4 ms·

That's still far slower than a human being, and those bins are far too neat.

by krapp 2y ago

wielebny 2y ago
Slower than a human making one operation. Not slower than human stocking items for a whole day.
- vntok 2y ago
  Surely the robot does not stop at the end of the day.
  - nosrepa 2y ago
    The article says they plan on it operating continuously for 20 hours at a time.
  - CoastalCoder 2y ago
    Until they unionize.
    - ta1243 2y ago
      Do robots rely on being ionized? I'd have thought a robot which wasn't ionized would work just fine
      - CoastalCoder 2y ago
        You're thinking of "Onionized", when their exploits are covered by one of the world's best publications.
        cusaitech 2y ago
        Are you talking about the "Soviet Onion"?
- dataviz1000 2y ago
  The tortoise and hare allegory? Slow and steady wins the race.
CraigRood 2y ago
Part of my day job is Warehouse Automation - not Amazon!. I would agree with you on being slow, but it probably suffices to what Amazon want to achieve here. If your entire process, so stow, store and retrieve is automated, you wouldn't use these "pods". A lot of these problems seem so simple and easy to automate out, but it's really not!
dlt713705 2y ago
The challenge is not only stowing objects. It is also optimizing space and keeping it clean. In that matter robots are faster and better.
- krapp 2y ago
  Optimizing space and trying to keep things neat is a futile effort. Pickers and counters are constantly pulling things out of the bins and putting them back in, and during high demand it's a chaotic mess. If there are going to be robots being this meticulous at every step of the process, then it's too slow. There's a reason human beings are worked to the point of exhaustion in these warehouses - the goal is to move as much product as fast as possible. Quality and productivity are at cross purposes, and between the two only the latter makes money.
  - dlt713705 2y ago
    That is why, in the end, only robots will remain. They are inexhaustible and strictly meticulous in all circumstances.
    - krapp 2y ago
      Robots aren't inexhaustible. They break down a lot and are far more expensive to repair and maintain than a human being.
      - reverius42 2y ago
        They're going to get better a lot faster than humans, though. The fact that they exist at all is remarkable.
        immibis 1y ago
        Didn't they say this about LLMs but we still only have highly advanced slop generators, highly advanced autocomplete, and highly advanced search? While they're impressively good in each of the aforementioned three fields, they're still not the world-changing technology they were supposed to be, right? (At least, not by themselves. When a very powerful human ties themselves to a slop machine, believing the output to be real, this can change the world) The main achievement, besides search which is a very useful application, has been in how effectively we can get real people to believe total bullshit.
WillAdams 2y ago
Yeah, I worked in an Amazon Warehouse on two separate occasions: https://old.reddit.com/r/EDC/comments/dmnuts/53mamazon_fulfillment_center_warehouse_worker/ https://old.reddit.com/r/EDC/comments/dmnuts/53mamazon_fulfi... and Inbound (or the previous person picking) was usually a bit less careful.
usrusr 2y ago
It's not about throughput per unit, it's about throughput per unit of cost. If five cheap robots outperform a single skilled worker, robots win. But depending on jurisdiction, those five robots might still lose to a dozen or so slaves kept near starvation. For the skilled worker it's bad news one way or the other.
- bluGill 2y ago
  What skilled worker? This is a low skill worker they are replacing.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    For now. Wait until LLMs get better and destroy the ability for junior developers to get their foot in the door.
    - warrenmiller 2y ago
      How do you get senior developers if you replace the junior developers?
      - _Algernon_ 2y ago
        Sounds like a problem for some future CEO, long after current CEO has gotten a fat bonus from improving quarterly profits now.
      - mystified5016 2y ago
        You don't, you slowly cannibalize your business and industry. By the time consequences show up, you've already jumped ship with your golden parachute
      - dec0dedab0de 2y ago
        By then the senior developers will be obsolete too
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
bluGill 2y ago
Neat is very important for consistent performance. A restaurant can improve performance during the "lunch rush" by letting neat slip, but that carelessness is already costing them performance at the end of the lunch rush - this works because just as this catches up they get several hours in the afternoon to clean things up. Then supper crowd where they do it again - then they have the rest of the night to clean up from that. (the restaurants I worked in didn't have a breakfast rush, YMMV) A factory by contrast needs to keep things neat and consistent all the time because there is never a rush/downtime. They want things rolling off the line at a consistent pace all day. Any compromise for speed now is a cost latter in the day. I have never been in an Amazon warehouse so I don't have great insight into what things are like. I would expect they want to be more consistent all day - but I don't know. Maybe all the trucks arrive at once and then they get time when they are gone to clean up. I wouldn't expect that, but maybe.
- zaphar 2y ago
  Slow is fast is a saying for a reason. It is just as true for a human as it is for a robot.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Like every other Reddit-ism and internet worshipped rule of thumb. The reason for the popularity has far more to do with what makes a sound byte marketable to humans than it does with anything quantitative. Look at the above restaurant example, the system has a built in buffer to handle spikes so it can be cheaper or make other tradeoffs everywhere else compared to an equivalently performant system that can do 100% duty cycle. A robot or human that can deal with messy inventory is facilitating positive tradeoffs elsewhere in the system.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Smooth is fast, slow is smooth, so slow is fast. You're applying that to the restaurant as a whole though, which makes human or robotic immaterial. The saying I do believe has a difference between robots and humans. The idea largely being that human inaccuracy increases exponentially relative to speed. Ergo, slowing down can lead to dramatically bette accuracy and throughput. Though, robots don't necessarily lose accuracy because they are moving more quickly. Though, I'd agree it is likely that both humans and robots need "smooth" in order to be fast. The key difference is robots do not always lose smooth when moving at high speed.

That's still far slower than a human being, and those bins are far too neat.

by krapp 2y ago

That's still far slower than a human being, and those bins are far too neat.

wielebny 2y ago

Slower than a human making one operation. Not slower than human stocking items for a whole day.

vntok 2y ago
Surely the robot does not stop at the end of the day.
- nosrepa 2y ago
  The article says they plan on it operating continuously for 20 hours at a time.
- CoastalCoder 2y ago
  Until they unionize.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    Do robots rely on being ionized? I'd have thought a robot which wasn't ionized would work just fine
    - CoastalCoder 2y ago
      You're thinking of "Onionized", when their exploits are covered by one of the world's best publications.
      - cusaitech 2y ago
        Are you talking about the "Soviet Onion"?
dataviz1000 2y ago
The tortoise and hare allegory? Slow and steady wins the race.

CraigRood 2y ago

Part of my day job is Warehouse Automation - not Amazon!. I would agree with you on being slow, but it probably suffices to what Amazon want to achieve here. If your entire process, so stow, store and retrieve is automated, you wouldn't use these "pods". A lot of these problems seem so simple and easy to automate out, but it's really not!

dlt713705 2y ago

The challenge is not only stowing objects. It is also optimizing space and keeping it clean. In that matter robots are faster and better.

krapp 2y ago
Optimizing space and trying to keep things neat is a futile effort. Pickers and counters are constantly pulling things out of the bins and putting them back in, and during high demand it's a chaotic mess. If there are going to be robots being this meticulous at every step of the process, then it's too slow. There's a reason human beings are worked to the point of exhaustion in these warehouses - the goal is to move as much product as fast as possible. Quality and productivity are at cross purposes, and between the two only the latter makes money.
- dlt713705 2y ago
  That is why, in the end, only robots will remain. They are inexhaustible and strictly meticulous in all circumstances.
  - krapp 2y ago
    Robots aren't inexhaustible. They break down a lot and are far more expensive to repair and maintain than a human being.
    - reverius42 2y ago
      They're going to get better a lot faster than humans, though. The fact that they exist at all is remarkable.
      - immibis 1y ago
        Didn't they say this about LLMs but we still only have highly advanced slop generators, highly advanced autocomplete, and highly advanced search? While they're impressively good in each of the aforementioned three fields, they're still not the world-changing technology they were supposed to be, right? (At least, not by themselves. When a very powerful human ties themselves to a slop machine, believing the output to be real, this can change the world) The main achievement, besides search which is a very useful application, has been in how effectively we can get real people to believe total bullshit.

WillAdams 2y ago

Yeah, I worked in an Amazon Warehouse on two separate occasions: https://old.reddit.com/r/EDC/comments/dmnuts/53mamazon_fulfillment_center_warehouse_worker/ https://old.reddit.com/r/EDC/comments/dmnuts/53mamazon_fulfi... and Inbound (or the previous person picking) was usually a bit less careful.

usrusr 2y ago

It's not about throughput per unit, it's about throughput per unit of cost. If five cheap robots outperform a single skilled worker, robots win. But depending on jurisdiction, those five robots might still lose to a dozen or so slaves kept near starvation. For the skilled worker it's bad news one way or the other.

bluGill 2y ago
What skilled worker? This is a low skill worker they are replacing.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  For now. Wait until LLMs get better and destroy the ability for junior developers to get their foot in the door.
  - warrenmiller 2y ago
    How do you get senior developers if you replace the junior developers?
    - _Algernon_ 2y ago
      Sounds like a problem for some future CEO, long after current CEO has gotten a fat bonus from improving quarterly profits now.
    - mystified5016 2y ago
      You don't, you slowly cannibalize your business and industry. By the time consequences show up, you've already jumped ship with your golden parachute
    - dec0dedab0de 2y ago
      By then the senior developers will be obsolete too
    - DrillShopper 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

Neat is very important for consistent performance. A restaurant can improve performance during the "lunch rush" by letting neat slip, but that carelessness is already costing them performance at the end of the lunch rush - this works because just as this catches up they get several hours in the afternoon to clean things up. Then supper crowd where they do it again - then they have the rest of the night to clean up from that. (the restaurants I worked in didn't have a breakfast rush, YMMV) A factory by contrast needs to keep things neat and consistent all the time because there is never a rush/downtime. They want things rolling off the line at a consistent pace all day. Any compromise for speed now is a cost latter in the day. I have never been in an Amazon warehouse so I don't have great insight into what things are like. I would expect they want to be more consistent all day - but I don't know. Maybe all the trucks arrive at once and then they get time when they are gone to clean up. I wouldn't expect that, but maybe.

zaphar 2y ago
Slow is fast is a saying for a reason. It is just as true for a human as it is for a robot.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Like every other Reddit-ism and internet worshipped rule of thumb. The reason for the popularity has far more to do with what makes a sound byte marketable to humans than it does with anything quantitative. Look at the above restaurant example, the system has a built in buffer to handle spikes so it can be cheaper or make other tradeoffs everywhere else compared to an equivalently performant system that can do 100% duty cycle. A robot or human that can deal with messy inventory is facilitating positive tradeoffs elsewhere in the system.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Smooth is fast, slow is smooth, so slow is fast. You're applying that to the restaurant as a whole though, which makes human or robotic immaterial. The saying I do believe has a difference between robots and humans. The idea largely being that human inaccuracy increases exponentially relative to speed. Ergo, slowing down can lead to dramatically bette accuracy and throughput. Though, robots don't necessarily lose accuracy because they are moving more quickly. Though, I'd agree it is likely that both humans and robots need "smooth" in order to be fast. The key difference is robots do not always lose smooth when moving at high speed.