Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple learned automation can't match human skill

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#11

Post by cm2187 »

pontifier wrote: post #4

I see this as more of a commentary on the lack of people able to do the automation, and the ways automation is done currently. On a production line with 1000 different operations you'd have a thousand low skill people using their eyes, brains, and fingers to develop the assembly process. You could never get 1000 roboticists working on getting an assembly line going. I don't know how you could even find that many, but…

Well, that's my main opposition to "AI will replace [insert any profession]". Many jobs are so specific it will never be economical to hire a team of software+AI specialist to create and maintain the software to automate that work. Plus the fact that the said specialists usually know nothing about the domain.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#12

Post by Jyaif »

cheschire wrote: post #9
haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I find this to be relevant to the self driving problem - Apple/Foxconn could not detect when things had gone wrong on the automation line and stop it, let alone have the line's robots fix it. However, we expect a self driving car to detect when it encounters a novel situation on the road? And it surely will. If they could not detect it in the confines of a highly controlled factory assembly line (not manufacturing bu…

And in that same vein, why haven't we focused on the infinitely easier realm of rail automation and safety? We jumped right to the hardest problem set. Probably because it's the most sensational and easiest to get broad financial support by selling people the promise of less rush hour drain.

The rail automation is solved, entire metro lines are automatic in several places. Unfortunately while it is an easier problem to solve, it's also a less financialy interesting: in a train the labor cost of the driver is much lower than in a taxi.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#13

Post by diob »

haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I find this to be relevant to the self driving problem - Apple/Foxconn could not detect when things had gone wrong on the automation line and stop it, let alone have the line's robots fix it. However, we expect a self driving car to detect when it encounters a novel situation on the road? And it surely will. If they could not detect it in the confines of a highly controlled factory assembly line (not manufacturing bu…

I wonder if there are companies focusing on solving the opposite problem. In other words, AI to focus on things humans don't perceive (leaving the driving to the human). For instance, figuring out the person in another car is drunk, then alerting you to avoid them. Or detecting emergency personnel needing you to get out of the way (can't tell you how often I see folks blocking or oblivious).

This goes along with my experience in new cars in that the best improvements are those that enhance my ability to drive (such as a backup camera).

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#14

Post by ricardobeat »

Disappointing lack of technical depth in the report.

> Typical problems that arose include how Apple's use of glue required precision the machinery couldn't reliably match

Aren't robots commonly used to place adhesives (even replacing welds in metal fab) exactly because they can apply it far more precisely than humans? Picturing an iPad, I'd guess the issue would have been flexibility in placing glue in 3D space, around odd angles and tight corners, and not precision.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#15

Post by EvilEy3 »

> It didn't work. Typical problems that arose include how Apple's use of glue required precision the machinery couldn't reliably match. And the tiny screws needed required the automation to correctly pick and position them but that same automation couldn't detect problems the way a human hand could.

Seriously? Did anybody even read this garbage before publishing?

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#17

Post by philjohn »

cheschire wrote: post #9
haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I find this to be relevant to the self driving problem - Apple/Foxconn could not detect when things had gone wrong on the automation line and stop it, let alone have the line's robots fix it. However, we expect a self driving car to detect when it encounters a novel situation on the road? And it surely will. If they could not detect it in the confines of a highly controlled factory assembly line (not manufacturing bu…

And in that same vein, why haven't we focused on the infinitely easier realm of rail automation and safety? We jumped right to the hardest problem set. Probably because it's the most sensational and easiest to get broad financial support by selling people the promise of less rush hour drain.

to be fair, we do have some autonomous rail infra - Metro line 14 in Paris, the DLR in London, the Victoria Line was designed to be autonomous but scuppered by the unions.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#18

Post by afiori »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
pontifier wrote: post #4

I see this as more of a commentary on the lack of people able to do the automation, and the ways automation is done currently. On a production line with 1000 different operations you'd have a thousand low skill people using their eyes, brains, and fingers to develop the assembly process. You could never get 1000 roboticists working on getting an assembly line going. I don't know how you could even find that many, but…

Well, that's my main opposition to "AI will replace [insert any profession]". Many jobs are so specific it will never be economical to hire a team of software+AI specialist to create and maintain the software to automate that work. Plus the fact that the said specialists usually know nothing about the domain.

A cynic could reply that you only need enough hype/marketing to convince management and a way to shift blame when shit hits the fan.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#19

Post by hhas01 »

Common mistake, trying to replace humans with machines. Typical of penny-pinching bean counters and talentless middle-management chair warmers. But I don’t think Apple has ever understood automation (as any 20-year AppleScript veteran can tell you), so I’m not surprised Cook’s crew has failed to capitalize.

Complex automation works best when placed in the hands of skilled humans, as an amplifier of human ability. Let them use the machines to accelerate all their mundane repetitive crap, while retaining the human ability to make reasoned decisions and handle corner cases and errors intelligently.

But perhaps a more logical place to start is by automating away the penny-pinching bean counters’ and talentless middle-management chair warmers’ jobs? Dog knows they’re reliably useless at it themselves.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#20

Post by gruturo »

cheschire wrote: post #9
haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I find this to be relevant to the self driving problem - Apple/Foxconn could not detect when things had gone wrong on the automation line and stop it, let alone have the line's robots fix it. However, we expect a self driving car to detect when it encounters a novel situation on the road? And it surely will. If they could not detect it in the confines of a highly controlled factory assembly line (not manufacturing bu…

And in that same vein, why haven't we focused on the infinitely easier realm of rail automation and safety? We jumped right to the hardest problem set. Probably because it's the most sensational and easiest to get broad financial support by selling people the promise of less rush hour drain.

Replacing the cost of 1 conductor every 200 passengers is not nearly having the same impact. Moreover as others point out, it has actually been done and there are automated lines. Safety advantages are probably slim - when there's a train accident it makes news, because they're RARE.

It's also not going to significantly improve one's choice of transportation - you either have access to rail already, or you don't - regardless of who/what drives the train. Schedules are already tuned and if it was more profitable to put more trains, it would likely happen even with human conductors.

Post reply on HN