Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Warehouse Robots Coming To Market As Softbank Invests $20M In Fetch

Posted by samzenpus on from the robo-stack dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: Japanese Softbank just injected $20M in funding to Fetch Robotics, a Silicon Valley company that is developing robotic solutions for warehouse and logistics. This is one of the first warehouse systems that is coming to market since Kiva. Softbank is also invested in Aldebaran Robotics, producing the Pepper robot — a social humanoid robot that is scheduled to make its debut in Nestle stores later this year as a sales and marketing assistant.

38 comments

  1. Fetch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop Trying to Make Fetch Happen

    1. Re: Fetch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

      I came here to make this joke. I'm quite satisfied that the first post ended up being it.

  2. Sigh by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    Once again, I misread the headline and was disappointed by the real story.

    1. Re:Sigh by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Robots in a whorehouse? Why?

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    2. Re:Sigh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Must be a "Basic Pleasure Model". Very popular on the offworld colonies.

    3. Re:Sigh by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Would you insert your favorite plaything inside something controller by softare? Possibly running Windows XP? Pneumatic actuators? Be sure to make sure you get it all back, the doctor might be able to stitch it back on.

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots in a whorehouse? Why?

      FISTO, of course. Or the ghoul. Take your pick.

  3. Japanese Paradox by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having recently visiting Japan I find these unskilled human replacement robots quite intriguing. Despite the fact that Japan has terrible demographics resulting in a growing shortage of workers, they have a huge number people doing quite pointless jobs such as the ubiquitous greeter in almost every store, teams of traffic controllers outside construction sites, and more staff at a regional train station than you would find at Oxford Circus during rush hour.

    I discussed this with a Japanese person who commented that there is a shortage of work for unskilled workers, so they basically make up these jobs so that everyone can be employed. The real worker shortage, as everywhere in the world, is among the skilled and highly skilled and even Japan cannot create enough of these workers through its education system.

    That is ultimately the problem I have with how these robots fit into our existing economic system. They are not replacing the skilled jobs that we are desperately short of (which is pushing skilled salaries up) and are simply competing with people who really can't do much else (which will push their salaries down to the marginal cost of a robot - which will be very bad for them once robots can make robots). Now in Japan they have the sort of weird social structure to support made up jobs rather than put people out on the street, but sadly I don't think the same will apply to western workers.

    For us tech workers things will be very good, but having come from a working class background it really troubles me what is going on. The reality is that robotics should mean more prosperity for everyone, but if we stuff it up we will likely just end up with the same class based society that strangled growth in the world for centuries before the oppressed workers of the world ran away to the USA. Unfortunately we've run out of new continents to escape to so we'll have to fix this one among ourselves. I hope tech people start thinking about this stuff. We sadly have a long heritage of creating amazing stuff and then letting a bunch of narcissist use what we've done to feed their own greed. But hey, as long as we have a foosball table in the office right?

    1. Re:Japanese Paradox by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "For us tech workers things will be very good,"

      I wouldn't bet on that for much longer. The smarter computers get the more likely they'll be able to figure out how to do a task on their own rather than being explicitely told whether it be doing a nightly backup, troubleshooting their own DB or implementing new tasks that previously would have required programming.

      I'm sure in 100 years there'll still be humans doing these sorts of jobs - in the same way you can still find people making horse shoes - but not in anything like the same numbers. IT for humans will go back to being a niche, almost hobby activity.

    2. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe in these "computers will overtake programming" theories. Sure, one day perhaps, but I think there will be another effect showing up before that: the frige problem. Once every household has a fridge, nobody has need for more fridges. This problem is especially present once HW development will stall (yes it will, moore has limits). One day, every algorithm will have a fast, clean, reliable, well-tested, and agreed-upon implementation.

    3. Re:Japanese Paradox by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I suspect even algorithms - except at the hardware control level - will be surpassed once neutral networks become viable for most things. And once you've taught a neural net to do something you just copy its pattern like a piece of software onto other machines. The fact that they can learn means they won't need to be programmed in the conventional sense though someone will probably have to literally show them how to do something.

    4. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The poor will always be cannon fodder and fortunately poor people do not live as long as rich people. The very poor have a life span of around 35 years and the very rich around 90 years. There are various reason for that, including malnutrition, bad hygiene and expensive medical care.

    5. Re:Japanese Paradox by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Never visited Japan, but i have some friends who have visited it (either for business or just tourism) and, by what they told me, they confirm your experiance: huge number of people working in jobs that many Westerners may think that exist just as a justification for employing unskilled people who otherwise they will be unemployed, in a "Japanese style strange Socialism". But i can't call those jobs "pointless", because this situation is compatible with the Japanese culture in my opinion. For example: a person (usually of old age) inside a restaurant's toilet cleaning it after every use and offering some cologne is quite "Japanese" - as "the store greeter" you mentioned is, which is also something coming from their culture. This does not mean that what you describe is not a reality, it just means that "Luddites" can relax: there are plenty of usefull jobs for unskilled/unemployed people ("usefulness" depending on cultural criteria) - of course it is better to do it as the Japanese do it, NOT as Sosialists/Communists would like.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:Japanese Paradox by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that Japan's real interest in robotic workers is driven by how top-heavy their age distribution is.

      If you have a relatively low birthrate(and Japan very much does, even by the standards of the developed world generally), you pretty much have the option of learning to like at least one flavor of immigrant from a country you can afford, or building a robot capable of wiping your ass and flipping you over often enough to prevent bedsores; because the day is approaching where you won't be able to do either of those things for yourself; and your death is going to be slightly sooner and a lot less fun if nobody is around to do that.

      If you have a more even age distribution, or a fairly high fertility rate and a bottom-heavy demographic, there still may be an economic case for robots; but it's a much more purely economic matter.

    7. Re:Japanese Paradox by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The effect on high-skill jobs(tech and others) will presumably also depend fairly heavily on the indirect effects of the displacements elsewhere in the labor market; as well as any direct automation of former jobs.

      Even if, for simplicity, we assume zero replacement of programmers and EEs and such by robots and expert systems, we still have the question of 'what will all the incrementally less skilled workers(and those who would have trained to become their successors) do because robots threaten their jobs?'

      When nobody needs screwdriver monkeys, because all consumer hardware is assembled by robots and thrown away when broken; and all enterprise hardware is assembled by robots, installed in the datacenter by robots, and thrown away when broken; the screwdriver monkeys will be forced to either leave the market or break into doing software support, low level desktop admin, or the like. If 'cloud' and/or well sandboxed devices that can be wiped if anything unexpected happens and re-provisioned just by bumping them against an employee's RFID badge kill off the low end admins and the support people, they'll be forced to either leave or start knocking higher up the food chain. And so on, all the way up.

      Obviously, some people are where they are because they've already hit the limits of their competence or the education they are in a position to accrue. What will happen to them is...unclear...but they won't be moving up. Anyone who was merely unambitious, or otherwise has a shot at moving up will take it; because that's now their only option. This will obviously have an effect on those already further up the chain. Unless they are, in fact, just that amazing; their wages and/or working conditions are going to reflect the number of hungry candidates coming from below(if any advances come along that happen to make their jobs somewhat easier; but not automate them, this effect will be even more pronounced).

    8. Re:Japanese Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I discussed this with a Japanese person who commented that there is a shortage of work for unskilled workers, so they basically make up these jobs so that everyone can be employed.

      Wow, it's almost like the Japanese understand that if people don't have money to buy stuff, economies don't function. Too bad our fearless leaders here in the USA either don't get it or don't care

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no shortage of EEs, programmers or any other highly skilled workers. The IEEE published a paper in 2013 on the unemployment rate of EEs.

        There is this mythology of shortages and those out of work just don't have the skills. Of course, what skills are missing is never mentioned - that's what liars do.

      So, please stop spreading the lie that there are shortages of skilled workers.

    10. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, the Western world counted success as having people to serve you. Maids, cooks, valets, gardeners, chauffeurs, shoe-shiners, etc.

      That changed, ironically because of prosperity. Being a server rather than being served wasn't given honor, and factories gave at least the illusion that one was independent in addition to better pay.

      But a lot of the prosperity has proven illusionary. We emphasize saving money over being served. So it's self-serve this, and self-serve that and please-stay-on-the-line/press 1 if you are-an-existing-customer instead of having people around to take the rough edges off our lives.

      It's kind of like taxes. If you have aspirations of being prosperous, you complain about them. But if you're really prosperous, it's mostly for form, since you can afford to shift things around to your benefit or even outright buy tax breaks. It's only the wannabes who really get burned when taxes go up.

      Likewise, if you you have enough money your time and comfort rule your life unless money is all you live for. You look for value, not the Low Price Always, and you can afford to pass on the self-service when it suits you.

      If you cannot afford to have others serve you whenever you wish, you're not truly wealthy and no amount of self-service is likely to get you there.

      So perhaps in their own way, the Japanese are wealthier than we are.

    11. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "That is ultimately the problem I have with how these robots fit into our existing economic system"

      Yep that's the crux of it. The money system can't work without scarcity, and it can't work if people don't work, as long as people are expected to be employed or somehow earning money for the right to live. In other words it's incompatible with abundance and efficiency.

    12. Re:Japanese Paradox by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Too bad our fearless leaders here in the USA either don't get it or don't care

      What the GPP is describing in Japan, is a bottom-up phenomenon, not something driven by "leaders".

      Assuming that the "fearless leaders" in the USA did "get it", what would you have them do? Require employers to create busy-work jobs? Many countries around the world already do that, leading to stagnant economies, and, paradoxically, higher unemployment.

    13. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money system can't work without scarcity, and it can't work if people don't work, as long as people are expected to be employed or somehow earning money for the right to live. In other words it's incompatible with abundance and efficiency.

      That's correct; but the system we have now is already broken. Because the original system of money used things like gold and silver, which were themselves relatively scarce, which is why they made a good symbolic representation of work and/or knowledge of people, which was also scarce.

      But now our "money" isn't a scarce good, it's unlimited paper and computer bits. It's far easier to produce and manipulate paper and bits, which is why the financial segments of our economies now dominate not just economic life, but political and social life as well.

      So ironically, using robotics and other technologies to bring far more abundance and efficiency in the real physical world might re-balance it with the current abundance and efficiency in our almost virtualized money system. Of course, that will led to a need to decide how resources will now be distributed to humans when the humans don't need to "earn" access to resources via "work", because there's no longer a need for them to do much "work". I suspect it will result in a civilizational change on the same level as the introduction of agriculture -- it isn't just changing the rules of the game, it changes what game we'll be playing.

    14. Re:Japanese Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What the GPP is describing in Japan, is a bottom-up phenomenon, not something driven by "leaders".

      It can't be, because the people with the money are the ones who can pay the wages, and also the ones who really run nations.

      Assuming that the "fearless leaders" in the USA did "get it", what would you have them do? Require employers to create busy-work jobs?

      Well first, I'd shitcan the H1-B program completely, and fire everyone involved in it. Then I'd start up a new program, and I'd ask labor advocates how to prevent it from becoming a clusterfuck again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Japanese Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      humans don't need to "earn" access to resources via "work" can alleys let the state cover that and in the eyes of the GOP they don't want to pay for that so they let the jail / prison systems pick up the slack at a higher cost then just paying for it up front. Same thing with the ER people just show up and don't pay the bill for some that is there only doctor and for the stuff the ER does not cover the jail / prison system does pick up the slack.

    16. Re:Japanese Paradox by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yes, great analysis.

      I assume the driving of labor "coming from below" and "knocking higher up the food chain" along with more and more labor from anywhere in the world will increasingly drive down labor costs(wages).

      Would that mean that those in IT will have to work harder for less, with more competition?

      The real questions(expertly avoided in the media) are these:
      How will society "deal with"(manage) the millions of unemployed as these changes wrought by robots and expert systems happen?
      How will "the market" deal with millions of consumers that no longer have the income to maintain the consumer spending driven economy?
      How will governments(especially in the First World) maintain control when millions of their citizens are idle, with little or no prospects for employment and little or no disposable income.

      Sure, we can assume the solutions such as a minimum income could alleviate such problems, but in a country like the USofA, with a polarized political scene, will anything like that ever happen?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    17. Re:Japanese Paradox by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      If you look at Obamas position on the TPP, you can see who has the most influence over our fearless leaders.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    18. Re:Japanese Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you look at Obamas position on the TPP, you can see who has the most influence over our fearless leaders.

      ITYM "you can see who the real leaders are". Obama's a follower, he does as he's told, like any other President since JFK.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Japanese Paradox by michalk · · Score: 1

      I don't completely agree. I just finished "The Lights in The Tunnel", and previously read "Manna." http://www.thelightsinthetunne... http://marshallbrain.com/manna... The problem is how do we maintain consumption of goods and services in a society where working is optional? I would love to be in the ideal society, where I'm given an "allowance", and allowed to create the things that I want to create that bring additional income. I'm Libertarian at heart, but I don't see how capitalism is going to solve this problem. We are already seeing erosion of unskilled jobs, so wealth concentration will push us towards looking a lot more like a third world country in terms of a poverty analysis. I'm too optimistic in my hope that idle people would do good with their spare time. As I get older, I find myself wanting to branch out into more engineering projects, but I'm sure I'm in a very small minority. Without any structure, I bet a huge portion of our population checks out, going to a perpetual drug induced stupor.

    20. Re:Japanese Paradox by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Seems like we should start paying kids to break store windows so that more glaziers can be employed, and more repairmen, and so on through the economy.

    21. Re:Japanese Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, we have three options. We can kill off the people with no jobs, we can institute an MGI, or we can create make-work for them. Since our society has decided that everyone must have a whip cracked over them until some blood has been squeezed out of their turnips, where's the jobs?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Japanese Paradox by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 1

      I think eventually, the developed world will have to take a good look at redesigning our civil payment models, when low skilled (or just manual work in general) is increasingly being pulled away by much more profitable machine workers. We have welfare, but the stigma attached to it is becoming more and more undue, as more types of work that's being taken away overseas and by robots.
      I know companies want to have their cake and devour it all in the same sitting; paying for amazingly cheap labor while offering as little as possible back to the populations which purchase their goods and help maintain their businesses. That's the corporate mindset at work. Share holders, savings, and CEO's come first and foremost in most major decisions.
      But this sort of thinking isn't sustainable, at least not in regards to the poorest among us (and not just the poorest 10%, as more jobs are being harder to apply for, the percentage could get very high). Hopefully it won't come to some kind of new revolution, bloodshed and setting back standards of living for a while. But something will have to change, if they don't begin making up new sorts of "busywork" jobs like you say they do in Japan. Either way, it will probably take government intervening, I find it amazingly unlikely that every corporation will willingly adhere to a "pay workers for essentially doing nothing" regimen, as that offers them little direct, short term profits at all, which is exactly what most of them want.

      I think the question of how to supply livable salaries to the majority of the populace will become an interesting arena to watch, going forward. Will an increasing number of people be demonized as filthy freeloaders as they have been, creating severe class conflicts? Will people just be left to starve because of lacking welfare funds? I hope it doesn't come to that. It could be really ugly, especially with the number of gun owners in the poorest parts of the nation.

    23. Re:Japanese Paradox by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you are assuming that you can have an economy just by shuffling money around, whereas I had always understood it revolved around the creation (not destruction!) of value.

    24. Re:Japanese Paradox by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      The scenario you're talking about is a short term scenario. Yes, robots are taking over the unskilled labor jobs... mainly because unskilled labor cannot keep up with the manufacturing demand. Look at Foxconn, they can't keep up with the manufacturing of iPhones. They have to automate, much like P&G did for toothpaste and quaker oats. The automation will make the quality issue moot and keep costs & demand manageable.

      As robotic automation gets more refined from this (and it will), that's the time we need to find how to get the unskilled labor workforce... trained for higher skilled jobs. And the bar is essentially raised. It's all about buying time.

      Moving unskilled labor into skilled labor jobs and such doesn't happen overnight. Hence, the real problem is those that fall through the cracks in the short term (some go back to school and make out OK)--so, how do we either move them out of obsolescence faster or re-engineer their job faster to maintain their work value? In the old days of unions it was either yearly OTJ (which companies don't provide anymore) or strong arm protection (to the point of being freeloaders) aside from basic education. None of that 'really' exists today as it's a entrepreneurial free for fall. Maybe online education/MOGs will be a key, but the clock is ticking and people are getting left behind.

    25. Re:Japanese Paradox by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you are assuming that you can have an economy just by shuffling money around, whereas I had always understood it revolved around the creation (not destruction!) of value.

      It's a nice idea, but it stops working when you don't shuffle the money around, so economics is as much about shuffling money around as it is about anything else. Trickle-down economics doesn't work because money doesn't move; it tends to concentrate. But when it does that, the system reaches a point of stasis; if you don't spend the money, then nobody can use it to do anything. That's why we call it currency. It only works when flowing.

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

      I'm the Anon Coward in the grandparent post. "I'm Libertarian at heart, but I don't see how capitalism is going to solve this problem." I don't think it will, that's what I'm saying. Capitalism is incompatible with the abundance and efficiency that high technology can bring. "I'm too optimistic in my hope that idle people would do good with their spare time." I don't think so. "Without any structure, I bet a huge portion of our population checks out, going to a perpetual drug induced stupor." Based on what?

    27. Re:Japanese Paradox by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If this were true, then you could stimulate the economy by giving everyone a $10 tax break on the condition that they give that money to someone else.

      The only way it works, is if rather than giving the money, they use it to purchase some good or service-- that is, value added to the economy. Simply moving money around doesnt cut it, there has to be something that you're exchanging the money for.

      Otherwise, we would have our ditch diggers use spoons, and have workmen build highrises without the assistance of cranes. Sure, it would take them forever to put a building up, but think of the employment opportunities! Except that the actual goods produced by our economy would drastically fall if we approached industry in this way and we would cease to be economically competitive with other countries.

    28. Re:Japanese Paradox by KillAllNazis · · Score: 1

      Interesting lecture about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFK0NhMVws