'Robo-Apocalypse cancelled? Reframing the automation and future of work debate' by
Leslie Willcocks in (2020)
Journal of Information Technology argues
Robotics and the automation of knowledge work, often referred to as AI (artificial intelligence), are presented in the media as likely to have massive impacts, for better or worse, on jobs skills, organizations and society. The article deconstructs the dominant hype-and-fear narrative. Claims on net job loss emerge as exaggerated, but there will be considerable skills disruption and change in the major global economies over the next 12 years. The term AI has been hijacked, in order to suggest much more going on technologically than can be the case. The article reviews critically the research evidence so far, including the author’s own, pointing to eight major qualifiers to the dominant discourse of major net job loss from a seamless, overwhelming AI wave sweeping fast through the major economies. The article questions many assumptions: that automation creates few jobs short or long term; that whole jobs can be automated; that the technology is perfectible; that organizations can seamlessly and quickly deploy AI; that humans are machines that can be replicated; and that it is politically, socially and economically feasible to apply these technologies. A major omission in all studies is factoring in dramatic increases in the amount of work to be done. Adding in ageing populations, productivity gaps and skills shortages predicted across many G20 countries, the danger might be too little, rather than too much labour. The article concludes that, if there is going to be a Robo-Apocalypse, this will be from a collective failure to adjust to skills change over the next 12years. But the debate needs to be widened to the impact of eight other technologies that AI insufficiently represents in the popular imagination and that, in combination, could cause a techno-apocalypse.
The National Transport Commission 2020
Review of ‘Guidelines for trials of automated vehicles in Australia’: Discussion paper
reviews the National Transport Commission (NTC) and Austroads’ Guidelines for trials of automated vehicles in Australia. The guidelines were released in 2017 to support nationally consistent conditions for automated vehicle trials in Australia. The NTC has undertaken research and targeted consultation to present potential updates to the guidelines that aim to benefit trialling organisations and road transport agencies. Updates could include: further detail about requirements; alignment with the future commercial deployment framework; clarifying the application of the guidelines to other technologies; and improving administrative processes.
The
paper states
The National Transport Commission and Austroads’ Guidelines for trials of automated vehicles in Australia were released in May 2017 to support nationally consistent conditions for automated vehicle trials in Australia. The guidelines were intended to:
- provide certainty and clarity to industry regarding expectations when trialling in Australia
- help agencies manage trials in their own jurisdictions as well as across state borders
- establish minimum standards of safety
- help assure the public that roads are being used safely
- help raise awareness and acceptance of automated vehicles in the community.
Transport and infrastructure ministers directed that the guidelines should be reviewed every two years. We began this review of the guidelines in 2019 and it is the first to take place since they were published. The purpose of this discussion paper is to assess how well the guidelines are working in practice and to seek broader stakeholder views on any required changes.
Context
Since the guidelines were published in May 2017 there have been a number of developments in trialling and the development of regulatory frameworks for automated vehicles:
- Trials have now taken place in every Australian state and territory, and trialling organisations and road transport agencies can share their experience of the application, approval and operation of trials.
- There has been further development of the regulatory framework for the commercial deployment of automated vehicles, which will eventually succeed the trials framework.
- International guidance has further evolved.
The objectives of the review are to identify:
- whether the guidelines have assisted governments and trialling organisations
- challenges faced by governments and trialling organisations using the guidelines or in applying for, approving, operating and evaluating trials
- additional requirements governments have placed on trialling organisations
- whether the guidelines should be updated to ensure a nationally consistent and safe
approach to automated vehicle trials in Australia.
Consultation topics
In late 2019 the NTC undertook targeted consultation and a review of international guidance to inform this discussion paper. Through this consultation we have learned that trialling organisations and road transport agencies have found the guidelines useful, particularly as a starting point to guide trialling organisations as they prepare their trial applications. We have also learned that the guidelines could provide further detail to assist trialling organisations and to provide some consistency in applications for road transport agencies. As well, we have learned that there are a number of differences in trial requirements and application processes across states and territories, which has led to differing experiences in gaining approvals for trials.
Consultation topics in this discussion paper fall under five broad categories:
- content and level of detail in the current guidelines (chapter 3)
- application of the guidelines (chapter 4)
- administrative processes and harmonisation (chapter 5)
- other automated vehicle trial issues outside the scope of the guidelines (chapter 6).
There could be a number of updates to the guidelines that will benefit both trialling
organisations and road transport agencies. These include
- ▪ further detail about safety, traffic management and data and information requirements;
- further alignment with future safety requirements for commercial deployment;
- clarifying the application of the guidelines to other technologies, operating domains and types of trials; and
- improving the efficiency of administrative processes at the point of application.
We are seeking views from stakeholders on the potential updates discussed in this paper and on any other useful changes. We want to ensure the guidelines support safe and innovative trials in Australia. This will help Australia gain the safety and productivity benefits of this technology.
List of questions
1 Should the guidelines be updated to improve the management of trials (section 3 of the guidelines) and, if so, why? Consider in particular:.
2 Should the guidelines be updated to improve the safety management of trials (section 4 of the guidelines) and, if so, why? Consider in particular:
3 What issues have been encountered when obtaining or providing insurance?
4 Are the current insurance requirements sufficient (section 5 of the guidelines)? If not, how should they change?.
5 Should the guidelines be updated to improve the provision of relevant data and information (section 6 of the guidelines)?
6 Is there any additional information the guidelines should include for trialling organisations?
7 Should the guidelines apply to any other emerging technologies (discussed in chapter 4 or other technologies) and operating domains?.
8 Are there any additional criteria or additional matters relevant to the trials of automated heavy vehicles that should be included in the guidelines?.
9 Are there currently any regulatory or other barriers to running larger trials? If so, how should these barriers be addressed? (Consider the guidelines, state and territory exemption and permit schemes, and Commonwealth importation processes.).
10 Should the guidelines continue to allow commercial passenger services in automated vehicle trials? If so, should the guidelines reference additional criteria that trialling organisations should be subject to, and what should these criteria be?.
11 What challenges have you faced with administrative processes when applying for approving trials of automated vehicles, and how could these be addressed?.
12 Are there any other barriers to cross-border trials? Is there a need to change current arrangements for cross border trials?
13 Should there be a more standardised government evaluation framework for automated vehicle trials? If so, what are the trial issues that should be evaluated?.
14 Should the results of evaluations be shared between states and territories? If so, how should commercially sensitive information be treated?
15 What works well in the automated vehicle importation process, and what are the challenges?.
16 Is there anything further that should be done to facilitate a transition from trial to commercial deployment?
17 Are there any matters that the NTC should consider in its review of the guidelines?
