6 ms·

Pretty awesome footage. I see the level of automation in these types of factories and I'm blown away. And then it always makes me wonder - sometimes you see peo

Pretty awesome footage. I see the level of automation in these types of factories and I'm blown away. And then it always makes me wonder - sometimes you see people at stations - why are they there? Too hard to automate - (what scenario could be too hard to automate given all the insane automation already)? Or, haven't had time to automate? The ingenuity all around is crazy.

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
It's basically too hard to automate, yes. These may be mundane sounding tasks like checking if a screw is properly secure, we're still far from full automation, the robots simply do preprogrammed tasks, they have no sentience or intelligence.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  I was kind of worried. Maybe Tesla had a general AI but kept it to themselves?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Checking things like bolt tightness is a hybrid automation. There are machines which know where all the bolts are within a given area, and can test each one and adjust as necessary to make sure they are torqued. But that machine is itself handled by a human that gets it to the right spot.
bombcar 5y ago
Probably lower on the cost/benefit ratio of automating, or something that requires a decision to be made.
daniel-cussen 5y ago
The more automation, they more you need humans to check if it works.
reportingsjr 5y ago
Typically not worth the cost of automation. Automated tasks need parts with certain levels of precision, among other requirements. That precision can some times make parts excessively expensive, heavy, etc etc. One example of this that you don't see mentioned often, is that stamped door assemblies frequently need "adjustment", aka bending and beating, in to position to make them fit properly. You can see some examples of it in this video: https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=216 https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=216
- camtarn 5y ago
  Huh, fascinating! I always imagined that, if adjustments were needed, they'd be done on some sort of off-line jig where deflection could be precisely controlled. But no, it's just some guy using his body weight to bend the door into shape.
csours 5y ago
People have automation backwards - automation doesn't solve problems. In order to automate, you have to solve all the problems. The machine has to know how to detect and handle any variation it encounters - or summon human help. If it has to summon human help too often, or fails to detect a problem too often, it is simply not worth it to automate.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I run into this all the time in my day job with software automation. Everyone thinks you wave some kind of magic wand when you say 'automate' that makes it just work. I have to put out the speed brakes once in a while when chatting with my VP to remind him that automation doesn't necessarily mean accurate, as much as it means fast. Sure, I can provision a bunch of network gear quickly, but if the automation is wrong, that just means I'll wipe out an entire portion of the infrastructure in seconds.
- contingencies 5y ago
  Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
  - csours 5y ago
    Neat! I've never been quotable before!
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
I've seen mostly 3-4 kinds of automation: - Material handling - moving a part from A to B. Many of the parts looked too heavy for a human to lift. Some could probably be lifted by two humans working together, but that's a really bad use for humans and easy enough to automate. - The presses and possibly some kind of moulding/pouring process, which obviously need to be done by a machine - Spot (?) welding - The coating/painting So I'd turn the question around and say: It seems like they automated only a few key processes, and many of them because human labor isn't really an option. The presses replace many different production techniques, some of which could probably be done manually, so replacing those other techniques with "just put it in the press" is an advancement and it implies automation. The painting could be done by humans but the overall process would again be a lot more complicated. Automation for the welding is well established, and you want the consistency of robots.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > The painting could be done by humans When was the last time a car manufacturer used humans to spray paint? Decades?
  - CrispinS 5y ago
    Funny you should ask that, I was just watching a video about car door manufacturing. Here's the timestamped link showing a worker in a modern factory spray painting a door. https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=442 https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=442 Now, how common is that? No idea.
xeromal 5y ago
It's a pretty well-know story that Tesla's model 3, their first mass production car, was almost fully automated. It ended up making a ton of problems and Tesla moved some of the production to humans. It seems machines are very good at certain things, but not everything. Yet.
neillyons 5y ago
Elon mentioned [0] it is easy for a human to grab a dangling cable. The cable may not always be in the exact same place on each car, so you need a robot with a vision system. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MevKTPN4ozw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MevKTPN4ozw
LeanderK 5y ago
I can also imagine that it minimises the tail-risk, because a human can come and fix it. If he would not be there and a critical error occurs, it could take down the whole factory in time before help arrives (maybe even something trivial as a misplaced item on the belt).
omegalulw 5y ago
Isn't a common complaint with Tesla now their build quality?

trompetenaccoun 5y ago

It's basically too hard to automate, yes. These may be mundane sounding tasks like checking if a screw is properly secure, we're still far from full automation, the robots simply do preprogrammed tasks, they have no sentience or intelligence.

bitexploder 5y ago
I was kind of worried. Maybe Tesla had a general AI but kept it to themselves?
rootusrootus 5y ago
Checking things like bolt tightness is a hybrid automation. There are machines which know where all the bolts are within a given area, and can test each one and adjust as necessary to make sure they are torqued. But that machine is itself handled by a human that gets it to the right spot.

bombcar 5y ago

Probably lower on the cost/benefit ratio of automating, or something that requires a decision to be made.

daniel-cussen 5y ago

The more automation, they more you need humans to check if it works.

reportingsjr 5y ago

Typically not worth the cost of automation. Automated tasks need parts with certain levels of precision, among other requirements. That precision can some times make parts excessively expensive, heavy, etc etc. One example of this that you don't see mentioned often, is that stamped door assemblies frequently need "adjustment", aka bending and beating, in to position to make them fit properly. You can see some examples of it in this video: https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=216 https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=216

camtarn 5y ago
Huh, fascinating! I always imagined that, if adjustments were needed, they'd be done on some sort of off-line jig where deflection could be precisely controlled. But no, it's just some guy using his body weight to bend the door into shape.

csours 5y ago

People have automation backwards - automation doesn't solve problems. In order to automate, you have to solve all the problems. The machine has to know how to detect and handle any variation it encounters - or summon human help. If it has to summon human help too often, or fails to detect a problem too often, it is simply not worth it to automate.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I run into this all the time in my day job with software automation. Everyone thinks you wave some kind of magic wand when you say 'automate' that makes it just work. I have to put out the speed brakes once in a while when chatting with my VP to remind him that automation doesn't necessarily mean accurate, as much as it means fast. Sure, I can provision a bunch of network gear quickly, but if the automation is wrong, that just means I'll wipe out an entire portion of the infrastructure in seconds.
contingencies 5y ago
Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
- csours 5y ago
  Neat! I've never been quotable before!

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

I've seen mostly 3-4 kinds of automation: - Material handling - moving a part from A to B. Many of the parts looked too heavy for a human to lift. Some could probably be lifted by two humans working together, but that's a really bad use for humans and easy enough to automate. - The presses and possibly some kind of moulding/pouring process, which obviously need to be done by a machine - Spot (?) welding - The coating/painting So I'd turn the question around and say: It seems like they automated only a few key processes, and many of them because human labor isn't really an option. The presses replace many different production techniques, some of which could probably be done manually, so replacing those other techniques with "just put it in the press" is an advancement and it implies automation. The painting could be done by humans but the overall process would again be a lot more complicated. Automation for the welding is well established, and you want the consistency of robots.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> The painting could be done by humans When was the last time a car manufacturer used humans to spray paint? Decades?
- CrispinS 5y ago
  Funny you should ask that, I was just watching a video about car door manufacturing. Here's the timestamped link showing a worker in a modern factory spray painting a door. https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=442 https://youtu.be/iPhwBUnR_XA?t=442 Now, how common is that? No idea.

xeromal 5y ago

It's a pretty well-know story that Tesla's model 3, their first mass production car, was almost fully automated. It ended up making a ton of problems and Tesla moved some of the production to humans. It seems machines are very good at certain things, but not everything. Yet.

neillyons 5y ago

Elon mentioned [0] it is easy for a human to grab a dangling cable. The cable may not always be in the exact same place on each car, so you need a robot with a vision system. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MevKTPN4ozw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MevKTPN4ozw

LeanderK 5y ago

I can also imagine that it minimises the tail-risk, because a human can come and fix it. If he would not be there and a critical error occurs, it could take down the whole factory in time before help arrives (maybe even something trivial as a misplaced item on the belt).

omegalulw 5y ago

Isn't a common complaint with Tesla now their build quality?