Apple learned automation can't match human skill
appleinsider.com
Apple learned automation can't match human skill
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#2I 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 but assembly) then how can a car detect novelty on a cityscape or even a highway?
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#3I 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…
Those are two pretty different domains. In manufacturing automation, some of the things that are hard include gripping objects, handling fluids and pastes, and adapting to design changes.
For self driving cars, the controls are pretty similar, even across car models. Gas, brakes, and steering. It doesn't happen that a supplier ran out of engines and a decision is made to replace the car's propulsion by jet engines, thrust vectoring, or a hovercraft. It doesn't matter too much for self driving cars to be within 0.1 inches of the center of the road, but if your electrical components are offset by 0.1 inches or there's 0.1 fluid ounces too much glue because this batch of glue is more liquid than the previous one, the electronics probably won't work in the end.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#4I 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 if you did manage to do it, you'd probably end up with an assembly line that would spit out 60 iphones a second.
Instead what you might have is a setup where no individual process is getting the attention it truly needs. Each step is probably just barely working because the pressure to get 1000 automation steps working means that as soon as it works even poorly you've got to move on to the next step.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#5I 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…
the smaller electronic device is, the higher the precision you need. For such a compact device such as iPhone, the precision is not enough to automate the production yet. For self-driving/flying, there is always some lee-way. The demand of lowering error variance is low.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#6The 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?
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#7Based 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.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#8Based 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.
On all Apple devices the display is glued on, and on smaller devices a few of the internal parts are glued. Check out an iFixit tear down for a look at where the glue is.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#9I 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.
Re: Apple learned automation can't match human skill
#10I 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.
Less sexy, less money, more government.