91–100 of 116 posts
Those brick layers (the human ones) look happy and healthy.
You are correct. We should commission a study on brick layers. Maybe the secret to long term health and happiness lies in mortar work.
Those brick layers (the human ones) look happy and healthy.
You are correct. We should commission a study on brick layers. Maybe the secret to long term health and happiness lies in mortar work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're already in field use, and are apparently fine at it. They just do big, straight wall stretches for things like hospitals. The "would lose to master masons who have to put up corners in a speed contest" metric is a bit silly - on non-corner work they're operating 3x as fast as the masons they're alongside. No real risk they're replacing humans, but they do work. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540916/robots…
Since they replaced journeyman masons there will be no new master masons and once all the master masons are dead they'll have to do that corner work too.
I'm sure that will change with time regardless, but I don't think it'll be because SAM drove out human expertise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fairly significant, apparently - you have to put up a scaffold alongside the wall for SAM to work. (And presumably, you need firm, open ground to put the thing on.) And they can't do corners or complex features, so when you hit those you need to either stop the machine or move it to a different part of the project. Headlines say they're 6x faster than normal masons, but that's during a given span of operation; over t…
Ideally you want a small robot that climbs the wall it builds with a crane follower being fed by brick fetching robots on the ground. If it was done properly you could fit it all on a flatbed and have it cheap enough to be bought by standard building crews.
On one hand, fresh mortar can clearly support several new layers of brick as a wall is laid. On the other, common estimates suggest a 24 hour wait to reach 60% of final strength. How light would an on-wall robot have to be to work at a steady pace without disrupting the still-drying brick?
The other question, I suppose, is whether the brick-supplying robot makes that redundant. It's either going to need a scaffolding or a cart/flatbed that moves frequently to keep feeding target that moves back and forth, and if you need a ground-supported robot arm right near the wall it might just be easier to do everything that way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course - I love work. But I also don't think that it makes sense, in a world of automation, to continue to define people by their work. There is no risk of being "unsafe" just because our species has figured out a way to train robots to do what was once your job. That's really ill thinking; the future is much brighter than that.
"There is no risk of being "unsafe"" I would say the risk of being homeless because a robot means I can no longer afford my home means there's a risk of being "unsafe".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I know that. I get it. My point is: if we can think so far outside the box as to imagine a world where the matter around us literally moves to achieve our will , can't we also imagine a world where this precept no longer holds?
Tell Congress that.
It's not up to Congress. It's up to us.
Robots and humans alike are due for unemployment with our move towards pre-fab and additive manufacturing.
So the prefab parts are just going to put themselves together in the factories? Then walk themselves to the job site? And erect and inspect themselves?
This is "blue sky" thinking - but what if, just imagine - the bricks were each a robot?
That is - your house is a robot you live in. Maybe it could even reconfigure itself as needed. Complete science fiction at the moment, and may never be practical - but who knows?
I get what you're saying though - there'll always be some kind of jobs for humans - but they might be the low-hanging, anyone can do them type of jobs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wooden buildings have the advantage that in an active seismic area they can survive (or let the occupants survive) earthquakes much better than brick. Building codes in California prefer wood pretty much for this reason, even though they are more susceptible to fire. Fires can be controlled, versus having every masonry house in a city fall down simultaneously.
There are some brick buildings in the Mediterranean which are seismically resistant. Italy, the birthplace of concrete, is seismically active after all: https://clay-wienerberger.com/expertise/brick-buildings-for-... I'm curious as to whether wood-over-brick could allow taller structures than wood or brick alone. Building cheaply in the 50-85 foot range (high-rise regulations kick in above a floor height of 75 feet)…
I think they are right, at least for a long time. I'm not a luddite, but every time I hear people talk about how everything from laying bricks to flipping burgers to landscaping will quickly become automated I have the following thought: Humans are amazingly versatile, and amazingly cheap. If I'm making, say, peanut butter, automation makes sense. I'll put up millions of dollars to leverage large-scale automation tec…