5 ms·

Japanese convenience stores are hiring robots run by workers in the Philippines

68 points by thm 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
aredox 1y ago
[dead]
pjmlp 1y ago
Eventually neither the Japanese nor the Philippine workers will be needed, and then it will be too late. I never use self-checkouts unless forced otherwise, as I rather not contribute to the capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance.
- gruez 1y ago
  >I never use self-checkouts unless forced otherwise, as I rather not contribute to the capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance. What's the alternative? Having people do menial jobs that can otherwise be automated? What's the difference between that and paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again, or banning people from filling their own cars so we can keep teenagers employed as gas station attendants?
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Yes that is the alternative, people need jobs, even they happen to be menial.
    - pcthrowaway 1y ago
      Very much a "the children yearn for the mines" sentiment. People don't "need" jobs, they need food, shelter, clothing, health care, and community. Jobs are just how those unfortunate enough not to be born into wealth finance those things, and occasionally some luxuries. A good society should raise the standard of living for everyone when technological advances make things more efficient.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        A good society needs a working economy, otherwise it falls apart into crime, anarchy, or worse.
        pcthrowaway 1y ago
        Imagine if each person receives a "Thing-doer 3000" then. The people can contract out their own personal robots and collect wages. The technology improves their lives, the same amount of work gets done, and the same wages are paid out. The problem is that under capitalism, the people get replaced by "Thing-doer 3000" bots which are owned by other large companies; the people don't benefit, and ultimately it even changes the economy when people have less work due to being replaced. People working isn't needed for a "working economy"; things need to get done, to be sure, and right now people are needed to do those things, but that may not always be the case. Making pointless work for people to do is about as reasonable as replacing taxi cabs with rickshaw drivers, and power-tools with manual tools "just because"
        pjmlp 1y ago
        If everyone has robots there is nothing to sell nor contract for, hence no work, no work, no money. The utopian vision that state sponsors citzen lives that are free to leisure themselves is science fiction. Additionally, bored humans usually find ways to entertain themselves that aren't always for the good of society.
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    Self-checkout is a system where you as a honest person are paying so that other people can steal goods. Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. That's an undignified existence, and hence why I also boycott self-checkouts. I don't care what "rationalists" say. Also, a store with a lot of self-checkout lanes and few cashiers will attract thieves and repel honest customers who want good service. The result is a worse store in every way, until it folds and closes - as owners have probably planned for a few years.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. >I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?
      - carlosjobim 1y ago
        > then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay. I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.
  - slicktux 1y ago
    The difference is there’s two options; to scan and bag your own stuff or go to a human(s) that can scan and bag your stuff. If the former catches on then we/you will be doing the “menial job” of bagging and scanning our own stuff all the time… and then some self checkout attendant will have the “menial job” of supervising the checkout and resetting it when it errors out.
  - netdevphoenix 1y ago
    You seem to be under the impression that most jobs, as they exist and are done, are objectively needed. Just like RTO policies, they only exist to keep the economy going. Automation is not driven by a love of engineering or the desire to automate for efficiency's sake. The drive is the most efficient path to increasing profits and reducing costs not performing existing jobs in the most efficient way.
    - variadix 1y ago
      Automation being more profitable implies it’s more efficient (by the market’s measure of efficiency, which is the best measure anyone has come up with)
      - netdevphoenix 1y ago
        Not necessarily. RTO's policies are profitable but not efficient. Existing commercial anti-depressants are profitable but not efficient. Fuel oil is profitable but not efficient. I can go on but I hope you can get my point. The market is made up of humans who are not purely rational beings nor are they capable of thinking over too long periods of time.
  - Larrikin 1y ago
    Optimize the check out flow for the human worker like Aldi has done and pay them a decent wage so it's no longer a menial job? Self check out of more than a few items at the grocery store will always suck and be slower than someone who has trained to scan items quickly and has memorized the produce codes. I never use self check out because I don't work at the grocery store and would rather just wait on my phone than take an active role in an activity I have no interest in ever becoming good at while giving the company more money over all for the shittier experience. I'm also not afraid of the cashier asking me how my day is going.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Optimize the check out flow for the human worker like Aldi has done and pay them a decent wage so it's no longer a menial job? That sounds suspiciously close to "capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance" that gp was deriding?
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Indeed. Big tragedy has been ATM. Invention of ATM was end of prosperous five bedroom house on single bank teller job. We used to go Disneyland every month on teller job. But now ATM have take job. All bank tellers out of job. Impossible for bank to tell anything except through faceless borgcreature beeping at me.
lesuorac 1y ago
I'm kind of surprised this is legal. Just using an internet feed as a workaround to not having a work permit just seems like easy fruit. These workers wouldn't be allowed to do that role in-person, why are they allowed to do it remotely?
- RA_Fisher 1y ago
  Competition is good and makes us all better off, don’t be afraid.
- Tade0 1y ago
  Why shouldn't they be? They're not competing for local resources, which is the main point of contention regarding immigration.
  - free_bip 1y ago
    But they literally are... Instead of hiring a Japanese person, they're hiring someone from the Philippines.
    - Tade0 1y ago
      Japan's unemployment rate over the last decade averaged below 3%. That is essentially full employment with jobs to spare. Hardly any takers for those positions.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >They're not competing for local resources, which is the main point of contention regarding immigration. Isn't "competing for local resources" just a fig leaf for "I don't want to lose my job to some foreigner"? That's a far better theory because it explains both anti-immigration sentiment as well as anti-globalization/offshoring sentiment.
    - Tade0 1y ago
      Doesn't account for e.g. British pensioners who, back before Brexit, would buy property in Spain and spend their retirement there, putting considerable pressure on local healthcare. Similarly, there's a growing resentment in Japan towards real estate bros, who buy several properties just to rent them out.
rootsudo 1y ago
Tbf many convenience store jobs in Japan are already run by foreigners. So it’s just outcompeting local based foreigners . Japan does feel a bit behind, only this summer have I just noticed the Amazon go equilivant in Tokyo. It very much felt like something that would’ve happened in Japan first then Seattle.
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
Expect more of this as transfer learning from demonstration becomes easier. Ultimately there’s no social barriers or even awareness that human labor is going to increasingly be used as training for robotic labor.
- binary132 1y ago
  I think it’s more like people will take whatever work they can get to avoid becoming homeless and less like they just don’t care about the consequences.
  - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
    That’s a losing strategy unfortunately when looking into the infinitely deep maw of robotic labor capitalism
    - binary132 1y ago
      I think I’m just saying don’t blame the slaves.
      - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
        Ultimately everyone is in charge of their own body. Harriet Tubman had every handicap and still became an absolute legend in abolition. Anyone is capable. I blame anyone capable but scared into compliance or shutting down.
        binary132 1y ago
        You’re also not faced with a “sweatshop breathing plastic fumes or sit in front of a computer” type of decision, so perhaps some perspective is in order.
        AndrewKemendo 1y ago
imtringued 1y ago
Ah the wonderful contradictions of the AI era where human labor is cheaper than AI.
ticulatedspline 1y ago
Was wondering when we'd start to see this, seems like the natural evolution. Have highly automated systems that work 99% of the time and have remote-in capabilities to utilize a pool of humans to bridge the gap. I suspect that will be a growth sector for jobs (though likely oversea jobs like we already did with support centers). Robo Taxi unsure what to do? human remotes in and drives it till automation picks up. Service bot stuck in a loop? human to the rescue. Probably eventually see merging like we did with tech support. instead of dedicated support a single center where people basically "pick up a call" to any number of automated things and look in the book to see what to do.
ratelimitsteve 1y ago
I wondered when someone was gonna realize that the model behind the Amazon "AI" store is actually quite sustainable. Put your stuff on a belt, the belt runs under a camera operated by someone half a world away for 8 cents an hour who totals up your stuff and sends it to a local cash register, then you settle up w the cash register. Augmented self checkout.

68 points by thm 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

aredox 1y ago

[dead]

pjmlp 1y ago

Eventually neither the Japanese nor the Philippine workers will be needed, and then it will be too late. I never use self-checkouts unless forced otherwise, as I rather not contribute to the capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance.

gruez 1y ago
>I never use self-checkouts unless forced otherwise, as I rather not contribute to the capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance. What's the alternative? Having people do menial jobs that can otherwise be automated? What's the difference between that and paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in again, or banning people from filling their own cars so we can keep teenagers employed as gas station attendants?
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Yes that is the alternative, people need jobs, even they happen to be menial.
  - pcthrowaway 1y ago
    Very much a "the children yearn for the mines" sentiment. People don't "need" jobs, they need food, shelter, clothing, health care, and community. Jobs are just how those unfortunate enough not to be born into wealth finance those things, and occasionally some luxuries. A good society should raise the standard of living for everyone when technological advances make things more efficient.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      A good society needs a working economy, otherwise it falls apart into crime, anarchy, or worse.
      - pcthrowaway 1y ago
        Imagine if each person receives a "Thing-doer 3000" then. The people can contract out their own personal robots and collect wages. The technology improves their lives, the same amount of work gets done, and the same wages are paid out. The problem is that under capitalism, the people get replaced by "Thing-doer 3000" bots which are owned by other large companies; the people don't benefit, and ultimately it even changes the economy when people have less work due to being replaced. People working isn't needed for a "working economy"; things need to get done, to be sure, and right now people are needed to do those things, but that may not always be the case. Making pointless work for people to do is about as reasonable as replacing taxi cabs with rickshaw drivers, and power-tools with manual tools "just because"
        pjmlp 1y ago
        If everyone has robots there is nothing to sell nor contract for, hence no work, no work, no money. The utopian vision that state sponsors citzen lives that are free to leisure themselves is science fiction. Additionally, bored humans usually find ways to entertain themselves that aren't always for the good of society.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  Self-checkout is a system where you as a honest person are paying so that other people can steal goods. Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. That's an undignified existence, and hence why I also boycott self-checkouts. I don't care what "rationalists" say. Also, a store with a lot of self-checkout lanes and few cashiers will attract thieves and repel honest customers who want good service. The result is a worse store in every way, until it folds and closes - as owners have probably planned for a few years.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Owners of supermarket have calculated that the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers. But those losses have to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is of course the customers who don't steal goods. >I'd rather not be the person who has to pay extra so that another person can steal. This doesn't make any sense. If the whole premise is that "the increase in theft is off-set by the savings of not paying wages to cashiers", then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall? After all, regardless of whether the cost is losses from theft or cashier salaries, the customer has to pay for it at the end. Are you arguing that you want to pay more, because the extra money will go to a cashier than a thief?
    - carlosjobim 1y ago
      > then doesn't that imply that not having self-checkout is going to be more expensive than you overall Yes, certainly it does! I'd rather that my money goes to pay salaries for cashiers, than pay for the goods that thieves steal. The first option is sustainable, honest, and good for the community. The second option breeds crime and decay. I'm not an atomized production-consumption unit, I'm a human being, and so are the cashiers. Plus that service is friendlier and faster with cashiers. We're not supposed to be psychotically seek efficiency and cost-savings in every nook and cranny like some of these store owners.
- slicktux 1y ago
  The difference is there’s two options; to scan and bag your own stuff or go to a human(s) that can scan and bag your stuff. If the former catches on then we/you will be doing the “menial job” of bagging and scanning our own stuff all the time… and then some self checkout attendant will have the “menial job” of supervising the checkout and resetting it when it errors out.
- netdevphoenix 1y ago
  You seem to be under the impression that most jobs, as they exist and are done, are objectively needed. Just like RTO policies, they only exist to keep the economy going. Automation is not driven by a love of engineering or the desire to automate for efficiency's sake. The drive is the most efficient path to increasing profits and reducing costs not performing existing jobs in the most efficient way.
  - variadix 1y ago
    Automation being more profitable implies it’s more efficient (by the market’s measure of efficiency, which is the best measure anyone has come up with)
    - netdevphoenix 1y ago
      Not necessarily. RTO's policies are profitable but not efficient. Existing commercial anti-depressants are profitable but not efficient. Fuel oil is profitable but not efficient. I can go on but I hope you can get my point. The market is made up of humans who are not purely rational beings nor are they capable of thinking over too long periods of time.
- Larrikin 1y ago
  Optimize the check out flow for the human worker like Aldi has done and pay them a decent wage so it's no longer a menial job? Self check out of more than a few items at the grocery store will always suck and be slower than someone who has trained to scan items quickly and has memorized the produce codes. I never use self check out because I don't work at the grocery store and would rather just wait on my phone than take an active role in an activity I have no interest in ever becoming good at while giving the company more money over all for the shittier experience. I'm also not afraid of the cashier asking me how my day is going.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Optimize the check out flow for the human worker like Aldi has done and pay them a decent wage so it's no longer a menial job? That sounds suspiciously close to "capitalistic end goal to get rid of all employees other than those doing robot maintenance" that gp was deriding?
renewiltord 1y ago
Indeed. Big tragedy has been ATM. Invention of ATM was end of prosperous five bedroom house on single bank teller job. We used to go Disneyland every month on teller job. But now ATM have take job. All bank tellers out of job. Impossible for bank to tell anything except through faceless borgcreature beeping at me.

lesuorac 1y ago

I'm kind of surprised this is legal. Just using an internet feed as a workaround to not having a work permit just seems like easy fruit. These workers wouldn't be allowed to do that role in-person, why are they allowed to do it remotely?

RA_Fisher 1y ago
Competition is good and makes us all better off, don’t be afraid.
Tade0 1y ago
Why shouldn't they be? They're not competing for local resources, which is the main point of contention regarding immigration.
- free_bip 1y ago
  But they literally are... Instead of hiring a Japanese person, they're hiring someone from the Philippines.
  - Tade0 1y ago
    Japan's unemployment rate over the last decade averaged below 3%. That is essentially full employment with jobs to spare. Hardly any takers for those positions.
- gruez 1y ago
  >They're not competing for local resources, which is the main point of contention regarding immigration. Isn't "competing for local resources" just a fig leaf for "I don't want to lose my job to some foreigner"? That's a far better theory because it explains both anti-immigration sentiment as well as anti-globalization/offshoring sentiment.
  - Tade0 1y ago
    Doesn't account for e.g. British pensioners who, back before Brexit, would buy property in Spain and spend their retirement there, putting considerable pressure on local healthcare. Similarly, there's a growing resentment in Japan towards real estate bros, who buy several properties just to rent them out.

rootsudo 1y ago

Tbf many convenience store jobs in Japan are already run by foreigners. So it’s just outcompeting local based foreigners . Japan does feel a bit behind, only this summer have I just noticed the Amazon go equilivant in Tokyo. It very much felt like something that would’ve happened in Japan first then Seattle.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago

Expect more of this as transfer learning from demonstration becomes easier. Ultimately there’s no social barriers or even awareness that human labor is going to increasingly be used as training for robotic labor.

binary132 1y ago
I think it’s more like people will take whatever work they can get to avoid becoming homeless and less like they just don’t care about the consequences.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  That’s a losing strategy unfortunately when looking into the infinitely deep maw of robotic labor capitalism
  - binary132 1y ago
    I think I’m just saying don’t blame the slaves.
    - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
      Ultimately everyone is in charge of their own body. Harriet Tubman had every handicap and still became an absolute legend in abolition. Anyone is capable. I blame anyone capable but scared into compliance or shutting down.
      - binary132 1y ago
        You’re also not faced with a “sweatshop breathing plastic fumes or sit in front of a computer” type of decision, so perhaps some perspective is in order.
        AndrewKemendo 1y ago

imtringued 1y ago

Ah the wonderful contradictions of the AI era where human labor is cheaper than AI.

ticulatedspline 1y ago

Was wondering when we'd start to see this, seems like the natural evolution. Have highly automated systems that work 99% of the time and have remote-in capabilities to utilize a pool of humans to bridge the gap. I suspect that will be a growth sector for jobs (though likely oversea jobs like we already did with support centers). Robo Taxi unsure what to do? human remotes in and drives it till automation picks up. Service bot stuck in a loop? human to the rescue. Probably eventually see merging like we did with tech support. instead of dedicated support a single center where people basically "pick up a call" to any number of automated things and look in the book to see what to do.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago

I wondered when someone was gonna realize that the model behind the Amazon "AI" store is actually quite sustainable. Put your stuff on a belt, the belt runs under a camera operated by someone half a world away for 8 cents an hour who totals up your stuff and sends it to a local cash register, then you settle up w the cash register. Augmented self checkout.