Humanoid robot takes a retail job, but not one any store clerk wants to do In January, at a Mark's apparel store outside Vancouver, Canada, a Sanctuary AI robot successfully performed assorted retail tasks that would normally be done by human workers. The humanoid machine labored under the guidance of a human worker, so no jobs were harmed in the making of the moment, and robot-wrangling roles, born …
I was thinking along similar lines: why must this robot be made in the image of man? Aren't there more optimal designs that can stack a shelf — e.g. a mini conveyor belt and a roof rack for storage?. I would have designed such a thing with a range of detachable peripherals/appendages/optional extras appropriate for specific tasks, and made it so it can roll along the floor on wheels. This creepy thing with arms, legs and cameras for eyes, and bird cages on its shoulders looks like a marketing gimmick; sort of like a Kenwood Chef that can operate wooden spoons and a set of knives.
True and, although its not rational at all, I can't help but fell sorry for them. Its like when they were testing the Boston Dynamics "dog". They'd kick it to show it won't fall over. As an animal lover, it was very weird. You know its not really a dog, but kept feeling sorry for it. Its an odd feeling as you know its just a computer.
But the
"The humanoid machine labored under the guidance of a human worker, so no jobs were harmed in the making of the moment, and robot-wrangling roles, born from venture capital, were sustained."
Yeah but with the idea that at some point it WILL replace the human. Much like the annoying self service tills and the "Everyone is a thief unless you prove you're not, that is why we have cameras on every till".
The idea that robots will replace human workers on cost grounds is not, IMHO, realistic. Even if the robot worker can be as flexible as a human counterpart, what on earth makes people expect them to be cheaper? Capex / opex on an expensive bit of kit like a general purpose robot will likely far exceed the cost of a, possibly several, human worker(s). Good luck with that.
I'm all for progress and R&D, but I find myself wondering about the point of some of the innovative projects reported on here, especially the AI bullshit.
Or is it because I am turning into an "old fart"?
Oh yeah - Asimov's "I, Robot" should be required reading for people coming up with robots that share space with us meat-sacks..
"The idea that robots will replace human workers on cost grounds is not, IMHO, realistic."
Except that as tech advances, costs always decrease, while human labour, correcting for inflation, is more or less constant. There will be some point in the future where the initial cost (CAPEX) amortised over the lifetime of the robot plus maintenance requirements (OPEX) will be less than that of human employees over the same period. It's pretty much inevitable.
What is important to note is that (a) for every few thousand menial jobs taken over, there will be a few hundred far more satisfying, interesting and high-paying jobs in designing, building, operating and maintaining the robots, and (b) most busy retail stores I've been, the staff are spending a lot of time folding, packing, tagging and whatever else while at the same time not being available to offer customer service, advice, etc - this is actually terrible for customer experience, if I want some help / information and the people who could provide that are busy doing other stuff, or tell me 'ask my colleague' (when said colleague already has a queue of customers waiting to ask them stuff). On the other hand there are some stores where the staff never seem to do anything, whether there is a customer in store or not, they are behind the desk chatting or messing with their phones, and seem to resent being asked anything, including to ring up any purchases.
@vogon00
"The idea that robots will replace human workers on cost grounds is not, IMHO, realistic. Even if the robot worker can be as flexible as a human counterpart, what on earth makes people expect them to be cheaper?"
And so automating labour intensive tasks gain no benefit from automation, such as all the tasks since farming and automated manufacture. People are demanding, they want higher wages, more holidays, a 4 day working week, sick pay (or worse paying to not work because they chose to get pregnant), increased protections and regulations, conveniences such as food and water, pee breaks or even smoke breaks, feel too good for the job because they have a degree in left handed puppetry, etc.
Replaced with something that doesnt get tired, doesnt complain, doesnt need or want the support systems needed for a human but just does the job it is there for. No mood swings, no sleeping through alarms.
I can see how it can get cheaper to run robots instead of people. When minimum wage burger flippers overvalued themselves less got hired and machines took their place. Even an automated burger flipper machine was built.
Too busy to respond to this diatribe. So ...
A ChatGPT writes ...
While it's true that automating labor-intensive tasks can lead to cost savings and increased efficiency, it's important to consider the broader implications of replacing human labor with machines.
Firstly, it's important to recognize that many of the demands listed in the statement (higher wages, more holidays, a 4-day working week, etc.) are reasonable requests that reflect the desire for fair compensation and a better work-life balance. Furthermore, many of the support systems that humans need (such as healthcare, education, and social safety nets) are also essential components of a functioning society.
Additionally, it's worth noting that machines are not perfect substitutes for human labor in all cases. While they may not get tired or complain, they also lack the flexibility, creativity, and problem-solving abilities that humans possess. In some cases, it may be more efficient to use human labor for tasks that require these skills.
Finally, it's important to consider the ethical implications of replacing human labor with machines. Automation can lead to job loss and economic disruption, particularly for those who are already vulnerable or marginalized. As such, any discussion of automation should take into account how to mitigate these potential negative consequences.
In summary, while automation can be a powerful tool for increasing efficiency and reducing costs, it's important to approach it with caution and consider the broader societal impacts.
I understand that the subject may seem complicated and challenging, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not worth pursuing. In fact, some of the most important and rewarding work can be found in tackling complex issues.
As for the suggestion to go break machines, I don't think that's a productive or helpful approach. Instead of trying to resist change, it's important to adapt and find ways to work alongside new technology. This may involve acquiring new skills and knowledge, but it can ultimately lead to more fulfilling and sustainable work.
Of course, everyone's path is different, and it's important to choose a direction that feels right for you. But I would encourage you to consider the potential benefits and growth opportunities that come with taking on a challenging subject or learning new skills.
@AC
Assuming you are the same AC who didnt want to respond to my diatribe your comment here has an entirely different tone which I actually agree with. The luddites assumed people would have nothing if their jobs were automated and a fear people still have. Yet the outcome has been to improve peoples lives.
Industrialisation was to free up workers from the labour of tending to the home, fields and making things in a small community, freeing them up to laze about.
Then automation and computers were going to allow us to work a couple of days a week, the robots cooked and clean for us, while we play beach volleyball after arriving by the sea in our nuclear powered flying cars.
"the robots cooked and clean for us, while we play..."
So far we've gotten to robots that can (mostly) vacuum and mop the (completely uncluttered) floor, and robots that can cook (one of a limited selection of) meals if you sort out all the ingredients beforehand and give it enough time.
Most household work actually involves a huge amount of skill in recognising and manipulating objects both directly and through tools / appliances (ie manipulating one object to manipulate another object), and a very advanced spatial and contextual awareness. Things like clearing a table, loading / unloading a dishwasher or washing / drying dishes and putting them away without any breakages is still far into the realms of the future. Manipulating laundry might be a little easier if all clothes came with RFID tags that contained laundry instructions, but hanging, folding ans stacking clothes is still far into the future.
Dusting (requiring enough firmness to dust but not enough firmness to knock things over, and the requirement of moving things out of the way and putting them back) is also extremely complicated from a robotics POV, although this could probably be easier done by some sort of directed air jet that blows the dust away from surfaces and then gets sucked from the air.
Robot butlers or the equivalent are at least 50+ years in the future. Robot maids, maybe 30+. Robot cooks, I've already seen very limited demonstrators so maybe 20+ years but not sure I would be very happy with the results (maybe if the recipes can be very very finely tuned to taste). That's actually a good timeframe because population projections are for continued increase in the next 30-50 years and slow decline thereafter.
"automation and computers were going to allow us to work a couple of days a week"
A couple of centuries ago (and in many developing countries), most people's work was 6 days/week with very long hours (for some also 7/7). 19th century workers had 6-day weeks, and in the early 20th century the 5-day week was already normal in advanced industrialised nations (See for example the development of Saturday as a football day in England, driven by teams in factory-heavy towns). By the 50s industrialisation had already shifted the standard for most people in 'advanced' economies to a 5-day week with 40-50 hours/week. Automation and computers have already given rise to 35-hour weeks and 4-day (32-hour) weeks. While many lower-income people still have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, there are already a significant chunk of people for whom the trend has already delivered huge amounts of free time. While it may not be going as fast as some predicted/hoped, there is a significant downward trend in hours that people in developed countries *need* to work to keep a roof on their heads and food at the table.
Even if the AI doesn't get going why wouldn't these things be piloted by people in lower cost locations?
In a way it's bizarre that more complex call centre roles (like for banks and insurance) have moved but low-level physical ones haven't just due to practical reasons
"But in this instance, the human worker has simply been moved from behind the counter to behind the keyboard: The robot was teleoperated by a human minder. Rose did not say whether the robot pilot found picking, packing, and tagging unsatisfying."
Did he say whether the human worker found teleoperating satisfying ?
It might be less arduous but doesn't sound any less boring.
"Did he say whether the human worker found teleoperating satisfying ?"
No, he did not say. From the article: "Rose did not say whether the robot pilot found picking, packing, and tagging unsatisfying."
They could try getting a game designer involved. As soon as there are two robots in the same store, one of the teleoperators will start getting "ideas" anyway.
Robot cleaner. I suppose it will still unplug the server whenever it needs to run the vacuum. And religiously use the feather duster on the tops of the file cabinets, because management so loves their "surprise" white glove inspections. Meanwhile that same candy wrapper will still be on the back stairs for months on end, because (still) nobody can be bothered to open a ticket to get it removed.
I thought I knew the location of this trial but my suspected choice is just inside Vancouver, a Canadian Tire store with a Mark's underneath off a lower parking level. What made this interesting for me is that I won't use this CT store. instead driving further to one in North Van. The Vancouver store has put many items off regular shelves and out of view behind a service counter and has few staff in the public areas to provide directions or assistance. The North Van store is well staffed and well run. People matter and good employees and good management pay off. A robot can't fix this.
This post has been deleted by its author
(a) for every few thousand menial jobs taken over, there will be a few hundred far more satisfying, interesting and high-paying jobs in designing, building, operating and maintaining the robots,
Sorry, these jobs have already gone to the robots...............
and
b) most busy retail stores I've been, the staff are spending a lot of time folding, packing, tagging and whatever else while at the same time not being available to offer customer service, advice, etc
Sorry the last remaining retail store closed 10 years ago, everything you WILL NEED can be found within 15 minutes of your home
and you have 30 seconds to complete your objective..................
ALF
Reshelving books is a mind-numbing task that librarians generally dislike.
But we had ladies who came in for 4 hour shifts every week and reshelved. For them, it was the highlight of their week, getting them out of the house and away from the kids.
Management consolidated it into one hateful full-time job.
"Asked to explain how much the robot cost to operate, Ben Reed, chief marketing officer at Sanctuary AI, in an email said, "Our model is focused on providing labor as a service to customers. The hourly pricing varies from business to business and the complexity of the tasks needing to be performed."
So, how much are you paying your employees? 15 an hour? We will do the same job for 14 an hour, and no need to worry about health insurance. Sign here, here, initial here, sign here, oh, what is this one? That's just the maintenance contract. Since you are putting wear and tear on our robots, this will help cover the cost of maintenance. Yes, I know, expensive, but not quite as expensive as medical coverage, eh? Oh, it is? Yes, but you have to understand, state of the art, yada yada yada...
Yes, automation has already started off the right way - as a service, meaning it'll be a long time before they're replacing any employees with bots They should have started with an ownership model to get their foot in the door, then version 2.0 could have been "as a service."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
