4 ms·

I think the exact point they’re trying to make is that a humanoid robot can pick up one shift exactly where a human left off. No custom robotics, no workplace c

by slau 2y ago

I think the exact point they’re trying to make is that a humanoid robot can pick up one shift exactly where a human left off. No custom robotics, no workplace changes, etc. This is huge for the industry. Smarter Every Day visited a frisbee factory and they had automated a bunch of things. However, every automation point was extremely protected (fenced off) so that a bumbling human couldn’t walk somewhere and get a limb ripped off. If I remember correctly they joked that it was OSHA or something, which it turned out to be.

ethbr1 2y ago
This ^ The effort required to change a process shouldn't be underestimated. Especially considered that industrial environments are already (a) automated for lowest-hanging fruit things (e.g. moving stuff around at human height) & (b) optimized around human capabilities for the remaining things. Substituting a not-humanlike robot would require reconfiguring a lot of existing automation around it. If you have "like a human, but costs less" that can be plugged into any existing still-human process? You can literally swap them in. Eventually we'll get to hyperoptimized machines, but an easier sales story to say "We automate your existing human processes."
bamboozled 2y ago
I keep hearing this but I just think it’s silly, for basically any factory, it’s trivial to change the configuration of a space so a better suited robot can operate rather than build robots that can fit into human sized spaces. Yes there will be use cases but it just seems like a problem looking for a solution most of the time.
- dartos 2y ago
  Well, you can buy a very specialized machine for one task, or but a less efficient machine that could handle very many tasks.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    And the latter has (at least in IT, where you had Moore's law) generally won out fairly quickly.
    - coding123 2y ago
      But in industrialised physical space, it has been the former, especially when things scale to produce 1000 objects per minute.
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        Exactly, if you had a need to job the job atlas is doing, you’d replace it very quickly with a specialised bot with ten hands. Not saying the bot isn’t useful, just that it seems more of a gimmick than a real need in any serious factory / plant.
ndm000 2y ago
When steam and coal engines gave way to gas and electric engines in factories, it took decades before factories were reconfigured to adjust to the smaller sized engines that didn't require one major axle running through the entire factory. As a consequence the first gas engines were huge - over time they shrunk. I bet the same will happen with robotics, where humanoid will be the primary form factor at first for general tasks, then more efficient forms will emerge as processes are updated.
- berkes 2y ago
  These efficiënt forms are there. In use. Proven. Have been for decades. Cranes, carts, lorries, conveyor belts (with vision), my robot vacuum cleaner, my bread baking machine, a car wash, a dishwasher, the ticket gates at the underground, the coffee machine at our office and so on.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    Yet, there are still millions of humans working in factories. There is value to the human form, our versatility and adaptability. A machine that replicated a human would have incredible economic value (though not for the people whose jobs it replaced). A machine that exceeded a human in versatility, e.g. by having more arms, even more so.
    - berkes 2y ago
      > still millions of humans working in factories Yes, there are. But that's not caused by lack of humanoid robots, but because these humans are rediculously cheap. There's absolutely no way that automation and tech can undercut (effective) slave labor.Though already this is happening: your tshirts and socks are probably not hand-knitted by "Bangladeshi children" or Chinese "prisoners", but by machines tailor-made (pun intended) for t-shirt and sock-knitting. This is happening slowly, and in the supply chain there's still loads of manual labor - cotton picked and processed for these socks is more and more automated, but still requires armies of cheap farm-hands. And then it's really hard to undercut the price of cheap "western" labor with full automation in many sectors. Part of that is due to some form of 90/10 rule: the last 10% of automation is magnitudes more expensive. And many automation leads to a higher TCO, as the people programming, maintaining and optimizing the robots are far more expensive than an "army" of low-wage workers. Humanoid robots may be an answer in some future, but currently and in near future will certainly not solve these economics. If ever.
Vox_Leone 2y ago
I think you're right, but the humanoid phase in manufacture will probably be an intermediate phase, for the reasons krunck points out. A 100% adapted to the function robot is where productivity is.

by slau 2y ago

ethbr1 2y ago

This ^ The effort required to change a process shouldn't be underestimated. Especially considered that industrial environments are already (a) automated for lowest-hanging fruit things (e.g. moving stuff around at human height) & (b) optimized around human capabilities for the remaining things. Substituting a not-humanlike robot would require reconfiguring a lot of existing automation around it. If you have "like a human, but costs less" that can be plugged into any existing still-human process? You can literally swap them in. Eventually we'll get to hyperoptimized machines, but an easier sales story to say "We automate your existing human processes."

bamboozled 2y ago

I keep hearing this but I just think it’s silly, for basically any factory, it’s trivial to change the configuration of a space so a better suited robot can operate rather than build robots that can fit into human sized spaces. Yes there will be use cases but it just seems like a problem looking for a solution most of the time.

dartos 2y ago
Well, you can buy a very specialized machine for one task, or but a less efficient machine that could handle very many tasks.
- FabHK 2y ago
  And the latter has (at least in IT, where you had Moore's law) generally won out fairly quickly.
  - coding123 2y ago
    But in industrialised physical space, it has been the former, especially when things scale to produce 1000 objects per minute.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      Exactly, if you had a need to job the job atlas is doing, you’d replace it very quickly with a specialised bot with ten hands. Not saying the bot isn’t useful, just that it seems more of a gimmick than a real need in any serious factory / plant.

ndm000 2y ago

When steam and coal engines gave way to gas and electric engines in factories, it took decades before factories were reconfigured to adjust to the smaller sized engines that didn't require one major axle running through the entire factory. As a consequence the first gas engines were huge - over time they shrunk. I bet the same will happen with robotics, where humanoid will be the primary form factor at first for general tasks, then more efficient forms will emerge as processes are updated.

berkes 2y ago
These efficiënt forms are there. In use. Proven. Have been for decades. Cranes, carts, lorries, conveyor belts (with vision), my robot vacuum cleaner, my bread baking machine, a car wash, a dishwasher, the ticket gates at the underground, the coffee machine at our office and so on.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Yet, there are still millions of humans working in factories. There is value to the human form, our versatility and adaptability. A machine that replicated a human would have incredible economic value (though not for the people whose jobs it replaced). A machine that exceeded a human in versatility, e.g. by having more arms, even more so.
  - berkes 2y ago
    > still millions of humans working in factories Yes, there are. But that's not caused by lack of humanoid robots, but because these humans are rediculously cheap. There's absolutely no way that automation and tech can undercut (effective) slave labor.Though already this is happening: your tshirts and socks are probably not hand-knitted by "Bangladeshi children" or Chinese "prisoners", but by machines tailor-made (pun intended) for t-shirt and sock-knitting. This is happening slowly, and in the supply chain there's still loads of manual labor - cotton picked and processed for these socks is more and more automated, but still requires armies of cheap farm-hands. And then it's really hard to undercut the price of cheap "western" labor with full automation in many sectors. Part of that is due to some form of 90/10 rule: the last 10% of automation is magnitudes more expensive. And many automation leads to a higher TCO, as the people programming, maintaining and optimizing the robots are far more expensive than an "army" of low-wage workers. Humanoid robots may be an answer in some future, but currently and in near future will certainly not solve these economics. If ever.

Vox_Leone 2y ago

I think you're right, but the humanoid phase in manufacture will probably be an intermediate phase, for the reasons krunck points out. A 100% adapted to the function robot is where productivity is.