Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Robot Picking Challenge 2015

Posted by samzenpus on from the better-picking dept.

mikejuk writes The Amazon Picking Challenge at ICRA (IEEE Robotics and Automation) 2015 is about getting a robot to perform the picking task. All the robot has to do is pick a list of items from the automated shelves that Amazon uses and place the items into another automated tray ready for delivery. The prizes are $20,000 for the winner, $5000 for second place and $1000 for third place. In addition each team can be awarded up to $6000 to get them and their robot to the conference so that they can participate in the challenge. Amazon is even offering to try to act as matchmaker between robot companies and teams not having the robot hardware they need. A Baxter Research Robot will be made available at the contest.

106 comments

  1. Pay me once, shame on me. by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses. I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It might be worth it if you can enter with absolutely no loss of patents or copyrights, or grants of license to Amazon, for anything related to the robot you enter; but only if you were already working on the problem for reasons related to an amount of money that ranks somewhere between 'insulting' and 'hilarious' in comparison to the value of the task. $20k would likely have some difficultly covering even your expenses, much less actually rewarding you, and that's the big prize.

    2. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure you had your secretary type out your message for you. Or are you using a job-destroying computer?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Robots are a good deal when it comes to grueling and repetitive tasks that are harmful to human workers.

      It's good for the human race because the jobs in the Amazon warehouses are too difficult for human workers to perform safely over long periods of time.

    4. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses.

      I didn't understand that either. Someone with a machine vision and shelf picking system could name their price instead of settling for a measly $10K. Hell, they could lease just one of those pickers out for $10K/year each, and Amazon would snap them up as fast as they could come off the factory line; as would just about every other warehouse operation in the country.

      I'd say "nice try, Amazon", but it doesn't even seem like they're trying. This is just pathetic.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Probably someone at Amazon said "what if we just hold a competition and see what happens?" and their boss said "yeah but how much would that cost? we have a budget, you know", response back; "yeah I guess we could put it together for $100,000 including logisitcs, leaving 25% of the project cost as an incentive price". Boss thinks on it for a minute, "hmm yeah that sounds good, send me a proposal and we'll run with it, this is the sort of thing we reinvest all our profits in to, there's no way this is a complete waste of money since this gamble could really improve our bottom line."

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, these contests are looked on as sort of a way to get students to participate. Their investment is actually quite generous, when put in that light. The big labs will all want their projects on the main track of the conference. They'll use it as a tool to drum up enthusiasm for their lab and their projects, and a fun thing for recruitment or for their students to do.

    7. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses. I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.

      No.

      They're giving out a prize for making one, not buying the rights to it, or even the prototype. Participants are "encouraged" to "share their approach" and the actual rules and what that means aren't released yet. The deal is more like, win some $$ now, start a business based on that, and then sell the business to Amazon in 2 years for some absurd amount of money.

      And like the contest site points out, their picking task is essentially the same as taking a book off a shelf, so if somebody wins their robot will have substantial use as a service bot.

    8. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you had your secretary type out your message for you. Or are you using a job-destroying computer?

      Those secrataries became Executive Assistants at 4x the salary, smart ass.

      Nice fucking try.

    9. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      It might be worth it if you can enter with absolutely no loss of patents or copyrights, or grants of license to Amazon, for anything related to the robot you enter; but only if you were already working on the problem for reasons related to an amount of money that ranks somewhere between 'insulting' and 'hilarious' in comparison to the value of the task. $20k would likely have some difficultly covering even your expenses, much less actually rewarding you, and that's the big prize.

      Nonsense, it is easily worth it just if you think you can build a robot that can complete the task.

      The design would be worth billions, if you add in a bunch of investment money. (which would flow to a contest winner) And the $20k easily pays back the materials cost of a garage/makerspace-built prototype.

      I agree if you're not already thinking about robotics and interested in working on it then it would be a bad idea to enter. But that is true of any technical contest. But you don't need to already be working on it. You only have to believe that you can complete an entry that does that task. Even if there are multiple teams that complete, they'll all be well positioned to make $$$, not just the winner.

      The bigger carrot than the $20k is that teams that appear to have an entry with a chance to win can get up to $6000 for travel expenses. So with that, a team of engineering grad students with a small budget could really have a chance. If they know already they want to make some kind of robot, the paid competition travel could make it worthwhile to choose this project. And for a hobbyist or small inventor working on a budget, it could have a similar enabling effect.

    10. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I'd say "nice try," but I suspect your reading comprehension is actually higher than you displayed here, but that you just did not in fact try very hard.

      And guess what, regardless of if they accept the prize from Amazon or not, they can still name their price, including to Amazon. But I doubt they'll want to lease them. They're going to prefer to buy your company, or license your design.

    11. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      More likely they knew they wanted to participate in the robotics conference taking place in Seattle, and they set aside a budget, and then decided to use it for a contest, and then asked what robot they wanted. And it turns out they already know what robot they wanted, because they bought the company that makes the robot-shelf-thingies that currently deliver the bins and groups of items to the human pickers. This is the last step in the process that isn't already automated.

      Given that they already bought a related company, I doubt this is just some "boss" saying "yeah, I guess."

    12. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

      Would a card board box, with a midget inside qualify as a robot ?

      No batteries needed!

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    13. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're probably right, but that would depend very much on the terms of the competition - technology licenses buried in the tenth page of fine print on the entry forms are not unheard of.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would a card board box, with a midget inside qualify as a robot ?

      No batteries needed!

      Only if you resurrect Steve Jobs to stand next to it waving his hand, "This is the droid you are looking for."

    15. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The devil will be in the details, which have not yet been decided and/or published, but it won't make sense for them to make it a gimmick because this is one of those contests where the most likely result is nobody will complete the task. The real risk for the managers is that nobody finishes and they wasted the conference budget with nothing to show for it. They need at least an "almost winner."

      To have a significant chance, they need to attract entries from teams at high profile engineering schools. And somebody on the team will be reading the fine print. They can only build a small number of projects during their graduate education, they're not going to pick ones that have gimmicky give-away rules. Their professors will all be people with patents, who have started and sold spin-off startups to companies involved in the research. Given that audience, it is more likely that Amazon will have some sort of clause that keeps them in the sales loop and gives them access to purchasing the tech at normal prices.

      The contest itself won't generate any significant PR for Amazon, because only nerds care and they're a household name already.

    16. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Silent Running used amputees for Huey, Dewey, and Louis.

    17. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Participants will be encouraged to share and disseminate their approach to improve future challenge results and industrial implementations.

      That doesn't sound to demanding to me. Acquiring a patent requires that you do this anyways.

      The prizes are actually $20,000 for the winner, $5000 for second place and $1000 for third place. In addition each team can be awarded up to $6000 to get them and their robot to the conference so that they can participate in the challenge.

      So, there is some coverage for expenses even if you don't win.

    18. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. If the jobs suck and the pay sucks, why do it?

      "Because I need a job."

      Okay, fair enough. Now let's say this job didn't exist anymore (which it won't some day). What then will you do? Find another job that will be phased out?

      Part of what helps humanity grow is pushing ourselves to do so. I say it like this: You can't learn to walk if you don't fall. And you can't learn to run if you don't walk.

      Just like you can't learn to do a better job unless you fucking have to. Grow up, stop your bitching that "robots and computers" are taking our jobs. /rant

      On a side note, I'm sure this will receive no ratings because of the insane anti-practical attitude /. mods and members have.

    19. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The design would be worth billions, if you add in a bunch of investment money. (which would flow to a contest winner) And the $20k easily pays back the materials cost of a garage/makerspace-built prototype.

      That's why I included the bit about "absolutely no loss of patents or copyrights, or grants of license to amazon, for anything related to the robot." bit.

      The value of something that is good enough to win the prize is far larger than the prize. If you can compete without compromising your control of your entry in any way, it only costs the time of whoever you send to unpack the robot and participate. If touching the contest involves granting any right to your entry, you should probably run away screaming.

    20. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      ...only comes with one midget. limited number of replacements available.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Probably why contests aren't give-aways in the first place, and while people should read the fine print first to make sure, it is not a realistic concern.

    22. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Well, about a quarter of them did, anyway.

    23. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.

      Dunno about whether it's fair to the competitors or not, but having robots do pick-and-place is good for the human race -- pick-and-place is a terrible job for a human to have to do. 8+ hours of RSI-inducing mindless tedium every day? No thanks. Let the robots do it and have the humans do something meaningful.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker,...

      We shouldn't be sentimental about crappy jobs vanishing. It's the way we go and there's no stopping the train. The main question here is how we will transition into a society where entertainment is there to keep the masses sedated and to convince them to consume stuff (like entertainment.)

      I'd shed another light. They're paying way less that what it would cost themselves to develop. Picking an item is actually pretty hard. Will they find "one of us" willing to put in the hours and willing to forfeit his IP? There are plenty of bright young people around that just don't realize the scam and perhaps just buy into it.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    25. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we adapt the winning robots to start picking /. stories instead of these new Dice "editors".

    26. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      They are good when we are making use of the additional labour we are freeing up to reduce the workload on the rest of the workforce and making sure the benefits spread to all of humanity. If it's just an excuse for Amazon to fire the only people that work for them, hoover up more cash from shops (also firing workers), then skip out on paying any tax on income then I don't see it as a benefit to humanity.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    27. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to speak of the fact that their human slave workers frequently get abused by nazi security companies. (No I didn't make this up, there was a big scandal in germany only recently.)

    28. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Amazon will likely have a team to "pick" the winner and there will be a lawyer on the team whose job it is to make sure Amazon ends up holding the patents.

    29. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      They are good when we are making use of the additional labour we are freeing up to reduce the workload on the rest of the workforce and making sure the benefits spread to all of humanity.

      That's a second problem that needs to be solved. Finding full employment for people after all the shit jobs are eliminated is important
      but that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to eliminate all the dangerous and unhealthy jobs that we can.
      There are certain jobs (like old fashion coal mining) that you're probably better off sitting at home on welfare than you are being at
      the bottom of the coal shaft slowly dying.

    30. Re: Pay me once, shame on me. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I am have released documents and designs for quite a few technologies in the past. This is a topic which has always interested me, though I simply am not interested in building a business making these robots. Have drawings for multiple designs that when used in conjunction can handle most picking related issues. I will not likely enter this competition. The cost of entering is too high and has too big of a risk walking away without my expenses covered.

      I think $100,000 first prize, $50,000 second and $20,000 third would have peeked my interest. But $20,000 for a first prize just isn't enough bother with.

    31. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by fdamstra · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of contest that no participant who's qualified should ever compete in. It's the same kind of crap as the 'design our new logo' contests or 'shoot your own commercial (for us)' contests.

    32. Re: Pay me once, shame on me. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cost of entering is too high

      What cost? If you don't already have a robot that can do this task, or can do it without major modification, you don't enter.

      and has too big of a risk walking away without my expenses covered.

      Amazon is offering some teams money to cover their transport costs, so that may help some potential applicants participate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      No one who's qualified should ever compete in these, because they're not for people who are qualified. They're for engineering students to get some hands on practical experience, and maybe come up with some novel ideas along the way.

    34. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It's not about the prize money. It's about the recognition and implied chance for a future contract with Amazon, which could be worth several orders of magnitude more.

    35. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Why full employment? Why aren't we all working half time and spending more time living our lives?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    36. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Why full employment? Why aren't we all working half time and spending more time living our lives?

      I agree. I think we've added more than enough labor saving devices that we should be able to start redefining
      "full employment" as less than 40 hours per week. We have a long way to go though as (at least in the USA)
      we can't even seem to get people and companies to limit their work to 40 much less something less than 40.

    37. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To keep the IP it would cost just a bit more than the payout, suspicious?!

    38. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Instead they waste your time at 'work' and pay you for it.

      Scrum is a plot to kill productivity. In theory it's just a bad idea, in practice it's a horrible, moral killing opportunity for all the wrong people to 'gain some visibility' at everybodies expense. Scrum meetings are classic examples of meetings that should have been done via email or ideally via source control and project management software. Sequential one on one information exchange/interrogation. All the wrong people become scrum leaders. I think they were all on student council in high school.

      At some level of management they know these things kill productivity and gain nothing but a warm feeling of usefulness for the time waster. Yet they still do it. Must just hate techies and think they need to 'put in their place'. I'm too old for any more of that shit.

      No more big business for me; anybody ever worked at a business with more than 200 employees that allowed you to do more then 10 hours of actual work in your basic 40 hour block (when all the time wasters were there)? Working weekends to meet a schedule after having wasted 30+ hours on bullshit is a large part of why I became a big hole in their schedules.

      One of the best reasons for telecommuting is that, properly managed, it limits your hours wasted on jackasses (but raises the hours wasted on pets). Hours wasted on pets are good for your stress level, jackasses not so much.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just hire a drunk monkey. It will do a better job.

      How much MadDog/day does it take to keep a monkey drunk?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses. I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.

      It doesn't mention anything about intellectual property, patents, etc except this bland remark: "Participants will be encouraged to share and disseminate their approach to improve future challenge results and industrial implementations."

      So, it is doubtful that entry into the contest or acceptance of the prize would compromise intellectual property (trade secrets, patents, copyrights, etc) of the creators. Much as the X prize, Grand Challenge, etc did not require contestants or winners to forfeit any IP. From the look of it, Amazon is staging a contest, paying travel expenses, and offering a prize, all in lieu of executing a RFP and performing testing themselves. Still probably a win for them in the end, if one or more of the contestants is in fact a commercial robotics vendor.

    41. Re: Pay me once, shame on me. by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      The cost of entering is too high and has too big of a risk walking away without my expenses covered.

      Indeed, go big or go home. Impressing the likes of Amazon would mean millions of dollars in contracts (even just for the IP surrounding advanced robotic processes) so if the reward isn't big enough to counter the risk (i.e. you think you won't do well) then by all means move along.

      Given the increasing visibility of the negative externalities of human pickers at Amazon's third party fulfillment locations, they are going to be increasingly eager to do anything they can to reduce the number of humans involved in order fulfillment.

    42. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They are paying peanuts. It is a disgrace. You get about 50 consulting hours and maybe up to 100 engineering or scientist hours for the first price. They are basically hoping people will stupidly self-exploit to further Amazon's goal to get rid of its warehousemen that always demand reasonable pay and working conditions.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      So Amazon's pickers tried to force them to pay a livable wage and now Amazon wants to replace them with robots. Maybe we need to have some kind of legislation so make it so the number of people a company employs (domestically) and the average workers salary are matched up to their revenues. I say revenues, because profit is easier to manipulate. If they cross into the evil parasite quadrant then they get penalized, if they end up in the highly beneficial to society quadrant they get rewarded. Dollars and cents are the only language spoken by the machinery of greed.

    44. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think it's good for the human race to have more people in mind-numbingly stupid jobs?

    45. Re:Pay me once, shame on me. by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like a Mechanical Turk - and what would Amazon have to do with a Mechanical Turk?

  2. Reminds me of Real Steel and John Henry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be up for dressing a displaced pick-and-placer as a robot, soundly defeating the competition, making a point that humans are more versatile than any machine, and walking away with a cool $10,000.

    1. Re:Reminds me of Real Steel and John Henry by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      John Henry? Isn't that the guy who voluntarily worked a bunch of unpaid overtime to finish his last project before being automated into obsolescence; and then died just in time to save his employer the risk of paying any sort of severance?

      Unless you are Jeff Bezos, you might consider a story with a different moral.

    2. Re:Reminds me of Real Steel and John Henry by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's the Moral you took from the Fable?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. What about Amazon's Kiva robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They bought that outfit that makes robots that fetch boxes for Zappos order fulfillment and others.

    1. Re:What about Amazon's Kiva robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a robotics contest at a conference. It's a PR thing, not intended as a major wing of Amazon's research and development program.

      Also, the Kiva robots replace the picking operation, but the packing operation is done by people.

    2. Re:What about Amazon's Kiva robots? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      replace the packing people too, with a giant 8 armed robot with human like hands/fingers.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    3. Re:What about Amazon's Kiva robots? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      They've installed the Kiva robots in a few DC's and they are continuing to expand their usage.

  4. Not an AI problem by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    It seems like a simple search through pictures of every item stocked and the way to grab it is sufficient to accomplish this, and that's well within the capabilities of existing industrial robots. Put Baxter on a line navigating robot and you're there. What am I missing?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Not an AI problem by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It seems like a simple search through pictures of every item stocked and the way to grab it is sufficient to accomplish this, and that's well within the capabilities of existing industrial robots. Put Baxter on a line navigating robot and you're there. What am I missing?

      For example, now you've identified the position of the item, but it is a plastic bag with a metal grommet on the top, hanging in a row from a metal rod. (as seen in stores) Now what?

      Getting there isn't the hard part, it is all the stuff you do once you're there.

    2. Re:Not an AI problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stantardize your storage methods. It's easier and cheaper in the long run if you have standardized packaging and storage for all items. It makes the picking robot's job trivial and cuts down on the cost of making unique packages or storing options for products.

    3. Re:Not an AI problem by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Apparently the standard storage method is 'tossed in bar coded bin'.

      Still a solved problem. But the admin of teaching the robots all the shapes might make it cost prohibitive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Not an AI problem by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are missing that for $20'000 you cannot actually get a modern industrial robot, much less write any software for it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. The Discussion among amazon executives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    BigCheeze: "Next project, fully automating our warehouses this is a big task lets allocate a million billion dollars to it"
    High Level Underling: "I bet you $100 i can do it for under $50,000 all in"
    BigCheeze: "You're on!"

    which brings us up to the present.

  6. What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings and if the GOP get there way even the welfare dormitories aka prisons may force people to brake laws just to get in to them. As they will not give that out for free.

    1. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your comment may have sounded coherent in your mind, but I assure you it was the drugs talking.

    2. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of God! Turn on your spell checker.

    3. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck are you stupid. Please turn off your computer forever.

    4. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic income! Get yer negative income tax! In prison. Where the rich folks pay their taxes to feed you!

    5. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ow, my brain! Please, oh please, could someone replace this account with a posting robot?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather see a negative income tax.

      (Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 = new credit
      This would be for the lazy, unemployable, and unemployed alike.
      A homeless person without an income would get about $5.5k or so.
      A family of six without an income would get $15k or so.
      This is all in addition to foodstamps though.
      Although, I imagine states such as New York, where it's more expensive to live, this won't be too feasible. But it's better than nothing.

    7. Re:What about the 2020-2040 welfare settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your literary incompetence knows no bounds.

  7. They bought the wrong company! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They bought a company which can bring the shelves to the pickers.
    This just eliminated the need for people to run around in the warehouse but not eliminating the picking task.
    They should have bought a company which produdes shelves which just drop one specifiied item on a conveyer belt.
    Those idiots!

  8. The coming robotic divide by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    The problem isn't human pickers being replaced by robot pickers. I see that as progress. The problem is if, like in most fiction/movies/anime about a robotic future, the robots would wind up being controlled by a few gigacorporations or some central administration akin to the military. If every Joe or Jane can own his or her own private robot, great. However, news like this has me worried whether the dystopian future will be a technological divide between those who have robots and those who don't.

    1. Re:The coming robotic divide by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      like in most fiction/movies/anime about a robotic future, the robots would wind up being controlled by a few gigacorporations

      It will probably be the same giga-corps that prevented common people from owning cars, TVs, computers, and smartphones.

    2. Re:The coming robotic divide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are moving that way. We mere humans will not own them in the future. We will lease them.

      We won't own houses either, banks will own them and make sure that no-one can pay for them. Good citizens should just pay the interest forever, effectively renting them from the bank.

    3. Re:The coming robotic divide by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      like in most fiction/movies/anime about a robotic future, the robots would wind up being controlled by a few gigacorporations

      It will probably be the same giga-corps that prevented common people from owning cars, TVs, computers, and smartphones.

      That sounds like "No American has been killed by Ebola in the latest outbreak so far, so no American can ever be killed by Ebola in the latest outbreak."

      You can't buy any of the things you mentioned without having money, and the main way that people earn money is via jobs. Actually, that is rather mistatated. The way most money is earned is from investments, but the way that most people earn money is from jobs (since most of the money earning actually involves fairly few of the people). Robots are just one more investment.

      Robots are actually fairly expensive. Anybody can legally buy an aircraft, but the reality is that very few own them. Legally anybody can build a robot used to build cars, but to build a car you actually need a lot of them and a lot of other expensive equipment and space, and the result is that nobody owns them except car factories.

      If somebody ever invented a general purpose robot - that is one that can walk, talk, assemble things, compose poetry, write software, paint masterpieces, build and operate an M1 Abrams, and perform effective crowd control, then there basically would be no more jobs for anybody. Those who could afford the first batch of robots would clean up, and the rest would live under whatever system of government the robot owners devised.

    4. Re:The coming robotic divide by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      We won't own houses either, banks will own them and make sure that no-one can pay for them.

      The amusing thing, often times these distributors don't even own their own warehouses. They have them built and outfitted to their specs, then sell them to and lease them back from an investment firm.

  9. Amazon you cheap ass bastards!!! by cheekyboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Go hire a team engineers and pay the $1m it takes to develop it.

    Dont give away shit money.

    $6k barely covers startup costs hardware.

    This solution will save you millions and you wanna pay $6000?

    Thats just the CEOs lunch!

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Amazon you cheap ass bastards!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This solution will save you millions and you wanna pay $6000?

      Thats just the CEOs lunch!

      Thanks for spotting that! I had the two values mixed up. I foolishly wrote $6000 for the engineers and $60.00 for the CEO's lunch, when I obviously meant the other way around. If I brought our CEO a disgusting $60.00 lunch he'd be so mad he'd fire me on the spot.

    2. Re:Amazon you cheap ass bastards!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Go hire a team engineers and pay the $1m it takes to develop it.

      What? The $1M won't even cover hiring the team of engineers, especially when you consider all the ancillary costs of doing business.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Amazon you cheap ass bastards!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was a tiny little startup no one would even submit their work. This is Amazon cashing in on their brand. We need to do something about it, definitely hurt the brand with me. Probably less likely to hire former Amazoners and definitely would be concerned about working for managers or execs with Amazon on the resume.

    4. Re:Amazon you cheap ass bastards!!! by nleven · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they are not developing it themselves. They did buy Kiva for $775m.. It's a reasonable goal to automate the picker as the next step. The purpose of such competition is to kindle interest, not to buy an already available solution. And to be reasonable, the winner is likely to be a partial solution at best.

  10. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Help Amazon replace people.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  11. Tax Robot Challenge by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    Entrants must design a robot than can autonomously navigate to Amazon's vast cash mountain, located somewhere in Luxembourg, and seize the hundreds of millions they really owe in taxes.

  12. Re:Ray.. what have you done ray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard sex with a fleshlight just isn't gay enough, man.

  13. So in other words, engineers by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Kill some more jobs.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  14. Rules and Terms and Conditions by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Wait till the full rules and the Terms and Conditions are made available. I would bet that somewhere there will be a clause that says that people who enter sign over any rights they might claim on the design of their robot and Amazon gets to patent anything to do with it that can be patented... in exchange for a prize. Companies like Amazon don't do shit like this based on the goodness of their hearts.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Rules and Terms and Conditions by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      Your user ID gives you no excuse to have never read the rules of a technical contest before. That is never the case.

    2. Re:Rules and Terms and Conditions by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Companies like Amazon don't do shit like this based on the goodness of their hearts.

      It's not the goodness of their heart. They are doing it because they want people to focus on a problem that they want to solve.
      My guess is that the reason the prize money is so low is because the problem has been simplified and they don't expect a
      perfect commercial ready solution. I would also guess that if you managed to solve it well enough to impress amazon then
      they would offer you considerably more than the 20k and try to buy you out and/or hire you.
      They are looking for original ideas and/or new employees with this contest. They are not looking for a complete solution.

    3. Re:Rules and Terms and Conditions by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      My uid is low-ish, my age is middle-ish, and my cynicism is high. I always read the fine print.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:Rules and Terms and Conditions by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I always read the fine print.

      Except that by that claim, you're admitting to having never even looked at a contest closely enough to read the rules. How much of a nerd are you if you never even had enough of a contest-fantasy to read the website about a contest? That's pretty weak sauce, even for a cynic.

    5. Re:Rules and Terms and Conditions by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The rules weren't posted when I made my comment. Announcing prize money is not the same as posting rules terms and conditions. If YOU had bothered to look you would have seen that. And I had to go through numerous pages before I found the one that said 'rules will be posted in mid October.' I am cynical especially when something is hyped but no conditions place around it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  15. Should be offering at least $750,000,000. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Amazon paid $750 million for Kiva Systems robotics, with about 500 employees. A workable solution to the bin-picking problem would create a company with at least that much value.

    The rules say "Participants will be encouraged to share and disseminate their approach to improve future challenge results and industrial implementations." Or, "we want to steal your technology".

  16. You get what you pay for by subanark · · Score: 1

    It is $20,000. They aren't looking for the be all end all. It is just to shed some light on the problem and encourage development in this area. They aren't paying 20,000 to beat what they have. It is 20K for best in show, even if it isn't astounding.

  17. What else is new? by no-body · · Score: 1

    Any means to safe a buck and increase "profit" is being used.
    But who or which population segment is actually benefitting?
    This definitely is not for the common good, rather a small segment of individuals.
    Still trying to figure out, how many "normal" (average) people need to work to pay the income of - let's say a 10 Million income of some ?EO, let's say in the US?

  18. How does an automated shelf work? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    automated shelves

    How's them work, then?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:How does an automated shelf work? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The shelves come to the human picker with the items for a particular order.

      http://www.kivasystems.com/sol...

      They describe is as "Kiva is the ultimate goods-to-man (goods-to-person) automation system."

      Now they want to replace the word "man" or "person" with "robot".

      The next step from there is to automate stocking of the shelves (I'm would bet the shelves come to the loading area when there are items available to resupply them).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  19. Turn the problem on it's head by complete+loony · · Score: 1

    Though this would take up more space in the warehouse, would it be faster to unpack each crate / box of items into a vending machine style dispenser?

    The actual "picking" of each order could then be automated, with the manual manipulation of products happening in larger batches.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  20. You know what they say... by watermark · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to be replaced by a robot, don't act like a robot. All jobs that can be replaced by a robot, will be replaced, eventually.

  21. awesom o 3000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be planning to enter my new robot model I was working on, primarily for Haloween as a side project, because who on Slashdot does not like making money off of their side projects?

    The bonus factor, one I am sure will wow the judges, is that this robot is primarily built out of Amazon shipping boxes anyway.

    Win-Win-Win!

    1. Re:awesom o 3000 by ITBluntZ · · Score: 1

      I will be planning to enter my new robot model I was working on, primarily for Haloween as a side project, because who on Slashdot does not like making money off of their side projects?

      The bonus factor, one I am sure will wow the judges, is that this robot is primarily built out of Amazon shipping boxes anyway.

      Win-Win-Win!

      I was thinking about being Randy Marsh with his balls in a wheelbarrow, but I think it would be awesome if loads of people showed up to the competition in their Awesome-O-3000 costumes and rambled around the pickers aisles, happily collected their $6000 to be able to fly to the site/housing/food/whatever. This can surely be the only explanation, Amazon is slyly trying to be a smartass about robots, right?

  22. What about jobs humans can't do? by coryhamma · · Score: 1

    About 23 years ago, I participated in a robot challenge for kids to build a mars robot. It was a lot of fun, and nobody was saying "but this could replace jobs that humans do". This project will produce robots specifically designed to replace low-paid workers. Why not have a competition for robots that builds hospitals in areas that are affected by plague? Or deep-sea exploration?

    1. Re:What about jobs humans can't do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resources.

  23. Re: What cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike you, some people place a value on their time.

  24. Re:Karl Marx was right! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Most trolls count their success in replies. Karl Marx counts his in megadeaths.

    Das Kapital was the most 'successful' troll in history. Beating out 'the Bible', 'the Koran', 'the Karma Sutra', 'the Anarchists Cookbook' and 'The Collected Sayings of Mao Tse Tung'!

    How many replies will this get? Will I be modded troll? I won't beat 'Das Kapital'.

    More basically, why am I responding to a troll? Better then work.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Re: What cost? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Unlike you, some people place a value on their time.

    Unlike me, or you, people who are developing robots which are designed either to do this task or to do multiple tasks might well jump at the chance to have their expenses paid on a trip to a venue where they can get a chance to perform some meaningful testing.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Billions by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    Easily.

  27. Wrong Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need a fully automated robot. Instead, have the robots zoom to where ever the database says the item is then give control of the robot's arm to a human sitting in a desk somewhere.

    As a bonus, you gets tons of data that could be used as a base for training fully automatic robots down the line.