Does automated factory equipment with a human overseeing its operation and correcting error cases sound like real progress over what came before? If so, why doesn't it sound like progress when we have an automated truck with a human overseeing its operation and correcting error cases?

Though, I agree this is progress, I don't think your analogy is correct here. The progress you're referring to allows 1 person to oversee machines that do several people's work. 1 person = 10 jobs.

With the trucks, you have the same person overseeing his own job, except that it'll be done safer. 1 person = 1 job (safer).

Your analogy would make more sense if the trucks were remotely supervised and 1 person could oversee several trucks via remote connection.

In time, all of that will happen. Right now there is too much (warranted) skepticism that society won't let a driverless truck running around alone. In a few years, after proving that the number of incidents is much less than with human drivers, everybody won't care.

> Your analogy would make more sense if the trucks were remotely supervised and 1 person could oversee several trucks via remote connection.

How long until they get there? It does not look like a huge change from the person on a wheel.

Automatic cars wouldn't be allowed at the roads in one step.

Toyota is returning back to artisanal skill as the basis for automation.

I think it's progress in the same way aircraft autopilot is; it can make operation safer for everyone and protect against some types of operator error such as falling asleep and drifting into oncoming traffic.

Any bureaucratic approval of a new tech is a real progress.

There's more to progress than getting rid of jobs. I'll happy pay the same price for human truck drivers/supervisors at the cash register as we do now, or a bit more, if the benefit is lower accident rates and more efficient fuel consumption. I won't save anything directly but it will result in a safer and cleaner place to live.