自動(dòng)駕駛汽車,短期內(nèi)不會(huì)取代卡車司機(jī)的工作

自動(dòng)駕駛汽車,短期內(nèi)不會(huì)取代卡車司機(jī)的工作

Truck drivers can put the brakes on their worst automation fears.

卡車司機(jī)最擔(dān)心的自動(dòng)化問(wèn)題是剎車。

In a study published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Maury Gittleman, a research economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Kristen Monaco, an associate commissioner in the Office of Compensation and Working Conditions also at BLS, argue that there are three main reasons why the threat of automation, robots and AI to truck drivers is more fear-mongering than fearsome.

在一份發(fā)表在《勞資關(guān)系評(píng)論》上的研究報(bào)告中，勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局的研究經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家莫利·吉特曼和勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局薪酬和工作條件辦公室的副專員克里斯汀·摩納哥認(rèn)為，造成這種狀況的主要原因有三個(gè):自動(dòng)化、機(jī)器人和人工智能對(duì)卡車司機(jī)的威脅更多的是散布恐懼，而不是恐懼本身。

“Looking at the data, we believe that, while the risk of job loss from automation is very real, the projections that often get touted are overstated,” the two penned in Harvard Business Review Wednesday.

兩人周三在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》(Harvard Business Review)上撰文稱：“看看這些數(shù)據(jù)，我們認(rèn)為，雖然自動(dòng)化帶來(lái)的失業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)非常真實(shí)，但經(jīng)常被吹捧的預(yù)測(cè)卻被夸大了。”

First of all, “truck drivers do more than drive trucks,” they say.

首先，“卡車司機(jī)要做的比原來(lái)開卡車還多。”

“While some tasks are closer to automation – for example, checking for unbalanced loads, low tires, and other safety problems can be performed by sensors – dealing with any issues still requires human intervention,” they point out.

他們指出：“雖然有些任務(wù)更接近自動(dòng)化，例如，傳感器可以檢查不平衡負(fù)載、低輪胎和其他安全問(wèn)題，但任何問(wèn)題的處理仍然需要人工干預(yù)。”

They next argue that “full automation of truck driving is far into the future.”

他們接著爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，“卡車駕駛的完全自動(dòng)化，還是遙遠(yuǎn)的未來(lái)。”

Referring to the standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers, which defines automation on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being fully automated), the study found some companies tinkering with level 4 automation, but none at level 5.

根據(jù)美國(guó)汽車工程師協(xié)會(huì)(Society of Automotive Engineers)制定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，該協(xié)會(huì)對(duì)自動(dòng)化的定義范圍為0至5(5表示完全自動(dòng)化)，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，一些公司在修改4級(jí)自動(dòng)化，但沒(méi)有一家達(dá)到5級(jí)。

“We used level 4 as our benchmark, because level 5 automation, which requires the system to perform all driving and monitoring activities in all conditions, is not currently being tested in practice, and level 3 automation, which requires human intervention as the system backup, does not really threaten drivers’ jobs,” the report outlined.

“我們以4級(jí)自動(dòng)化作為基準(zhǔn)，因?yàn)橐笙到y(tǒng)在所有條件下執(zhí)行所有駕駛和監(jiān)控活動(dòng)的5級(jí)自動(dòng)化，目前尚未在實(shí)踐中進(jìn)行測(cè)試，而3級(jí)自動(dòng)化則需要人為干預(yù)作為系統(tǒng)備份，不會(huì)真正威脅到司機(jī)的工作。”

Most of that level 4 development, they found, is largely focused on long-haul trips, not short or local ones, which drastically reduces the number of potential jobs impacted by automation.

他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，大部分4級(jí)自動(dòng)化使用者主要集中在長(zhǎng)途旅行，而不是短途或本地旅行，這大大減少了受自動(dòng)化影響的潛在工作的數(shù)量。

This leads them to their final point: “There aren’t as many truck drivers in the U.S. as people think.”

這就引出了他們的最后一點(diǎn)：“美國(guó)的卡車司機(jī)沒(méi)有人們想象的那么多。”

Instead of the millions of truck driver jobs touted as threatened, the reality is closer to 456,000 drivers. It’s a “much smaller number than the self-driving truck headlines suggest, but still quite a significant one,” they noted.

與數(shù)百萬(wàn)卡車司機(jī)的工作崗位受到威脅不同，實(shí)際數(shù)字接近45.6萬(wàn)名司機(jī)。他們指出，這個(gè)數(shù)字“比自動(dòng)駕駛卡車的頭條新聞顯示的要小得多，但仍然相當(dāng)可觀”。