3 ms·

"Can be a lot cheaper" Yep. I am not anti automation. Cars, for example. Great use case, as you say. Scale there, appetite for capital investment there, ab

"Can be a lot cheaper" Yep. I am not anti automation. Cars, for example. Great use case, as you say. Scale there, appetite for capital investment there, ability to weather high maintenance, change costs all there. There is an opposite end of the scale, and it is that end we are a very long away from. Also, the likes of FANUC do have dark running facilities that use robots to build robots. I do have experience too. That stuff is expensive, complex, and very rigid. Not applicable, at this time, to the vast majority of basic labors we depend on every day. Finally, one can automate workers away, or automation can free them to do more things. The latter is a lot more sustainable, but a lot less sexy, and not so well aligned with the dominant business justifications used to sell initial automation.

bumby 5y ago
>automation can free them to do more things. This was my latter point. Automation is often augmented, to use your words. This is more true the higher you get in skills. A Da Vinci robot does not replace a surgeon. But lower level skills are where the difficulty is at. A fork-lift driver may be automated away completely by a parts-picking robot. This is where unions are beneficial in my view. They can ensure at least a relatively soft landing with retraining, replacement, etc.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Yeah, had to respond on this one. I think we largely see it the same way, and did a little feeling around to center on the core concept. Amazon did find a niche, the package movement, where everything aligns nicely in a fashion not too unlike the cars. IMHO, the big difference is more dynamic decisions are needed for the packages, where the cars require more complexity, but are very consistent otherwise. Software innovation got Amazon where they wanted to be, and it's a good, genuine innovation that did expand the automation space. Similar levels of effort are necessary for all those basic labors. This is why I maintain we just won't be there for a considerable time, despite successes like Amazon out there. Scale, and dynamic locations, terrain and decisions are huge barriers to entry. So many cases... and mechanisms / processes that can address them, and or minimize them. Costs on all that are off the charts, as is maintenance, simple acquisition of the machinery. More people centric augmentation will happen sooner. Mostly, this will preserve people from wearing out and or increase their throughput more than anything else. It may be we extend capabilities in a more transparent way too. That's going on now, of course, but maybe some of that will scale, get cheap, someone finds another niche... All good stuff really. But, "the robots are coming" really does not apply for a solid majority of the basic labors out there we depend on. Of course, that doesn't mean we won't be automating. We will, and it's a good thing regardless of how we sort out the humans economically, which was your point, and one I agree with. Cheers! Good discussion. Have a great week.

bumby 5y ago

>automation can free them to do more things. This was my latter point. Automation is often augmented, to use your words. This is more true the higher you get in skills. A Da Vinci robot does not replace a surgeon. But lower level skills are where the difficulty is at. A fork-lift driver may be automated away completely by a parts-picking robot. This is where unions are beneficial in my view. They can ensure at least a relatively soft landing with retraining, replacement, etc.

ddingus 5y ago
Yeah, had to respond on this one. I think we largely see it the same way, and did a little feeling around to center on the core concept. Amazon did find a niche, the package movement, where everything aligns nicely in a fashion not too unlike the cars. IMHO, the big difference is more dynamic decisions are needed for the packages, where the cars require more complexity, but are very consistent otherwise. Software innovation got Amazon where they wanted to be, and it's a good, genuine innovation that did expand the automation space. Similar levels of effort are necessary for all those basic labors. This is why I maintain we just won't be there for a considerable time, despite successes like Amazon out there. Scale, and dynamic locations, terrain and decisions are huge barriers to entry. So many cases... and mechanisms / processes that can address them, and or minimize them. Costs on all that are off the charts, as is maintenance, simple acquisition of the machinery. More people centric augmentation will happen sooner. Mostly, this will preserve people from wearing out and or increase their throughput more than anything else. It may be we extend capabilities in a more transparent way too. That's going on now, of course, but maybe some of that will scale, get cheap, someone finds another niche... All good stuff really. But, "the robots are coming" really does not apply for a solid majority of the basic labors out there we depend on. Of course, that doesn't mean we won't be automating. We will, and it's a good thing regardless of how we sort out the humans economically, which was your point, and one I agree with. Cheers! Good discussion. Have a great week.