Robot Makers Fill Their War Chests in Fight Against Amazon(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Robot Makers Fill Their War Chests in Fight Against Amazon
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-20/robot-makers-fill-their-war-chests-in-fight-against-amazon
53 comments
I am starting to get annoyed by the overloaded term "robot." This article is really about automated warehouses. That is interesting, but is sufficiently advanced automation truly robotics? If so, where does it cross that line? Many hobbyist "robotics" (think BattleBots) are just remote-controlled vehicles. Neither have autonomous behavior. It'd be nice to have terms for each but I can't think of what would be appropriate.
I teach robotics to students age 11 - 14. We have settled on the definition that a robot must do three things: sense, think, act. First thing I do is take away all of the remote controls and tell them they have to program it.
I wish that programs like VEX and FLL would do away with the "tele-operated" portions of their competitions. Kids may enjoy it, but too many of them fall into the trap of treating it all like a remote controlled toy and never get very deep into the programming aspect.
I wish that programs like VEX and FLL would do away with the "tele-operated" portions of their competitions. Kids may enjoy it, but too many of them fall into the trap of treating it all like a remote controlled toy and never get very deep into the programming aspect.
Having worked on some warehouse automation equipment briefly in the past, I'd say they can meet that definition. The equipment I worked on was called a tilt-tray sorter system.
Packages would arrive along a conveyor belt and get put on a tray in a big train of trays (like a roller coaster for boxes).
A scanner would read a bar code on the package (sense).
The bar code would correspond to a particular loading bay where a truck was waiting that the package needed to be put on. (think - match code with loading bay).
When the tray went around and reached the chute for that loading bay it would tilt up and slide the box down to where it could be loaded (act).
Packages would arrive along a conveyor belt and get put on a tray in a big train of trays (like a roller coaster for boxes).
A scanner would read a bar code on the package (sense).
The bar code would correspond to a particular loading bay where a truck was waiting that the package needed to be put on. (think - match code with loading bay).
When the tray went around and reached the chute for that loading bay it would tilt up and slide the box down to where it could be loaded (act).
This makes an Alexa device a robot, especially when integrated in a smart house. I don't like that. (It's an occasional source of disagreement I have with a friend.) I think in order to be a robot, it needs movement. Either it can move something that could reasonably be called "itself", or it has direct peripherals like an arm on the same "itself" that can move things around it. Thus giving an Alexa device a robot arm, or some robot wheels, and letting it move itself or manipulate things around itself, would make it a robot, even if most of the brains are in the cloud.
Of course even with the requirement of mechanical motion, you could still argue a toaster is a robot. It's hard to define robot: http://robohub.org/robohub-roundtable-why-is-it-so-difficult...
Of course even with the requirement of mechanical motion, you could still argue a toaster is a robot. It's hard to define robot: http://robohub.org/robohub-roundtable-why-is-it-so-difficult...
I don't remember FLL having a teleop mode. Back when I did it, it was fully autonomous, but things may have changed since then.
However, FTC, supposedly the grown up version of FLL, had both teleop and autonomous, and with the way it was scored, all you really needed was a solid teleop to crush regional competitions, so we ended up doing way less programming than in middle school FLL. I believe VEX worked the same way, but I only did it one year, so my memory of it is fuzzy.
However, FTC, supposedly the grown up version of FLL, had both teleop and autonomous, and with the way it was scored, all you really needed was a solid teleop to crush regional competitions, so we ended up doing way less programming than in middle school FLL. I believe VEX worked the same way, but I only did it one year, so my memory of it is fuzzy.
Isn’t it FRC (FIRST Robotics Competition)?
It’s kind of simplistic to say all you need is a good teleop period. In many competitions some teams that had worse teleop were picked because they could consistently score in autonomous, which is pretty good EV.
It’s kind of simplistic to say all you need is a good teleop period. In many competitions some teams that had worse teleop were picked because they could consistently score in autonomous, which is pretty good EV.
How and where did you get this job? It sounds like my dream job
In Chicago there's a robot store always looking for teachers to help students about that age range (maybe even younger). Can't remember details, but if your city has a robotics store, chances are they can help you get into teaching.
I hope this leads to the revival the use of the truly awesome word "automaton" for autonomous robots!
Cool. I would have preferred "android" but Google's smartphones ruined that.
I completely agree the word "robot" is entirely overused in inappropriate ways. However, I evaluated the Kiva system shortly before Amazon acquired the company and can say their system meets your definition and, IMHO, is as robotic as a Roomba.
Seconded -- while the decision-making ability is centralized (not in each individual robot) the system as a whole is still able to make its own decisions in many areas.
My definition of a 'robot' is a machine with motor functions and can make its own decision on how to act in reaction to its environment.
For example, a phone isn't a robot, not unless you give it wheels and the ability to act.
For example, a phone isn't a robot, not unless you give it wheels and the ability to act.
By that definition, a clothes dryer with a humidity sensor is a robot. (And I'm fine with that!)
My favourite robot is a dishwasher.
Mostly because it is so different from what some people naively imagine when you asked them to think of a design for a robot to wash dishes.
Mostly because it is so different from what some people naively imagine when you asked them to think of a design for a robot to wash dishes.
The dishwasher is missing the thinking part... It only ever does the exact thing ordered to it.
Bashing one's head against the wall in a day long debugging session for some hard bug usually cures people of the opinion that "computers only ever do what we tell them to do" is a serious limitation on their range of behaviours in practice.
The combinations on my dishwasher can fit in a 12 line lookup table.
I have to try that question on people sometime. Sounds like fun.
Also, reminds me of this:
Also, reminds me of this:
Status: Alive
A phone isn't a robot
Ahem: https://youtu.be/AKCpqqhe-S4?t=1m
Ahem: https://youtu.be/AKCpqqhe-S4?t=1m
Any phone with a vibration motor would technically be a robot (vibrate when message received)
Since robotics are almost a field of AI it seems like it has inherited the premise that once it has been completed or in production it ceases to be called robotics .
This question/doubt has very interesting consequences.
An argument against the thesis that "robots" will lead to catastrophic loss of jobs, is that the concept of "robot" in a strict sense (intended as a sudden similarity to human intelligence/capacity) doesn't really exist, because "robots" are simply a form automation - and civilization has been incrementally developing automation for 250 years by now.
An argument against the thesis that "robots" will lead to catastrophic loss of jobs, is that the concept of "robot" in a strict sense (intended as a sudden similarity to human intelligence/capacity) doesn't really exist, because "robots" are simply a form automation - and civilization has been incrementally developing automation for 250 years by now.
edit :
sorry, this was what I was looking for,
https://www.theincomparable.com/robot/
sorry, this was what I was looking for,
https://www.theincomparable.com/robot/
In South Africa traffic lights are called robots.
Many traffic lights around the world use buried loops of wire as Hall effect sensors (for example, to register when a car is waiting to make a left turn). So that would pass the sense-think-act test, I'd say, even without considering Smart Traffic Lights[1].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_traffic_light
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_traffic_light
Genuine question — is $70 million, spread across +4 different competing companies, a lot of money, for an industry like robot makers?
Or, said another way, if the article had said the companies collectively raised $700 million, I don’t think I would’ve been surprised.
Can someone provide context?
Or, said another way, if the article had said the companies collectively raised $700 million, I don’t think I would’ve been surprised.
Can someone provide context?
I think most companies don't expect to burn cash in needless ways that most startups are expected. It's very possible to take what many consider a sizable investment and use it to continue development of an actual product. Where as most startups take money like this, make spaghetti, throw it at the wall and see what sticks.
I'm guessing at numbers from my limited experience, but a new robot development (let's say with some sophisticated features either hardware or software--not both) is probably a 20-50 person development. Salary (in normal land, not crazy west coast land) for a 2.5 year development is 6-15 million. Material cost runs 10-40% more.
So expect something like 4-10 new robot platforms coming out as a result of this. In a market where there's not a plethora of vendors, that's respectable.
If anyone has more direct experience I'd be happy to be corrected.
So expect something like 4-10 new robot platforms coming out as a result of this. In a market where there's not a plethora of vendors, that's respectable.
If anyone has more direct experience I'd be happy to be corrected.
Is robotics currently limited mostly by money, i.e. with enough investment we could accelerate the robotic future significantly ? or is it mostly the need for new, better ideas?
$70 million is not competition for Amazon, $700 million is almost a rounding error in this context
This is what I think no one will be able to compete with amazon on warehouse logistics. Kiva's model of bringing the shelf to the picker is hard to improve upon. And it is probably patented.
Well, you could replace the pickers with robots, for instance.
https://www.righthandrobotics.com/
https://www.righthandrobotics.com/
There are plenty of Kiva competitors from German and Asian manufacturers.
Some of the Chinese systems even use the same Kiva-style modules to do other tasks like package mail sorting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6a0HROB054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QndP_PCRSw
Some of the Chinese systems even use the same Kiva-style modules to do other tasks like package mail sorting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6a0HROB054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QndP_PCRSw
Sounds like another race to the bottom.
That's the point. If you mean bottom of cost, that is.
Humans have better things to do than grueling warehouse jobs.
Humans have better things to do than grueling warehouse jobs.
> Humans have better things to do than grueling warehouse jobs.
Sadly, they also need to eat, and the only way they can do so now is by doing soul- and body-crushing work at Amazon "fulfillment centers."
Sadly, they also need to eat, and the only way they can do so now is by doing soul- and body-crushing work at Amazon "fulfillment centers."
LA Times published an article that indicates that these warehouse jobs are replacing retail jobs, and they pay better.
Even better, the warehouses are revitalizing parts of the country that have been blighted for decades.
For instance, I used to live in San Bernardino, and these warehouse jobs have created opportunities in that city that simply didn't exist a decade ago. Instead of spending two hours a day commuting to a retail job, people are actually working in the cities that they live in.
Even better, the warehouses are revitalizing parts of the country that have been blighted for decades.
For instance, I used to live in San Bernardino, and these warehouse jobs have created opportunities in that city that simply didn't exist a decade ago. Instead of spending two hours a day commuting to a retail job, people are actually working in the cities that they live in.
Could you dig up the URL for that article, please?
I'm personally of the opinion that we must prepare for a society where unskilled jobs don't exist anymore. Evidently they'll be replaced by machines sooner or later. Cashiers, warehouse workers, harvesters... These jobs are soon going to join carriage drivers and lamplighters in history books.
That's clearly a big problem for our societies which seem to collapse when unemployment raises. It's also clear that not everybody will end up as a software engineer or neurosurgeon. So what's the solution? That's left as an exercise for the reader.
What would a society where only a tiny portion of the population needs to actively work to provide for everybody look like? An utopia for some, hell on earth for others.
That's clearly a big problem for our societies which seem to collapse when unemployment raises. It's also clear that not everybody will end up as a software engineer or neurosurgeon. So what's the solution? That's left as an exercise for the reader.
What would a society where only a tiny portion of the population needs to actively work to provide for everybody look like? An utopia for some, hell on earth for others.
> Cashiers, warehouse workers, harvesters...
Paralegals, sports reporters, basic web coders...
> An utopia for some, hell on earth for others.
"We" could farm the "others" for nutrients and trace elements (until "we" become "others" thanks to future automation), or the "others" could kill "us," or the species as a whole could find a different arrangement than trading labor for food. I'm betting on mass extinction followed by thousands of years of bare survival by humans and a small number of similarly cockroach-esque species, but maybe we'll do better.
Paralegals, sports reporters, basic web coders...
> An utopia for some, hell on earth for others.
"We" could farm the "others" for nutrients and trace elements (until "we" become "others" thanks to future automation), or the "others" could kill "us," or the species as a whole could find a different arrangement than trading labor for food. I'm betting on mass extinction followed by thousands of years of bare survival by humans and a small number of similarly cockroach-esque species, but maybe we'll do better.
They aren’t doing those jobs because they like it, they need it. Sure, they have better things to do, but step one is always, “don’t starve” right? Taking their marginal living and waiting for some mystical market force to save them is just... shitty.
Wow, 1 economist back in 1891 considered it a fallacy. You know, before the advent of modern quantitative economics as a science and all the labor econ research that's been done since then.
Now it has a wiki article that's missing citations in the most important key points.
Thanks for changing my viewpoint!
Thanks for changing my viewpoint!
Sure, all you need to do is retrain warehouse workers as nurses. Any progress there?