Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robots in Warehouses To Jump 15X Over Next 4 Years (techrepublic.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

The worldwide warehouse and logistics robot unit shipments will increase from 40,000 robots in 2016 to 620,000 robots annually by 2021, according to highly reliable numbers from Tractica, which adds that the $1.9 billion market in 2016 is expected to jump a staggering tenfold to an annual $22.4 billion by the end of 2021. From a report on TechRepublic: As a measure of global market value, Tractica also expects the robotic shipments to reach $22.4 billion by the end of 2021, up from an estimated $1.9 billion in 2016. The report, which highlights market drivers and challenges, profiles 75 "emerging industry players," and is divided into sections based on robot type. According to the report, "warehousing and logistics industries are looking for robotics solutions, more than ever before, to remain globally competitive," which will "lead to widespread acceptance and presence of robots in warehouses and logistics operations." To allay fears about lost jobs due to automation, the report authors said they expect that the increase in robots will likely yield new jobs and opportunities for businesses. "The next 5 years will be a period of significant innovation in the space, bringing significant opportunities for established industry players and startups alike," said Manoj Sahi, a research analyst, in the report.

79 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Big deal by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    Only 15 times? I can jump even more than that in four years.

    1. Re:Big deal by khr · · Score: 2

      Only 15 times? I can jump even more than that in four years.

      Yes, but will you?

  2. All at once? by CryptDemon · · Score: 1

    Anyone read the title and think of robots jumping in the air all at once?

    1. Re:All at once? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      I did, then I calculated that the robots would jump 3.75 times per year.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:All at once? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's a team building exercise. Should be more coordinated with robots involved.

  3. Re:The robots themselves? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think they mean the robots will be able to jump 15x higher. It's probably to reach the higher shelves of the warehouses.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  4. Highly reliable numbers? by Nunya666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TFS mentions "highly reliable numbers." Since only an HR department would use that terminology, the entire article is assumed to be B.S.

    Next story, please.

    1. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work with Order Management and Warehouse Management Systems.

      The automation taking place is tremendous. The need for people is dropping fast. I would not be surprised to see a 90%+ drop in human labor. I'm aware of new warehouses opening with 60 people whereas the warehouses they replaced had 180 workers and handled half the inventory and half the volume.

      Conversations I've had leave me thinking that in a few years, when the warehouse expands (to more than twice the current size) they will not need to add more workers.

      In the immediate future (the 3-5 year range) we're seeing warehouses handling 4x the volume with 1/3 the human labor).

      So the warehouses of yesteryear would have needed 180(4) = 720 workers now only need 60 people.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly a little surprised that it didn't happen sooner. When I was a kid I got to tour a printing press for a newspaper. The bulk of the heavy lifting was done with robotic carts that would automatically go retrieve fresh rolls of paper based on the consumption rate as the newspapers were printed. The robots were able to retrieve rolls from the paper room without those rolls having to be specifically stacked, the robot could find the paper and could mount it onto the special cradle/cart and take it to the printing room, and then with only slight human involvement, mount the roll on the printer.

      As specialized as that work is, re-sorting items in a warehouse that are initially sorted into appropriate-sized bins seems like a no-brainer. Worst-case a human has to manually load the bins and then put them onto a conveyor-belt system that finds storage space and parks them, and then when a human fulfills an order the same machine retrieves the correct bins so that the picker can grab what's needed and sort into boxes. In a more highly automated scenario the common bulk items are sorted into bins by machine with only human supervision over multiple simultaneous sorting operations, and even most of the retrieval and picking for shipment is automated and multiple packing operations are simultaneously supervised or spot-checked to ensure that they're fulfilled properly.

      Either way, if humans don't need to go into the warehouse storage area then that storage area can be designed with much narrower aisles and much less lighting. It still may be necessary to conduct manual audits of merchandise and obviously maintenance and reconfiguration must be allowed for, but if a warehouse has to shut down quarterly for a day for those tasks then that may still allow for proper worker safety while still making the place run much more efficiently and without as much problem with employee theft or injury.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      If your product is in stackable containers, you can put them on standard skids and have a robot load them into standard racks. You can go one further and stack product on skids so it is both stable and individual units can be removed by robots.

      Orders can be picked by robots, stacked by robots, wrapped by robots. I'm not sure we're ready for loading onto trucks by robots (things just get too messy dealing with LTL when you don't know what's already in the truck).

      Still, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a fairly large robot with one guy who resolves issues the robots can't, maybe loads supplies into label printers and drives a small forklift to load skids into trucks.

      You'd probably want to hire two for safety reasons.

      When I was working in warehousing decades ago, the forklifts were already partially automated, as were the packaging, ordering, labelling, and even the delivery truck selection systems. The humans were mostly there to sweep the floors, package up less-than-carton amounts of product, apply shipping labels, and load/unload trucks.

    4. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      As specialized as that work is, re-sorting items in a warehouse that are initially sorted into appropriate-sized bins seems like a no-brainer. Worst-case a human has to manually load the bins and then put them onto a conveyor-belt system that finds storage space and parks them, and then when a human fulfills an order the same machine retrieves the correct bins so that the picker can grab what's needed and sort into boxes. In a more highly automated scenario the common bulk items are sorted into bins by machine with only human supervision over multiple simultaneous sorting operations, and even most of the retrieval and picking for shipment is automated and multiple packing operations are simultaneously supervised or spot-checked to ensure that they're fulfilled properly.

      Either way, if humans don't need to go into the warehouse storage area then that storage area can be designed with much narrower aisles and much less lighting. It still may be necessary to conduct manual audits of merchandise and obviously maintenance and reconfiguration must be allowed for, but if a warehouse has to shut down quarterly for a day for those tasks then that may still allow for proper worker safety while still making the place run much more efficiently and without as much problem with employee theft or injury.

      Actually, the whole storage is treated as a managed unit. Not only are the shelves narrower (you only need enough space for the bin of products and the picker robot that pulls the bins and brings them out), but they're a lot taller as well. A human powered warehouse has a height limitation because they can only reach so high up. A robotic one can be easily a few storeys high thus making extensive use of the space.

      And there's a "cache" area that holds bins that have popular product so it doesn't have to be fetched from the main storage area all the time.

      In fact, it's all computer controlled. When new product comes in, the receiver tells the computer to send them an empty bin (they all have IDs), and the receiver simply loads the bin up with product, scanning them as they're put on the bin. Once done, the computer moves the bin into the storage area and manages where it'll put the items. All that needs to be done is someone telling the computer what product is being put in and the computer manages it from there.

      This also means the storage is organized somewhat randomly - since the computer knows where all the bins are (and thus, where products are) it doesn't have to arrange the stock by any particular system. In fact, it probably does it by popularity - the more popular items are in locations that can be retrieved quickly while least popular items will require more time to fetch.

      And it's all dynamic.

    5. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the late 80's to early 90's I worked for a company that automated Microfiche retrieval. I went on an install of our software at a credit card company that had 40+ microfiche stations and near 40 people per 8 hour shift that would retrieve a single film from a storage room, look up the credit card statement, hit the print button, and take the printout to a single station for one person to fax out on the 5 different fax machines and return the film in the process.

      We would train people 20 at the time explaining that we were not replacing jobs. But, we were secretly placing bets on the 2 people per shift out of the 40 that were going to be kept.

      The hardware was new Kodak automated microfiche retrievers. Our software, queued up the requests, so a single roll of film could print out at least 10 statements at a time. That film would be delivered to floor by one person along with a piece of paper of which machine of the 5 it would go in. Once the correct film was inserted to the correct machine out software would do the look up and print out the statements. Only two people were required to keep the 5 machines running for an 8 hour shift.

      There were a lot of angry people back then. But, it didn't matter, by 1994 HP released a CD carousel that held 600 CD's and put the entire microfiche market out of business. Our software matured to do the retrieval from the carousel and even automated the faxing.

      I left the company after that and I believe it was only another 4 years after that the company went out of business do to the harddrive becoming cheap and online internet access.

      Those people found other jobs and so did I.

      Cest La Vie.

    6. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Heh. I would like to see a defrag process run upon such a warehouse. I expect it would look something like playing Freecell...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      As specialized as that work is, re-sorting items in a warehouse that are initially sorted into appropriate-sized bins seems like a no-brainer. Worst-case a human has to manually load the bins and then put them onto a conveyor-belt system that finds storage space and parks them, and then when a human fulfills an order the same machine retrieves the correct bins so that the picker can grab what's needed and sort into boxes. In a more highly automated scenario the common bulk items are sorted into bins by machine with only human supervision over multiple simultaneous sorting operations, and even most of the retrieval and picking for shipment is automated and multiple packing operations are simultaneously supervised or spot-checked to ensure that they're fulfilled properly.

      Either way, if humans don't need to go into the warehouse storage area then that storage area can be designed with much narrower aisles and much less lighting. It still may be necessary to conduct manual audits of merchandise and obviously maintenance and reconfiguration must be allowed for, but if a warehouse has to shut down quarterly for a day for those tasks then that may still allow for proper worker safety while still making the place run much more efficiently and without as much problem with employee theft or injury.

      Actually, the whole storage is treated as a managed unit. Not only are the shelves narrower (you only need enough space for the bin of products and the picker robot that pulls the bins and brings them out), but they're a lot taller as well. A human powered warehouse has a height limitation because they can only reach so high up. A robotic one can be easily a few storeys high thus making extensive use of the space.

      And there's a "cache" area that holds bins that have popular product so it doesn't have to be fetched from the main storage area all the time.

      In fact, it's all computer controlled. When new product comes in, the receiver tells the computer to send them an empty bin (they all have IDs), and the receiver simply loads the bin up with product, scanning them as they're put on the bin. Once done, the computer moves the bin into the storage area and manages where it'll put the items. All that needs to be done is someone telling the computer what product is being put in and the computer manages it from there.

      This also means the storage is organized somewhat randomly - since the computer knows where all the bins are (and thus, where products are) it doesn't have to arrange the stock by any particular system. In fact, it probably does it by popularity - the more popular items are in locations that can be retrieved quickly while least popular items will require more time to fetch.

      And it's all dynamic.

      So... if the whole thing crashed and the inventory is randomized and unreachable during Christmas time... that would suck.... I can hear it now, "Has anyone found the PS5 bin yet??"

    8. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      For a warehouse like this, "defragmenting" really wouldn't have a meaning.

      In a spinning drive filesystem, locating all the consecutive blocks of a file adjacent to each other can give a performance advantage for reads and possibly writes as the head doesn't have to move for each sector. It's already basically where it needs to be.

      For a warehouse, part 123 doesn't need to be next to 124. The only advantage to having them next to each other is for a human to quickly be able to locate it. A computerized warehouse would already know the location.

      There could be some optimization for putting often needed parts closer to the delivery point so that the trip time isn't as long. But optimization != defragmentation.

      SSD drives would be a better example of a warehouse. Just store the item, whether it's a block of data or an inventory item, wherever space is available. As long as you know where it's located, you don't have to worry about periodically defragging or consolidating space.

    9. Re:Highly reliable numbers? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Heh. I would like to see a defrag process run upon such a warehouse. I expect it would look something like playing Freecell...

      I think actually we're looking at the physical equivalent of a hashtable, With probably MRU pre-fetch on the "cache" storage area.

  5. Where's the work! by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Between sending out jobs overseas. Even the expensive high-end ones. And robotics. Tell me.. Where are people to earn money?? ..Will they get a job as "oilers" for robots?? sarcasm.

    1. Re:Where's the work! by jiriw · · Score: 1

      It (work) / They (jobs) will be gone. And that should not be a thing to worry about as long as the right politicians are voted into office. Currently governments apply taxes mostly on work and money spent. When those are no longer viable options they'll have to tax something else to keep the nation running. Production and property. Or they'll have to (shudder) privatize. They'll need to distribute enough wealth or risk anarchy. Whether they take the 'left' or the 'right' road.

      Those with creative ideas and the will to execute them will still earn. Those depending on cheap/manual/easily replaceable labor are better off -not- breaking their backs and have a nice walk through the park (or 'couch potato' some torrents) instead. Talking about breaking backs, as that's a health risk an employer has to insure against, I foresee such workers in the future becoming a liability even if they offer their services for free. Robot labor will eventually become cheaper than human labor offered voluntarily and 'without cost', unless, as a society, we accept people being worked to death.

      That's why lowering the minimum wage is a dead-end road. Whether you're a 'commie' or a 'capitalist', or anything in between, changing the minimum wage to anything other than 'if you work for reasonable hours/week you can live off of that, have some small luxuries and support a modes family', will do more harm than good. When minimum wage is too low, you'll have people starving and not enough consumption to keep the economy going. When minimum wage is too high, people working above and beyond what's normal (those that used to earn a higher wage) will stop putting in effort to keep progress going because they can 'earn' the same 'doing nothing'.
      As such, minimum wage is not and should never be meant to indicate the value of the lowest paying jobs employers are willing to not automate/offshore away. Because that will lead to distopia. It's an indication of what we, as society, think a human being should earn at least (and thus be able to consume in equal value), as a member of that same society. Whether the job is adding that value to society or not.

      I foresee a lot of new hobbies in the not too distant future, manual labor being one of them. Maybe some of them will even become sports, so the really talented can earn money going that route. The others will be glad 'modern' humans will never have to do that anymore.

      Who wants to manually wave cloth, pull a plough, delve coal using only a pick-ax or even operate a switchboard... or any of the other jobs that have disappeared because mechanical/automated labor is lots and lots cheaper than paying some human workers a decent wage?

    2. Re:Where's the work! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There won't be hobbies in the future if there is no money to fund them.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Where's the work! by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Congratulations jiriw! You are one of the people here who actually think things through. Let me add a bit to what you have said: Hand made things might be a novelty and go for a price. Working with cloth and making a fashion statement with a dress could be a possibility. Also unique pottery designs. Knitting special sweaters. Paintings? And some people are born do-it-yourselfers; they won't mind tilling out in the hot sun to raise some tomatoes or flower groups. How about a person who is good at making mechanical or scientific things. They are now free to go for it! Real, honest genetic improvements? Who knows? Maybe they might succeed in making something the world has never seen or had to enjoy..... But one thing I fear. There are people out there with twisted minds that think a robots job is to keep someone miserable and down. Ever hear a very wealthy individual with good things to say about their fellow "man"? Very few Philanthropists at that financial level - But some people of true intelligence and humanitarians of high financial status like Elon Musk give us hope.

    4. Re:Where's the work! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I foresee a lot of new hobbies in the not too distant future, manual labor being one of them. Maybe some of them will even become sports, so the really talented can earn money going that route. The others will be glad 'modern' humans will never have to do that anymore.

      But manual labor involves risk of injury, you mentioned earlier that due to this risk employers wouldn't even hire people willing to work for free.
      And hobbies require money. They just do. If there are no jobs, then you can't even afford housing, much less hobbies. We'd have to actually attain the mythical/utopian post-money Star Trek society. It was possible in the Star Trek universe due to energy sources that provided basically unlimited resources. In our case though, it'd be the opposite -- without any jobs, the vast masses would need to be able to live a relatively comfortable, money-less existence, otherwise they'll be revolution.

    5. Re:Where's the work! by ranton · · Score: 1

      That's why lowering the minimum wage is a dead-end road. Whether you're a 'commie' or a 'capitalist', or anything in between, changing the minimum wage to anything other than 'if you work for reasonable hours/week you can live off of that, have some small luxuries and support a modes family', will do more harm than good. When minimum wage is too low, you'll have people starving and not enough consumption to keep the economy going. When minimum wage is too high, people working above and beyond what's normal (those that used to earn a higher wage) will stop putting in effort to keep progress going because they can 'earn' the same 'doing nothing'.

      This analysis does not take into account the possibility of the creation of a basic income provided for all adults / households. If work is not necessary to provide a "living wage" then there wouldn't need to be an artificial floor for wages offered by employers. As long as the basic income provides a living wage that is.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Where's the work! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If you tax property, that means that people who pay those property taxes have to have jobs to pay them. Without those jobs, they can't pay their property taxes. So, out on the street.

      Now, if instead you want to tax non-real-estate property, again people have to have jobs to have money to pay those taxes. Same as they have to have jobs to pay sales and consumption taxes.

      The alternative is to tax production directly - a manufacturer's sales tax. And for those companies that try to dodge it by moving operations to where the tax rate is lower, an import tax that makes it cheaper to pay the manufacturer's tax.

      The money from that tax can help pay the basic income for those who don't have jobs. Either you use production taxes to subsidize consumption, or you have less consumption, and higher per-unit costs.

      You miss the point with your dream world - people work so they can have food to eat, a roof over their head, and clothes on their back - not to entertain themselves. If they don't have a way to buy that food to eat, roof over their head, and clothes on their back, they riot or die. You haven't specified HOW - except with a bit of hand-waving - "they'll have to tax something else to keep the nation running." The devil is in the details, and your story line lacks them.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Where's the work! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You talk like a proletarian.

      If I own Mar-a-Lago, do I have to work to pay the property tax? Of course not! I put up a Trump resort, charge $200K a head membership and presto! Other people end up paying my taxes for me.

      Proles work because that's the only way they can earn enough to pay for their essentials, much less their toys.

      Real 1-percenters don't work to pay for things, they work because they are using money as a score-keeping system relative to their fellow 1-percenters. Or they don't work and live off rents, dividends, interest and other non-work sources of income.

      That's what "working class" really means. Working-class people have to work, or they don't earn enough to live, blue collar, white collar, whatever. If you are truly wealthy you don't need to obtain income from your work, you can get it from someone else's work. And I can tell you from experience, you'll earn a lot more that way than you will just from working hard yourself.

      And here's the thing. It doesn't matter to me whether my non-work income comes from sweat labor, talent, financial instruments or robots. The money is the same regardless.

    8. Re:Where's the work! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Except that if nobody but the 0.01% has money, money becomes useless. People will find something else - we always do. Usually that also involves violence. This time around, it may be simpler to just hack into the banks and redistribute the 0.01%'s funds.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Where's the work! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Well, the stock Libertarian/Conservative view is "go make yourself a job, you lazy bums"!

      The pollyanna view is that "if you automate farms, people will flood to the factories". "If you automate the factories, they'll learn to program". "If you automate (or outsource) programming they'll (mumble, mumble)", because things always work out in this Best of all Possible Worlds.

      Which smacks of supply-side economics plus expecting a long lucky streak to continue forever. And, someone who's more up on the history can correct me, but I'm suspecting that a lot of the farm automation came because - as in modern-day China - people fled the farms because factories opened up and hired at better wages than farm work. Certainly in the modern USA, farms are more likely to be run by large corporations who have the capital to buy expensive equipment that few individual farmers ever could afford.

      Hacking into the banks is really no different than taxation. Either way, in the eyes of the fat cats, you're "stealing" "their" money.

      The solution? Don't look at me. The only thing I'm reasonably sure if is that the times are changing and we need to stop thinking that many of the precepts we've been using to underpin our economy are Eternal Truths applicable to all times, all places, and all circumstances. Only when we refuse to blinker ourselves with dogmatism will we be free to find a solution that actually works.

  6. You mean people used to do that shit, grampa? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    One more low-pay, dangerous, non-unionized job the angry left won't have to finger their worry beads over.

    And now, the hand is quicker than the eye. Watch below!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. Automation has a purpose. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...To allay fears about lost jobs due to automation, the report authors said they expect that the increase in robots will likely yield new jobs and opportunities for businesses."

    What utter bullshit. There's a reason companies are looking to replace humans with robots, so let's dispel with the illusions about how robots will somehow not impact the job market.

    Jobs will ultimately be lost to automation. It's kind of the entire fucking point.

    1. Re:Automation has a purpose. by chubs · · Score: 1

      Jobs will temporarily be lost to automation. We've been automating people out of work for a very, very long time. Farm equipment automated farm hands out of work. They found jobs in manufacturing. Software automated a lot of secretarial positions and other white collar positions out of work, but that same software led to a new industry that employs a massive number of people in higher paying jobs. When you automate people out of a job, you temporarily displace them. However, that frees up a lot of capital. And, before you say that the rich greedy people at the top will just pocket all that money, remember that they are rich and greedy and want even more money, so they'll take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people. I know that sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics (probably because it is), but I for one don't begrudge the technological advances of the past that, while temporarily painful, have in the end made everyone's lives better (bringing down food prices, employing most of the readership of slashdot, etc).

    2. Re:Automation has a purpose. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...When you automate people out of a job, you temporarily displace them. However, that frees up a lot of capital. And, before you say that the rich greedy people at the top will just pocket all that money, remember that they are rich and greedy and want even more money, so they'll take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people.

      Well that's a cute fairy tale version of the future. Now let me enlighten you to the reality of today.

      The chasm between the rich greedy people at the top and the other 99.9% of the planet isn't shrinking.

      The automation of yesteryear still left the door open to educating a human, to allow displaced workers to move on to find employment in another field. Automation and AI is now targeting educated jobs, so this next iteration of automation will not be temporary by any means. When most education becomes irrelevant due to the utter lack of employment opportunities, society will start to question the purpose of wasting time or money on higher education, which we are already facing those concerns today, as graduates struggle to escape the "gig" economy to try and find a career.

      Even if automation only removed the lowly jobs out there, it's replacing the employment opportunities that allow humans to climb the proverbial ladder. When you remove the 10 lowest rungs on the ladder of success, tends to make it impossible to climb.

      The rich and greedy may start new businesses, but those businesses will employ automation and AI in order to remain competitive.

      And much like TFS implies, this is going to happen much faster than anyone thinks.

    3. Re:Automation has a purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "so they'll take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people"

      No, they'll throw it in the stock market and/or embezzle it. Starting large businesses that employ lots of people isn't worth the risk anymore.

    4. Re:Automation has a purpose. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chasm between the rich greedy people at the top and the other 99.9% of the planet isn't shrinking.

      Actually ... it is shrinking. Over the last two decades the people that have done the best are the extremely poor: factory workers in Guangzhou, seamstresses in Bangladesh, coffee farmers in Tanzania. It is "poor people in rich countries" have been the losers, but those people aren't really poor. They are in the 85-95% range, so actually relatively rich by world standards.

    5. Re:Automation has a purpose. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      If poor people in rich countries are losing, then so also should rich people in rick countries. It's great that the world is getting better and all, but it shouldn't be by the sacrifice of one specific demographic.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Automation has a purpose. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chasm between the rich greedy people at the top and the other 99.9% of the planet isn't shrinking.

      Actually ... it is shrinking. Over the last two decades the people that have done the best are the extremely poor: factory workers in Guangzhou, seamstresses in Bangladesh, coffee farmers in Tanzania. It is "poor people in rich countries" have been the losers, but those people aren't really poor. They are in the 85-95% range, so actually relatively rich by world standards.

      In 2010, it took 388 people to represent the wealthy elite who owned as much as half of the global population. In 2016, it took only 62.

      In 2015, a new metric was born by the top 1% who owned more than the rest of the world combined.

      I have no idea what metrics you're looking at, but that chasm between the wealthy elite and the rest of us is not shrinking. It's also not displaced by trying to marginalize how some in extreme poverty are now doing "better" by jumping up to mild poverty. Slight improvements are not going to do a damn thing to prevent the inevitable, which is going to be a massive shift in world standards through automation and AI. Once that happens, Welfare 2.0 (UBI) will define the standard poverty line for all.

    7. Re:Automation has a purpose. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Jobs will temporarily be lost to automation. We've been automating people out of work for a very, very long time

      We're very good at cutting costs through automation, but we're extremely bad at creating those new jobs. Instead, larger and larger percentages of those gains have gone to the top.

      And, before you say that the rich greedy people at the top will just pocket all that money, remember that they are rich and greedy and want even more money, so they'll take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people. I know that sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics (probably because it is) [...]

      I know that's wonderful business school theory, but we have thirty-plus years of proof that Trickle Down Economics is bullshit, a self-serving argument to fleece the population while convincing them that the fleecing is good, and that someday, yes someday they'll benefit.

    8. Re:Automation has a purpose. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Even to the degree you are correct, you are ignoring the time it takes.

      Many of the luddites died of starvation and exposure. They were correct about how bad automation would be. Owners would not train them on the new equipment.

      It was the generation AFTER them who did okay in factories.

      It could be 10 to 40 years before we adapt to the automation and people are employed again. That's going to indicate a period of civil unrest and violence. And that's EVEN if you give them money to survive. Many people without meaningful tasks turn to bad things- they don't just sit and consume the entertainment and free food as you'd logically expect.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:Automation has a purpose. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

      Cute, and entirely misses the point as so many popular anecdotes do.

      I think we can take it for granted that the canal was actually needed, otherwise there would have been another team down the line filling it back in again. And I think it's probable that there weren't so many people in need of employment that they had to resort to absurdly inefficient processes.

      And finally, earth-moving equipment is expensive and requires specialized parts and maintenance. In some Asian (and for that matter non-Asian) countries, it might have actually been more cost-effective to do things by hand. How many $2/day workers can you hire for the price of a Caterpillar backhoe, driver, and mechanic? Not to mention the price of fuel and lubricants and a transport to get it to/from the job site?

      Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.

      Teach a man to fish and he could starve before sundown because knowing how to fish is useless when the only lake belongs to some bastard who demands more than you can afford just to use the lake. And owns the local bait and tackle shop, the dock, and the boats. Not to mention the local government that sells fishing permits.

    10. Re:Automation has a purpose. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "remember that they are rich and greedy and want even more money, so they'll take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people"

      You have assumed that rich and greedy people who want more money understand that "take that money and start new businesses that employ lots of people" is how capitalism works.

  8. Jumpin' Jehoshaphats! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Obviously this "analyst" just saw the Boston Dynamics Handle video

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. Jumping robots in a warehouse by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a robot jumping in a warehouse : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (jumps are at the end of the video)

    1. Re:Jumping robots in a warehouse by pinzvidz · · Score: 1

      That's some Terminator shit on wheels right there!

  10. Chris Cross gonna make ya... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Chris Cross gonna make ya...

    >> Robots in Warehouses Gonna Jump , Jump

  11. Re:The robots themselves? by Rei · · Score: 1

    The coming dystopia is going to be awesome.

    --
    The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
  12. Re: Not to worry. by Falos · · Score: 1

    >not even an offset worth mentioning
    It's totally worth mentioning if you want to pretend there's hope. If you have an agenda. If you're being contradictory. If you're oblivious, naive, or have been told otherwise by someone's whose judgement you think is accurate/valued.

    We won't need three billion robot repairmen. See you all in the terrafoam.

  13. Re:The robots themselves? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    We had robots in our warehouse in 1987 - they couldn't jump, but they could reach higher than people standing on the ground.

    That "robotic" stock handling robot easily eliminated one job per shift, and it cost much less to maintain than the workman's comp insurance premium for a single employee. 30 years ago.

  14. Re:The robots themselves? by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's why modern electronics has changed, why the old beige look from the late seventies into about 2002 or so was replaced. Because white robots can't jump.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  15. Re:The robots themselves? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this was the first thing that I thought. Warehouse automation is long overdue, We had a semester design project in college to design an automated warehouse

  16. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto
    For doing the jobs nobody wants to

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  17. Re:The robots themselves? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    The NBA Players Union could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman was heard to mutter "White Bots can't jump. . . "

  18. Warning: Sarcasm Ahead! by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can put themselves out of business too!

  19. Right by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Likely need only one or two mechanics for thousands of robots

    That's probably in the ballpark. But the mechanics will be robots too.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  20. Defragging the warehouse by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I expect it would look something like playing Freecell...

    ...unless it was done by humans. Then it would look more like Minesweeper.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  21. Sounds like marketing hype by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    If you're moving full pallets of product only, a fleet of robots would probably be better. If your volumes and product sizes vary by order, humans are going to be better.

    On of our warehouses tried a robotic system to put product away and retrieve it when needed. It sucks, it's slow, it's costly, and it's always breaking down. I know technology moves at a quick pace but I haven't seen anything close to matching efficiency of a human operator.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  22. Re:The robots themselves? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    Our warehouse containerized the stock to standard tubs, it wasn't highly efficient in terms of spatial volume, but it was very well organized and mated well with the inventory database. In 1987. They can do fancier things today, 3 dimensional packing algorithms to fit different sized boxes into a bigger shipping container or truck - route planning to direct the truck packing order, etc. Still, below a certain threshold of material being handled, it's just more efficient to make a person handle it on the fly rather than plan for every contingency.

  23. New industries by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    What new industry did software create?

    o CAT scanners, MRI, etc.
    o CGI
    o DSP (you name it... SDRs, sonar and radar analysis, digital recording studios top to bottom, CD / DVD / Bluray, image processing, etc.)
    o DSLRs
    o GPS
    o Internet
    o IOT
    o Robots
    o Working spacecraft
    o Working weather prediction
    o Anything that depends on databases (almost everything)
     
    ...unless your definition of "new industry" is that "aircraft aren't a new industry because we had horses before", the list is basically endless. And if that is your definition, then we haven't had a new industry since the first time someone sharpened a rock.

    Your mistake here is conflating "new industry" with "new employees"; the latter is certainly coming to an end. And yes, the 1% will gobble up as much of the good that comes out of that as they can (likely, almost all of it.) But it doesn't mean there won't be new industries. It just means we won't be working in them.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  24. Define robot? by asc99c · · Score: 1

    I write warehouse control systems for some of the world's biggest automated warehouses. There's very little in use that meets the colloquial usage of 'robot'. The shuttle ASRS systems mentioned are machines that technically fulfil the robot criteria, but you wouldn't look at one and call it a robot. The stuff that does look like a robot, the ROI just doesn't seem to be there just yet.

    This is one area where Europe leads America still. In Europe, higher costs for land and unskilled labour mean logistics companies have been forced to automate more. ASRS solutions give much better storage density, and goods to person pick stations make much more efficient use of human labour (a person stands at a fixed station, and moves units from one box to another, the machines move all the boxes around).

    I can't quite see where mobile robots are really going to make a leap forwards in the next few years in these sorts of warehouse. A little Kiva-style robot moving a pallet round is more flexible than fixed conveyors, but doesn't add any fundamental new capabilities: AGVs have been around for at least 18 years and they haven't really caught on in a big way. And unit picking robots like that Magazino right now are too finicky, and can't keep up with a goods to person station - it's just not an efficient use of machinery.

    That will probably have changed in 10 or 20 years, but not by 2021.

    1. Re:Define robot? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Look at all the robots in car manufacturing. Just because a welding robot doesn't look like a human doesn't mean it isn't better than a human, despite the lack of mobility. And if mobility is needed, someone will build it for a price.

      Robots are showing up everywhere. They're now doing the cutting for cataract surgery because they can do it better than a trained specialist surgeon. How long before they do the rest of the surgery?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Define robot? by nasch · · Score: 1

      There's very little in use that meets the colloquial usage of 'robot'. The shuttle ASRS systems mentioned are machines that technically fulfil the robot criteria, but you wouldn't look at one and call it a robot.

      You mean android? Most robots don't look like people, if that's what you're getting at. I think people generally recognize Roombas as robots, and they're not anthropomorphic.

    3. Re: Define robot? by asc99c · · Score: 1

      What I mean by robot is a mobile machine with some sort of limb like manipulator.

      The ASRS is a fixed crane style device with vertical elevators and horizontal shuttles. A box goes in and is pushed by hydraulic arms onto elevator, onto shuttle, into storage, and the reverse sequence when it's needed again, directed by software autonomously, and guided by photocells for positioning.

      I would consider a Roomba as a robot, but not as ASRS. I would refer to an automated crane for sure as a 'robotic' crane, but not simply as a robot.

  25. I hope Everybody builds robots by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    I'm going to laugh when everybody finds out they are out of a job, because most next generation robots can repair themselves! Now what are you going to do? Have a robot for a boss?

  26. Robby the Mechanic by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    more complex units require multiple engineers during preventive maintenance.

    More complex units require multiple robots doing preventive maintenance.

    FTFY. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  27. Re:The robots themselves? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    It's growth. It's just worded strangely. Slashdot has a long-established tradition that everything must be expressed in terms of how much smaller it will be. I.e., "robot growth is expected to be an inverse one-fifteenth times smaller shrinkage in quantity in four years".

    "X times larger"? What kinda cockamamie phrasing is that?

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  28. Defragging by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    In this context, popular items are better, in that access to them is more efficient, if they are more easily accessed.

    However, popularity is not a stable metric.

    So things that used to be popular but are no longer so would be better moved to a higher effort access, while things that are presently popular would be better moved to, or placed in, more efficiently accessed areas. This should increase efficiency, and is essentially equivalent to defragmenting because item packing based on an associated characteristic is going on.

    Putting popular things next to other popular things has a benefit; putting all the popular things close to the package assembly point also has a benefit. You can also put more robots in the popular area, and fewer in the less popular areas. Less distance to travel means faster and more efficient response. Robots closer to where they are needed means faster and more efficient response.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Defragging by TWX · · Score: 1

      It would probably also behoove whoever is designing this algorithm to consider items purchased together, assuming that the robot is capable of pulling more than one bin at a time, or if pulling multiple bins from a single shelf or tight physical location to feed to a common conveyor belt makes more sense. Thinking of examples like diapers, diaper wipes, baby shampoo, and baby powder.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Defragging by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yes, spot on.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Defragging by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It would probably also behoove whoever is designing this algorithm to consider items purchased together,

      Seems to me that Amazon - and others - have been doing that for many years now.

    4. Re:Defragging by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Certainly seems reasonable. On the other hand, this is the company that completely missed the brass ring WRT the Alexa interface, so it's not like they don't make mistakes... :)

      [IMHO, first company to put a LAN-competent Alexa-like on the market will win the endgame, and will win double if it actually uses AI instead of canned phrasing.]

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  29. Not insurmountable by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    So... if the whole thing crashed and the inventory is randomized and unreachable during Christmas time... that would suck.... I can hear it now, "Has anyone found the PS5 bin yet??"

    Just put a physically printed barcode in a visible slot on the front of the bin when a part is assigned to it.

    Now the entire warehouse can be re-indexed if needed by robots running up and down the aisles (or equivalent), just looking at the bins and reporting in to the management system.

    Probably not a bad idea to do this on a fairly regular basis anyway. Just in case people got in there and screwed things up somehow.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Not insurmountable by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Probably better to just stick RFID tags on them.

      Occasional inspection is a good idea, though. I'm thinking of cases where a rat is running up the wall just as the robot jams an item into a slot. Ick.

  30. Re:The robots themselves? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Each warehouse robot will have feet coated with Flubber.

  31. Re:Popcorn time by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    You know what's funny? I'm working on a popcorn eating robot.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  32. Real issue is the packing robots coming up by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Amazon is already working on eliminating the next human step in the chain. Humans picking packing the boxes.

    Right now the robot shelf brings the product to the human who picks it and packs the box. There are tens of thousands of these across the country. They'll vanish quickly when the pick item and pack box step is roboticized.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  33. Traditional Forklift Sales To Plummet by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Obviously the human operated forklifts used in warehouses will have very little demand in the near future. That probably means that forklifts designed to work on delivery or job sites will surely see a huge increase in prise.

  34. Re: Not to worry. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    So, rather than worrying about warehouse employees stealing stock, better start worrying about former warehouse employees stealing robots. If people can fence stolen Cat D10s and Terex Titans from quarries, a truckload of slightly used robots should be a piece of cake - especially given the increased demand worldwide.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  35. Re:Most warehouse operations are very, very small by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Or the first mom-and-pop that buys a robot can then start expanding, taking over their non-robotic competitors, until they get large enough to be bought out. Consolidation is a b*tch, and it's also a job destroyer.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  36. Re:"They lived only to face a new nightmare..." by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Except that software is already being readied to take over the jobs of programming, same as it took over the job of designing large-scale circuits, etc. Programming will be a dying art (to the extent that it isn't already a half-dead toxic pool).

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  37. Re:Not when I do it... apk by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    What does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is automation taking away jobs?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  38. Re:What you said on programming's dead by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Sorry, haven't gotten around to watching it. All that laser work on the retinas and I ended up with cataracts in both eyes. Can still read with the right one, but it's going .... so next week one of my 4 visits to specialists will be to see what's next, since I also have blood vessels growing in the angle of the lens and iris, which will cause glaucoma as well ... oh well, make it better?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  39. Re: Not to worry. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Cars with lojacks get stolen and sold overseas all the time with zero consequences. Also, a NIC doesn't broadcast unless you plug it in. And anything can be hacked. Ask the CIA and the NSA :-) Or Wikileaks ...

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.