast enough...
I don't see how this is an 'entire category' replacement nor do I see how it will happen any faster than say automated checkouts that also replaced droves of clerks. Sure people complain, but it happens so gradually (or gradually enough) that people will just eat crow like they always do.
My parents owned a small business with ~4 employees repairing typewriters and adding machines. It did really well in 1982. By 1992 it didn't exist anymore.
That is so flippant and just the most immature thing. As an under 30 year old, highly educated individual, yep - just get another job. Move somewhere across country if you need to; you don't have kids or a mortgage.
As a specialized veteran of a job that requires very few transferable skills, truck drivers are fucked initially, and we'll see massive unemployment from this.
In many cases, the areas with high ratios of their economy supported by trade/transportation have very weak other sectors of the economy. Good luck working part-time retail, truck drivers. Hope you didn't like your benefits or salary.
ALL of that being said, I support automation and can't wait for it in my life.
I am honestly sorry for the anger, but really. Stop to think about this from someone else's perspective for a second. Just acting like they should just go get another job and that there aren't any hiccups is ridiculous. Look at Detroit, look at Gary, look at any of the large rust-belt cities. These things aren't without precedent.
Acting like all these people need to do is apply themselves a little harder is just stupid.
What about stagecoach drivers? Bread makers? Blacksmiths? Switchboard operator? What did all these people do when their services were no longer necessary / greatly diminished?
It's not like by Friday automated trucking will take over. You know it's coming, and if you don't start learning new skills or look for new work, then you're just ignorant to technology and will be out of a job.
I think the key difference 'this time' is how quickly change is happening.
Second, in the past, change was necessarily isolated in most cases, because society and business wasn't so highly connected as it is today.
Concretely, at some point, a major trunking firm could replace most of its drivers with machines over the course of a couple of years, at most.
More generally, the rate of change continues to increase. A few hundred years ago, a person could live their life and see no substantive technological change. Now we see those changes happen, in some cases, in a few years.
I don't think the change is coming quickly, actually. I think truck drivers have a good 10 years before they're out of a job, both due to technology (self-driving cars won't be fully autonomous for at least 5 years), and due to regulation/adoption (add another 5+ years). This actually leaves them less of an excuse to start retraining now, but it's also a problem because it gives most of them an excuse to dismiss the tech.
>You know it's coming, and if you don't start learning new skills or look for new work, then you're just ignorant to technology and will be out of a job.
I didn't realize truck drivers were known for staying abreast of advances in technology.
What happens as your list grows, as it will, and takes up every possible job? Eventually we could hit some sci-fi future where robots build other robots and AI comes up with new inventions on it's own.
I come from a dying factory town. I understand the pain, the grief, the suffering of having your livelihood vanish in a puff of machine-shaped smoke. It destroys people - whole identities get hung on one occupation. It destroys communities - whole towns depend on one factory or one trucking line.
So bear that in mind with what I say next.
Suck it up. The rest of us have changed our lives, reshaped our minds, and left behind the communities we knew. It's painful. It can be emotionally excruciating. But it's far from impossible. If we can do it, so can you.
That's just new-age bootstrap bullshit. For many of these families, they are one paycheck away from poverty and homelessness. There is no 'suck it up' when your kids are hungry. There is no money to leave behind the communities they know, where their social supports also exist. Your statements strike me as incredibly naive.
That they need training to find new employment is a given. But, that they should be aware of the goings on in technology, or that they should just pull their boots harder to get out of the mud are both very naive statements.
Because it is trivially easy for a 20 year veteran of an entire discipline obsoleted profession that despite having very harsh hours did pay a reasonable wage to just pivot into another career of similar merit?
That is to even say there are ~4 million jobs in the US currently going undone, that would pay ~80k a year in effective income, that people are just not doing now because only the truckers have the work ethic to do them.
That is not how economics works, and the only difference between this sea change and previous ones (the obsolesence of agrarian living being by far the largest) is that unlike those, you could not just "ignore" it until you are dead while your kids and future generations make the transition and just sell your farm after you die.
>If you need to replace all of your trucks to get the technology on it, the rate of penetration you'll be able to have is pretty low. Trucks last ten years, a million miles.
Actually i would find a adoption rate like this very fast.
Yea, seems extremely fast. They last 10 years now, with maintenance. But assume you have a moderate repair come up and you start running the calculations drive labor + maintanance vs. maintenance only and that 10 year life will shrink to bring in new vehicles.
"Many of Otto's founders have done well for themselves over the years, and it shows: the company is entirely self-funded right now without any external investment. (In the wake of the reported $1 billion Cruise Automation sale to General Motors, I ask Ron if the plan is to get acquired, but he's insistent that they're focused on bringing a product to market.) Even George Hotz's scrappy upstart Comma.ai has recently taken on venture funding from Andreesen Horowitz."
My crystal ball tells me that they'll soon find this course of action unwise.
I wanted to ask the same thing: did they quit because they didn't get enough money/stocks at the companies that they were at, or were not working on important enough stuff, or just wanted more risk for the sake of getting into more risk? Or do they think that their business model is so much better than Google's? (facilitating drivers to drive even longer without sleeping)
The salary of a truck driver is about $50000, I guess he costs at least $80000 for the employer. Buying a new self-driving truck for $200000 should pay for itself in at most 3 years. Retrofitting may work, but it's quite short term business.
You're forgetting that one driver can only drive 70 hours a week (with rules around breaks in the middle), while presumably the AI could run the truck much closer to 24/7. In this case, installing a $200k system would allow the company to replace ~3 drivers with no interruptions in service.
More valuable than replacing three drivers is the fact that because the AI can drive all of the time the total time to deliver goods goes down which means it is more valuable and a higher price can be charged for the delivery.
I would imagine the first self driving trucks would be for opencast mines and similar sites not on the public highway uses.
Milatery supply trucks would be another area and as Google seem to have the vapours over anything milatery or dual use - this maybe why they are doing this.
Looked ridiculous back then, does not seem so any more.
Imagine a new class of malware that turns our vehicles into weapons for criminal and terrorism purposes. Imagine this conversation in a sitcom about near future:
Honey, did you update antivirus on the car? Some script kiddie just destroyed our neighbours car - thankfully they weren't in it...
Yeah, I know it won't really work this way - OTA updates and etc, but try to picture this from the layman perspective.
This makes a lot of sense. Given how rule-based the trucking industry is (max 11hrs/day; 30min break after x amount of driving etc., strict speed limits, complete in lane driving with little overtaking etc.), self driving trucks could gain very strong adoption given they could follow the road rules in place predictably and will not have any time based restrictions wrt driving thus saving a lot of cost.
It'd be interesting if they could sell the customer a little 'truck' so when I order something and that thing gets to a local warehouse my little truck could drive off and collect it. It could collect from various places (depending on how I prioritize my items) and then drive back home. I don't have a private parking space and I'm rarely in my house when deliveries are being made, so a mini 'collection truck' would hold my items in a secure way for me. I suppose it could be tiny, maybe only a couple of meters long.
In theory, this sounds cool, but I feel like in practice it would be pretty wasteful. Does a town of 500 people really need 500 trucks sitting around doing nothing most of the time? Isn't one of the main promises of autonomous vehicles that we can all share vehicles and we don't need to let them sit parked for days on end?
Regarding the safe storage of your items, I think that can be solved with something similar to what Amazon Lockers attempted.
It's the name of the autopilot in "Airplane!". I'm hoping they whimsically include an inflatable entity to let people know the truck is under computer control.
>there's nothing on the books banning self-driving cars as long as a human is in the vehicle (which Otto's product would always still require).
This company basically wants to increase efficiency of long haul truckers. They can sleep in the wheel and move 24/7 without mandatory breaks.
Turning 11 hour drive into 23 hour drive would bring huge savings for the company. If they make it happen, it sells like candy and after few years all have one.
OT, but can someone explain why this won't instantly be sued into oblivion by the former employers? It seems like some of the Otto team will be using knowledge they gained at their last job on what seems like a competing product.
IANAL, but as long as you're not infringing on patents, trade secrets, or using stolen source code, you can't be sued just for using your brain to solve similar problems.
Depends CA is quite liberal in terms of non competes and I suspect they woudl argue that self driving trucks is sufficiently different from self driving cars.
This is one reason why California is great for tech workers, the unenforceable non-competes. In much of the country you'd have to wait out a year before working in the same industry as your current employer.
Agreed the USA having 52 separate sets of employment laws does not make sense - really employment law should be done at federal level - think of the saving in reduction in red tape.
Though I suspect HR and Lawyers might lobby against that as a job protection scheme.
In practice, sober automobile drivers who stay at the scene of a crash can kill people in an astoundingly negligent fashion without facing jail time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/why-drivers-get-aw...
This is a major reason I am excited about automated vehicles, along with the potential to unclog the madness that is urban parking politics, which is one of the major factors preventing the building of new neighborhoods that are truly urban.
Why must someone go to prison? If the vehicle is operating normally and regulation allows it to operate without a driver in command, then there is no crime.
I agree that if the regulation allows it, then the self-driving car is a device like any other. I wonder if startups such as Otto will actually wait till such legislation passes in entire country, which is arguably going to take at least a decade (and they declare they don't want to be acquired, but sell to end customers).
In case of regular cars, you go to jail for vehicular manslaughter when you brake the traffic laws and in effect kill someone.
My guess is that, if the driver of a self-driving car decides to press the "auto drive" button and the car violates traffic laws and kills someone, it's still the driver who's responsible. The self-driving features are not deemed safe by law and are not meant to replace a driver.
It may change when self-driving cars are actually legalized as a thing (as it is currently discussed in California), but I can't imagine the current designs being close to passing a proper homologation process.
If I buy a car, it malfunctions in such a way that was not predictable by a reasonable driver and I use the vehicle in a completely reasonable way. As a result of the fault someone dies. Am I responsible for the death?
The answer for the moment is that we haven't figured out the ethical and legal questions in this area yet.
> In case of regular cars, you go to jail for vehicular manslaughter when you brake the traffic laws and in effect kill someone.
But the truck won't do that. Break the law, that is. Unlike humans, its knowledge of traffic laws will be complete. It won't "break the law" in the sense that you are using the phrase.
However, there are other ethical/moral issues (do we program a car to kill 1 person if it saves 3?).
> Unlike humans, its knowledge of traffic laws will be complete.
Its knowledge of the text may be, its knowledge of what that means in practical terms will probably not be; the law often specifies that action be "reasonable" or similar terms, in light of the conditions. A human trier of fact may well find that the actions of an automated system -- especially in combinations of circumstances its creators did not specifically account for -- is unreasonable.
Funny comment, but it looks like you are fishing for downvotes here buddy. Assuming these trucks are electric, they could set it up like the Tesla recharging stations where you can recharge simply by driving over a mini-trapdoor that houses a fully charged battery pack and a robotic arm which can swap your expended pack for the new one.
What's the point in karma if not to blow it on bad jokes now and then? I'd completely missed the electric trucks angle, but that could work well assuming they can master hit swappable battery packs.
No reason that automated fueling stations couldn't be built. OTOH, it could just be a return of "full service" fueling, at least for trucks. Maybe even employ a few of the people that lose their jobs to automated trucking, though likely at a much lower wage.
Why not developing a tanker similar with the system the fighter jets are using, and tank while running?
Trunk detects low fuel, an automated call/request is placed and the refueling truck is on its way, it aligns itsel on the back of the truck , extends an arm, pumps , then detaches and goes in a designated place on the highway and waits for the next call.
because stopping for refueling is easy and cheap in comparison to military planes in action over unfriendly territory?
When was the last time your commercial airliner refueled mid-air?
> Otto isn't alone in trying to automate big rigs. Daimler and Volvo Trucks have both demonstrated self-driving systems in recent months, but Levandowski doesn't sound worried about those efforts. "I think the trucking folks are doing a great job, and eventually they would probably solve the problem. But a company that is used to building trucks is not well structured to solve a technology problem," he says.
A company with top of the line machine learning systems designed to improve advertising results is not better positioned to build an autonomous vehicle than a company with top of the line non-autonomous vehicles.
The argument here is essentially this: Microsoft started to lose when they (a company building computers, operating systems, and essential productivity software) were not best positioned to create mobile phones, despite being the biggest player in the computer market.
Being a bigger player doesn't mean you're better suited to solve a problem.
