Amazon Go • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Go

#571

Post by IshKebab » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #382

Magnets wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesco started that back in the late 90s and Sainsburys also did it 5+ years ago, then Tesco seems to have had another go at it recently. edit: Safeway was first, in 1997 The Camden store illustrates the progress Safeway has made in other directions too. As part of its customer friendliness, Safeway was the first of the major food multiples to introduce self-scanning, the system it calls Shop & Go. http://www.manageme…

Huh...I had travelled around the UK/Ireland last year and I don't think I saw any of these. Maybe I was hitting the wrong stores, or people were using them and I didn't recognize them.

They're only in big stores, and you could easily miss them if you weren't looking. Also most people don't use them.

Re: Amazon Go

#572

Post by genericpseudo » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

vintageseltzer wrote: post #516

Ph0X wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).

I used to believe that, but yeah, that hasn't happened and is not likely to, because the real world does not operate anywhere close to an efficient market. Instead, those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits. Despite all of our technological progress after the American industrial revolution, we are working more hours and earning less as a whole. Despite record profits, companies are not increasing w…

> those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits

And, behold, we see someone rediscovering the central tenet of Marxist economic theory.

(Entirely serious; not an insult. HN readers could really do with a more balanced economic diet – reading more Marxist theory and less Chicago School...)

Re: Amazon Go

#573

Post by tammer » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

crazypyro wrote: post #429

delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

Indeed, separate from the question of livelihoods (which could be supplemented via ideas like basic income), and less some meaningless greetings, the engagement I would up having would be far more meaningful if employment was a matter of satisfaction rather than utility.

Re: Amazon Go

#574

Post by zepto » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #527

zepto wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic doesn't hold. The unstated assumption is that the people using the stores have sufficient capital to value interaction with people over lower prices. You can imagine that if the shoppers also worked in jobs where their humanity was valued, they might have this capital, but that's not the case for most of us because we work in systems that trade humanity for efficiency and the value extracted is captured by…

Well, they have sufficient capital to use those stores now . Are you proposing that the problem with improved efficiency is that it gives the elite more room to take from the population, so you end up worse off than before? I can see where you're coming from if so, just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Improved efficiency is a subjective term.

If your goal is to create a society where relaxed human interaction is prioritized, then it would be deeply inefficient to accrue the majority of surplus resources to a tiny few.

If on the other hand, you are a member of elite whose interest is in competing with other members over resources, you would define efficiency in a way that minimizes the value captured lower down the hierarchy.

So yes, I am essentially saying that, but I don't want us to fall into the trap of using a single definition of 'efficiency' based on the assumptions of a particular system, but recognize that it depends on what is being optimized for.

I don't think that relaxed human interactions work against the elite's goals per-se - they just don't contribute directly to their goal and so are optimized away wherever possible.

Re: Amazon Go

#575

Post by vit05 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

What I do not understand is: Why do they need to know that it was me who got something off the shelf? They need to know when something has left the shelf, so they can refuel, and they need to know when something leaves the store, so they can charge.

But do they really need to know when you pull out an item and then give up buying it?

Re: Amazon Go

#576

Post by anonbanker » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #521

anonbanker wrote: post #468

Are you saying that someone's homework was incorrect? perhaps you should break out your red pen and correct the mistakes you've found. There are few things more amusing than when people ask for evidence for the sole purpose of discounting it at any cost. Thanks for being that person. Do you think Wal-Mart will pay you for your downvotes? I know CTR paid $0.10 per comment, but that was for an election. What is the goi…

> Are you saying that someone's homework was incorrect? I'm saying that I asked for evidence and got opinion. Grading an assignment is not my responsibility. > There are few things more amusing than when people ask for evidence for the sole purpose of discounting it at any cost. Thanks for being that person. My purpose in asking for evidence was to examine it. I didn't "discredit" it, most of it wasn't relevant, whil…

If my assertions seem improbable, you have two options:

* Research and decide, based on evidence you find.

* Ridicule and discredit the evidence you asked for.

It seems you picked Door Number Two.

You mentioned you're from the heart of Walton-ville (You lived by Store #002? how interesting!). Have you spent any time in the midwest ghost towns surrounding their local Supercentre?

Re: Amazon Go

#577

Post by jtmarmon » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

csears wrote: post #376

Peroni wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are purely assumptions based on what I saw on the video alone: >If my friend and I walk out side by side, how does it know (if it does) which items are mine and which are hers? Looks like the entry/exit is the same type of set-up you find at most large office buildings with the tap in/out gates (see screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/e7fDglY.jpg ). I assume it only lets one person out at a time which also suggests…

It looks like you don't need to scan anything when exiting. So your phone could die once you're in the store and you'd still be able to check out. I'm guessing the Amazon Go app generates a one-time-use QR code that gets scanned on entry and then security/tracking cameras follow you all over the store. If the cameras see you in front of an item when its RFID sensor detects it was picked up, they make an educated gues…

i believe this is it too, mainly because of their mentions of machine learning and computer vision in the post.

Re: Amazon Go

#578

Post by pimlottc » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

Thank you for this valuable counterpoint. It is all too-easy to boil down a system to a single purpose and ignore all the little side effects and externalities. Their influences may be subtle and slight in the short term but in aggregate over time make a large difference.

You may be accused of being overly sentimental. And yes, grocery shopping is not always fun. But just by being out in the world and interacting with humans is worth something. Take that away, and at some point, these little brushes with humanity have to be replaced or we starve as social creatures. It is the increasing lack of social contact in many areas of modern life that drives many of us to social media platforms that promise to fulfill these needs.

We talk all the time about filter bubbles. What about physical interaction bubbles? Soon you won't have to see or talk to anyone outside your friends and coworkers if you don't want to. What does that do to empathy?

Re: Amazon Go

#579

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

antoinevg wrote: post #365

TulliusCicero wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1800's - "If you are a farm equipment manufacturer, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the farming sector, which employs most people in the country." Even if they "acknowledge" it, so what? It's not their job to create extra jobs to replace the ones that they've automated out of existence. It's never been the jobs of the companies creating disruptive technology, like farm equipment or cars or co…

Oookaaayyy… but then you don't get to complain when those people vote Trump into office.

Sure I do.

1. Automation wasn't a major political issue behind Trump's success.

2. I can still think someone is wrong even if they hold the majority opinion (although in this case it was a minority opinion since Trump lost the popular vote).

3. I do think something should be done to help people who lose their jobs due to automation. I just think that's the government's domain, not that of private companies.

Re: Amazon Go

#580

Post by ronjouch » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

Ph0X wrote: post #469

CrLf wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unsure we are evolving. We have evolved in many areas that solve real problems, like healthcare and such, but I'm not sure today's society is any better for all the technology that allows us to save a couple of minutes in a queue. To improve the efficiency of a particular group, we create problems elsewhere. The result may not be net positive. In fact, I think it isn't, since those saved "couple of minutes" will…

The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).

> "the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore"

Fallacy; apart from a short break thanks to syndicalist wins, we're just working more and more since the industrial revolution.

Reading suggestions: "A People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.