←back to thread

209 points Luc | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
philipwhiuk ◴[] No.43935844[source]
It's interesting how Amazon is embedding robots in human-designed warehouses whereas Ocado has humans overseeing a robotic warehouse.

The later is a much easier problem.

replies(6): >>43935863 #>>43935916 #>>43935979 #>>43936186 #>>43938069 #>>43938207 #
vidarh ◴[] No.43935916[source]
The Ocado warehouse automation is pretty crazy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE

replies(3): >>43936160 #>>43936336 #>>43937344 #
throw310822 ◴[] No.43936160[source]
Incredibile!

Also, from the comments:

"My favorite thing about this is how 2 weeks after this video went up, they had an accident where two robots collided and caused a gigantic fire that cost them like 50 million dollars."

replies(1): >>43937924 #
CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43937924[source]
Meanwhile, the warehouse down the road underwent a strike that put them out of commission for weeks, forced expensive wage concessions, and incurred NRLB fines, costing them like... 60 million dollars.

One of these things can be fixed, the other will always be a risk as long as humans are involved.

replies(4): >>43938239 #>>43938326 #>>43938757 #>>43939461 #
littlestymaar ◴[] No.43938757[source]
> One of these things can be fixe

That's correct, the second one can get fixed with higher wages and benefits, like when Ford introduced the “$5 a day” (doubling market average).

replies(1): >>43939545 #
CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43939545[source]
Yes, if you're going to pay humans to suffer the indignity of doing a robot's job, it makes sense to pay well.
replies(1): >>43943108 #
littlestymaar ◴[] No.43943108[source]
There's no indignity in “doing a robot's job” unless if you think working is indignity, because every job is a “robot job”.
replies(2): >>43943136 #>>43946537 #
1. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43946537{3}[source]
I didn't flag your other reply, by the way, but I did vouch for it. Your retort about LLMs is spot-on, as was your point about how "they're all robot jobs." We just currently disagree on whether eliminating such jobs -- all of them -- is a good goal or a bad one.

You defended your perspective by arguing, correctly, that people take undesirable jobs because they don't have a choice. We agree there as well, and my point is that this is a form of coercion in itself. The status quo treats humans as if they were robots.

(And I really don't care if someone thinks I live in a cave. Life in my cave is actually pretty comfy. It beats the hell out of a warehouse or a cube maze at a click farm. It's a privilege, one I'd like to see more equitably distributed.)