The End of the Automotive Industry

[Betty Swollocks]

Car manufacturers can't even get technology to work correctly on today's cars, so I don't hold much faith that we'll all be going around in self-driven cars in fifty years. Not even close.

 

[Sunny]

All those "disruptors from outside" don't care much about the labor, do they? Not only jobs in transport will be gone but most jobs in automotive industry too. Mostly due to robotization and AI. And reduced car production. Even support staff will be replaced by AI bots. I can even see bots producing the content .

So, what will humans do then? Twitting and shopping all day long? What kind of jobs will still be there?

AI is set to replace a handful of skilled jobs, while robots (also controlled by AI) are going to replace manual labor.

The progress & the disruption are not all rosey at all.

Are you advocating holding back progress to keep people doing what they did? So you are also against the industrial revolution then? It took what? 100? people then to do what a steam engine could... maybe we should have junked that continued with manual labor?

In the long run, Humans/Society always adopts and move onto doing something more productive/creative than the jobs that got automated. We always have. We did it when we went from hunting/gathering to farming to industrial revolution to computer age to internet and now to AI. It is the bedrock of progress, you free up people's time and effort from doing meaningless menial stuff so they go on to doing better things. Of course, in the short term, many won't adopt and suffer/fall back on social security nets. While others go onto make even more ground breaking progress.

After all, we can agree driving a car around the block or tightening a screw all day long is not the best use of human brain.

Car manufacturers can't even get technology to work correctly on today's cars, so I don't hold much faith that we'll all be going around in self-driven cars in fifty years. Not even close.

I am with you. More than a decade later, they can't still get navigation even close to right. All the OEM systems I have used is complete crap compared to Google Maps or Waze.

 

[SDNR]

^ what I keep asking myself; who wants this? Or am I already a dinosaurus with my selfdrive-in-my-own-car-fetish.

No this is a good question. The answer is, a few self-appointed 'experts' who believe it is there duty to shape the future for the advancement of humanity.

It is coming from Silicon Valley, the United Nations, Global Corporations, and technocrats. It is being imposed on us under the banner of sustainability and environmentalism.

Put simply Mick, they don't care what you and I want - they are shaping the future for us weather we like it or not.

I believe their intentions are good but there is a degree of arrogance in the way they go about things.

In the long run, Humans/Society always adopts and move onto doing something more productive/creative than the jobs that got automated.

Absolutely true ....we will adapt to these massive changes. I think there is always a fear of the unknown - there is a lot of talk about the dangers of sentient AI. Ray Kurzweil (of Google) talks about the 'singularity': when humans merge with technology. The idea is we now have the potential to shape our own evolution rather than be subject to the laws of nature. There is a lot of hubris in this belief. ​

 

[SDNR]

Car manufacturers can't even get technology to work correctly on today's cars, so I don't hold much faith that we'll all be going around in self-driven cars in fifty years. Not even close.

I have had this discussion with my brother many times - he shares your view.
I suspect autonomous vehicles will be restricted to major urban areas for a period. Autonomous taxis serving, say, Central London, Manhattan, or Dubai is probably quite feasible. The problems start to occur when you move out into the suburbs and beyond. I can't imagine autonomous vehicles will ever be logical in rural areas.

 

[KiwiRob]

I lived in a really rural area where all there was was a name on a letterbox, taxis could never get there, I live in a semi rural area now which have the wrong location for my house when you look in my address on google and apple maps.

Where I live there is very basic public transport, the car will never leave for people who live in places like mie, I don't want to live in a city and I don't want my personal freedom constrained by city dwellers who haven't got a clue.

 

[Centurion]

The problems start to occur when you move out into the suburbs and beyond. I can't imagine autonomous vehicles will ever be logical in rural areas.

Rural areas and developing countries can be a nightmare for SatNav based navigation. Some streets don't have names and some areas don't even have postcodes. This is one of the reason why ecommerce has been slow to take off in the developing world. Last mile couriers struggle to deliver parcels because they can't locate the delivery address!

 

[EnI]

Are you advocating holding back progress to keep people doing what they did? So you are also against the industrial revolution then? It took what? 100? people then to do what a steam engine could... maybe we should have junked that continued with manual labor?

In the long run, Humans/Society always adopts and move onto doing something more productive/creative than the jobs that got automated. We always have. We did it when we went from hunting/gathering to farming to industrial revolution to computer age to internet and now to AI. It is the bedrock of progress, you free up people's time and effort from doing meaningless menial stuff so they go on to doing better things. Of course, in the short term, many won't adopt and suffer/fall back on social security nets. While others go onto make even more ground breaking progress.

Not at all. I'm all for progress & innovation. But as you have correctly identified: humans / society do adapts IN THE LONG RUN. It takes at least a generation if not two or three.

But the people here & know get beaten by the progress: losing their jobs and being forced to adapt instantly. Which is sometimes even impossible due to person's limitations & handicaps (age, IQ etc).

The IT Disruptors don't care about that. They don't care for the "human collateral damage". Even more: they don't even pay all the taxes so the government would be able to care for those people with that money (by eg. helping them to reeducate or give them temporary benefits or provide them jobs in public employment programs etc). And they don't even play by the rules: claiming regulation for "old industry" does not apply to them. Not to mention labor exploitation by some "Disruptors". Visionaries or exploiters?

They are very vocal about helping the HUMANITY with all that progress ... but they don't care f---ing up some HARD WORKING people NOW & HERE, whose existence would be threatened by instant "disruption".

Revolutions are very cruel & harming ... I much more prefer evolutions. Even when it comes to technological progress.

 

[Sunny]

The IT Disruptors don't care about that.

And car manufacturers do? Please, they are all corporations and all they care is the bottom line. Don't want to tread too much into other things, but it is not the role of corporations to help people displaced by progress, that is what governments and social security nets are for. Of course, it is for a society to decide how much of that it wants.

Revolutions are very cruel & harming ... I much more prefer evolutions. Even when it comes to technological progress.

The idea some one should innovate slowly to keep you employed is ridiculous.

 

[EnI]

No @Sunny. Innovations can be quick. Nobody should be stopping them. I'm all for free R&D.

But ... the innovations should be tested & regulated first before hitting the markets. Just like eg. medicines are. Or some chemical compounds. To be proven safe first. And their impacts to environment & society assessed properly.

Just releasing "a genie into the air" - without caring about the consequences at all - is not just ridiculous but careless & extremely dangerous as well. Some innovations should be discussed & approved first. There should be a proper regulation. Not just pure laissez-fair. I'm definitely not for unregulated "disrupting tech revolution". Eg. unregulated AI could be proven fatal. Even some prominent Disruptors say that (His mightiness "The Elon" included ... Not to mention some skeptics from hi-end academia.

And, corporation should be and must be socially responsible to. It would be unethical & socially irresponsible not to be!

Sure it's all up to governments to take care for the disruptions made by innovations. But governments need money for all the actions ... money deriving from taxes ... taxes many corporations don't want to pay and do everything legal (but highly unethical & socially irresponsible!) to avoid paying taxes.

So, should governments tax people's incomes more rather than corporate profits to finance the negative impacts of tech disruption (by corporations)? What an irony!

 

[Sunny]

^Eni, I frankly don't know what you are arguing anymore. Till now you were arguing slow down innovation because it will put people out of job. Now you are saying no, that is not the reason, it is about safety? So be it. Have a good day.

 

[chonkoa]

Bob Lutz is a nutzer if he thinks the end of the Automotive industry is nigh.
Think of the infrastructure spend that will have to happen for his vision to be realized when economies are trying to balance budgets. Investing on infrastructure projects is looking more difficult that a dentist visit for a root canal job.

 

[Cashmere]

^ what I keep asking myself; who wants this?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies