Framing this as "One Robot vs One Person" is such lazy silliness. It genuinely means nothing. At some point, this kind of framing was probably easier for an av

Framing this as "One Robot vs One Person" is such lazy silliness. It genuinely means nothing. At some point, this kind of framing was probably easier for an average reader to understand... IDK when that stopped being the case, but it's not recent. In any case, this kind of tech is potentially interesting. Weeds, pests and other agricultural issues can usually be solved biologically (eg weeds get eaten, outcompeted, etc.), chemically (eg roundup) or mechanically (someone pulls the weed). We've long been leaning on chemical way too heavily. If/when robotic weeding is available, the economics may be pretty compelling. If it takes off, it will almost certainly open a lot of unexpected opportunities. Genuinely important agg-tech, IMO, can be approximated by how it affects a given farm. If you are still, broadly, farming the same types of crops in the same ways then it's incremental. Most commonly today, incremental advances mean growing slightly different cultivars paired with complimentary fertilizers & pesticides. AKA, the Monsanto Way. I don't think we're going to make much more progress this way. Also, advancing to "Modern Farming" this way is pretty tightly couples with corporate farming. What's potentially interesting about robots like this (if/when they're good) is that it may scale down well.