11–20 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine that people who need such picking jobs would rather have them around than not.
Isn't that the point of UBI? Getting us past the local maxima of "this job is soul-crushing and a waste of a person's intelligence, but economics make it cheaper to use a body than a robot"?
Personally, I think it's a net benefit that the picking jobs are on their way out. I don't believe most people do it for fun! On the other hand, there's going to be short term turmoil as people scramble to find new jobs in an increasingly automated world.
I'd imagine that people who need such picking jobs would rather have them around than not.
Amazon's acquisition of Kiva is one of the best examples of vertical integration in the e-commerce industry. The article reminded me of acquisitions in the Gilded Age. Perhaps one could compare Bezos to Rockefeller, presuming Bezos was the one who pushed for such purchases.
For anyone yet to read the article who is initially confused (as I was), besides the Kiva you might know from microlending, there's also a Kiva who make industrial robots for warehouses. As per the article, Amazon bought the latter Kiva and forced competitors to turn to alternatives that were yet to be developed.
I was reminded of how Dell originally pioneered extreme operational efficiency as the tool which made them hard to beat. I also particularly like the warehouse robotics application, it is a good mix of being able to make some adaptations in the environment to mitigate some of the more serious robotics challenges and yet able to effectively evaluate the net value to the business with and without. Just wish I'd started…
Interesting. I wonder if this system and that "Hover" technology would be a good fit? A warehouse seems like one of the good places to line the floor with metal and clear the people out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine that people who need such picking jobs would rather have them around than not.
That people "need" awful picking jobs they hate doing but can be done better by robots is basically the existential problem humanity needs to solve this century or we are very likely to get Filtered, Robin Hanson style.
The problem with automation is you cant ask the robot why X, Y or Z is going wrong and how to fix it. A master weaver on the other hand will do it over a 15 minute conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the point of UBI? Getting us past the local maxima of "this job is soul-crushing and a waste of a person's intelligence, but economics make it cheaper to use a body than a robot"?
Fair. But a soul-crushing job is better than no job, and the question remains as to whether or not mobility into a job of equal requisite skill exists.
Really?
Do you mean: "Being paid to do soul-crushing work is better than not being paid" ?
Or: "Doing soul-crushing work is better than having nothing to do" ?
The first is an issue of income and the distribution of product (in the GDP sense of product). There is no axiomatic rule that says "you have to have a job to get paid", it's just how our current economy operates.
If I owned a farm that produced a variety of food in excess of the needs of my whole family, but was totally operated by self-maintaining robots, would I need to have a job? The robots would produce all the food I need, and I could sell the excess in order to obtain other goods.
I guess I could say my job was "farmer" or "grocery salesman" or "robot supervisor", but I wouldn't actually being doing work.
If I am a truck driver, and I own my own truck and I make an income by transporting goods, and then I convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then (if we temporarily ignore external price pressures) I still make the same income as I used to. But I'm just reaping the benefits of my self driving truck, I don't actually "work" anymore (or at least to nowhere near the extent I used to).
But if I am a truck driver, and someone else owns the truck and I make an income by being contracted to transport goods, and then they convert my truck to be self-driving so that I no longer need to be the driver, then I no longer make any income, and I'm screwed. The owner of the truck reaps incredible benefits, and I don't actually "work" anymore, but I also don't have an income.
That's how things work in our society, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's no universal moral law that says that the first ex-truck-driver should continue to be paid for doing nothing much, but the second ex-truck-driver needs to get off his butt and go find a new soul-crushing job so that he can earn an income.
As our economies change to produce more output with fewer workers, there becomes less useful work for the citizens to do, even though GDP is increasing. That ought to be a good thing (economically) - more "stuff we want", less effort to produce it. But it won't actually being a good thing for the general population unless we move to a different model for the distribution of income, so that there's a way for the populace to share in the increased productivity even though their manual labour is no longer needed.
That where ideas like "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) come in.
The great thing about Kiva robots is that they're quite simple and robust mechanically. They're a battery, motors, wheels, and a lift mechanism. They're completely interchangeable, and having one fail isn't a big deal. Maintenance is replacing batteries, motors, wheels, and maybe the electronics module as necessary. The infrastructure they require is modest. The competing systems all seem to require more elaborate robots, special totes, and special shelf construction.
Amazon says that Kiva robots cut their order picking time from 90 minutes to 15. Other retailers, seeing that number, must be terrified. It's a technological improvement like that which makes same-day delivery from a large inventory possible.
I thought I read somewhere that new warehouses were not using the Kiva systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That people "need" awful picking jobs they hate doing but can be done better by robots is basically the existential problem humanity needs to solve this century or we are very likely to get Filtered, Robin Hanson style.
It's only existential in sci-fi books. Textiles were one of the first industries to be automated with the punched cards\power loom 150 years ago. We still have millions of human weavers all around the world. The problem with automation is you cant ask the robot why X, Y or Z is going wrong and how to fix it. A master weaver on the other hand will do it over a 15 minute conversation.
That's a very romantic view of weaving which hides the real reason there are still many weavers, mostly in low-cost countries: They are cheaper than machines. There is no guarantee that this will still be true in face of increasing computing capabilities and machines which learn better than before.