Apple learned automation can't match human skill • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#21

Post by hhas01 » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:09 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #14

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, aro…

Yes, but it’s much more politically convenient for the incompetents in charge to blame the dumb machines than themselves for their multi-million $$$$ project collapsing on its arse.

Steve Jobs would’ve flayed the lot of them till he got exactly what he wanted. Cook’s mediocrity simply shrugs and rolls on, with nothing learned at all. #PerfectlyOiledCuckooClock

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#22

Post by agustif » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:11 AM UTC

hhas01 wrote: post #19

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…

> But perhaps a more logical place to start is by automating away the penny-pinching bean counters’ and talentless middle-management chair warmers’ jobs?

I readed this on HN and your comment made me remember it. https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#23

Post by lnsru » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:14 AM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #7

Based on what the article said, I have to ask. Is there lots of glue applied inside Apple products? Is that primarily in small devices for waterproofing? Not knowing much about manufacturing, I’d think that most people would expect parts to be secured together via solid metal screws or something other secure.

Even cars are being glued nowadays. Glases, aluminum roofs, etc. There are dozens YouTube video about car body repair and glue can be found in surprising places. No solid metal screws or welding points.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#24

Post by FridgeSeal » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:16 AM UTC

diob wrote: post #13

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 e…

The more I work in and watch the ML/AI space, the more I’m convinced the better approach is similar to what you describe: “augmentation” of humans’ abilities and skills rather than replacement of them.

Using advanced AI, or even a bunch of semi-decent models to condense information, highlight things humans might miss, enrich with predictions, etc so that humans don’t have to spend as much time wading through data themselves to try and extract meaning and can instead jump straight to more informed decision making seems like a better approach to me than “lol can we make a neural net that does lawyer things?”

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#25

Post by anotheryou » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:20 AM UTC

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.

Now you need three experts, one in the domain, one for automation and an engineer. But only the engineer will be needed in production.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#26

Post by yazaddaruvala » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:25 AM UTC

It seems to me that Apple Silicon, will eventually start with “Device on Chip” type solutions (i.e. there will no longer be a motherboard). Including vertically integrating OLED construction into the wafer as well.

Similarly, vertically integrating battery construction and housing into the device body, like TSLAs battery day announcement.

Between these integrations, I’m not sure there will be much remaining to automate.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#27

Post by collyw » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:26 AM UTC

vaxman wrote: post #6

The article essentially says that if Apple can’t build reliable robots to build mobile computers more efficiently that people, then it can’t really be done. This is, of course, horsepuckey, but what do you expect from an Apple blog?

Isn't Apple the most highly valued company in the world at present? It's certainly one of the companies with the most resources to throw at the problem. That will give them a big advantage.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#28

Post by cheschire » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:26 AM UTC

gruturo wrote: post #20

cheschire wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 - re…

Safety regulations are what prevent more trains from running in many European places. Limiting rail to automated-only trains would allow them to run right up next to each other without the huge gaps between them that exists right now. You could move thousands more people than automated cars could manage for a fraction of the cost.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#29

Post by throwayws » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:29 AM UTC

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.

Which is where the push to general AI comes from.

Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill

#30

Post by roenxi » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 8:31 AM UTC

This reminds me of that "overestimate in the short term, underestimate in the long term" quote about technology.

This article is talking about the world in 2012. The world in 2012 was radically different to the world of 2020. Humans were still the best Go players on the planet, the landscape of image recognition looked rather different and the hardware was in a completely different place.

The skills to automate this stuff are developing right now. We're basically looking at a reset of these lessons that were learned in the early 2010s. The next wave has a much stronger foundation. Computers are now, potentially, better at pattern recognition. For all we know the insurmountable is currently being surmounted.