Slashdot Mirror


New T-Shirt Sewing Robot Can Make As Many Shirts Per Hour As 17 Factory Workers (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: In 2015, after years of research, SoftWear Automation introduced LOWRY, a sewing robot, or sewbot, that uses machine vision to spot and adjust to distortions in the fabric. Though initially only able to make simple products, such as bath mats, the technology is now advanced enough to make whole t-shirts and much of a pair of jeans. According to the company, it also does it far faster than a human sewing line. SoftWear Automation's big selling point is that one of its robotic sewing lines can replace a conventional line of 10 workers and produce about 1,142 t-shirts in an eight-hour period, compared to just 669 for the human sewing line. Another way to look at it is that the robot, working under the guidance of a single human handler, can make as many shirts per hour as about 17 humans. The company has emerged as a leader among those trying to automate sewing, drawing the interest of businesses that make home goods and of course clothing manufacturers, including Tianyuan Garments Company, a Chinese firm that produces for brands such as Adidas and Armani. Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018. The factory will be staffed with 21 robotic production lines supplied by SoftWear Automation, and will be capable of making 1.2 million t-shirts a year.

26 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    So that's like... a few dozen jobs at the most? Surely with the production costs going down the shirts will be sold at lower prices, right?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re: Amazing! by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new T-shirt sewing overlords.

  2. US production by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    US production per worker is currently about $58,000, and seems to be going up by $10,000 per decade.

    That's per capita, meaning "per person". If the per-capita output were distributed equally to every man, woman, and child everyone would have about $58.000 to spend. Each year. Including kids and babies. And they could do it again next year.

    This will only go up as AI and automation take over. A huge number of driving jobs will be taken over by self-driving vehicles in the next decade (already happening with long-haul trucks), and AI and robotics will take over ever more of the production, working 24/7 and making more goods, more cheaply, and faster than humans.

    We need to transition away from the current economic system real soon, or suffer massive riots and the downfall of our culture as unemployed people riot and take it down for us.

    We need a way to spread the wealth out a little more evenly. UBI is one way, and we're getting really close to the point where UBI will be cheaper than the cost of government assistance plus the lost cost of higher crime and prison for the poor.

    Perhaps taxing the robots and using the money to fund the rest of UBI would work.

    We could also lower the SS retirement age, or go to a 4-day work week. Lots of options, many would work or could be made to work.

    But we have to start transitioning just about now, or risk the downfall of our culture.

    1. Re:US production by Whibla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I'm a lineman busting my ass day in and day out risking my life and limb for your electricity to stay on, and I have the opportunity to work for $60k, but you're making 58k sitting on your ass collecting UBI, guess what I won't be doing for much longer

      If someone is making 58k on UBI and you're making 60k as a lineman then, guess what, their take home is 58k and yours is 118k. Why ignore the fact that the U in UBI stands for universal?

      If I make $50k and a loaf of bread costs $2 before the automation / AI schism, but I make $100k and a loaf of bread costs $4 after, nothing's changed, except the number on my income tax return looks more impressive.

      One possible answer to this 'problem' is that there's only so much bread you can eat. If you spent, and still spend, 40% of your salary on bread (as a synonym for food) previously you had $30k left over whereas now you have 60k left to spend.

      Oh wait, your argument is that everything will inflate. An 'interesting' hypothesis, albeit not one grounded in reality. Quite apart from the fact that introduction of UBI wouldn't double overall income / wages you're also completely ignoring the changes that are the reason for its suggested introduction in the first place. Now, while it is true that real wages in many western economies aren't keeping up with inflation, and haven't been for a while, a large part of the reason for this is what I think of as international rebalancing. If you take a look outside your relatively pampered life and get a bit of global socio-historical perspective you might start to see why it's happening, why it's necessary, and why it's 'right'.

      If it costs $5 / $6 / $7 then I've lost out on buying power, and if that trend continues, it won't be long before I'm waiting in the bread line, burning $100 bills to stay warm; right along side the other 'millionaires'.

      Sigh. And yet more FUD.

      T-Shirt robots and other productive things won't be HERE, contributing to the GDP, paying into our tax base. They'll be in China and other countries where existing production lines are, because the supply chains are there to support it, because we friggin gutted ours. The engineering and design jobs may be here, for a little while. Until those are also taken to China, to be closer to the actual production.

      From TFS: "Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018". Sure, in comparison to recent figures relating to investment in factory production in the US, $20 million is small beans but we are talking $5 T-Shirts here, not $500 phones.

    2. Re:US production by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      US production per worker is currently about $58,000, and seems to be going up by $10,000 per decade.

      That's per capita, meaning "per person". If the per-capita output were distributed equally to every man, woman, and child everyone would have about $58.000 to spend. Each year. Including kids and babies. And they could do it again next year.

      This will only go up as AI and automation take over. A huge number of driving jobs will be taken over by self-driving vehicles in the next decade (already happening with long-haul trucks), and AI and robotics will take over ever more of the production, working 24/7 and making more goods, more cheaply, and faster than humans.

      More goods, and faster than humans? Gee, that's nice. Too bad the unemployable masses won't have any disposable income to buy any of that massively efficient inventory of goods and services. And the wealthy elite left with money won't be buying 10 million units of each.

      We need to transition away from the current economic system real soon, or suffer massive riots and the downfall of our culture as unemployed people riot and take it down for us.

      We need a way to spread the wealth out a little more evenly. UBI is one way, and we're getting really close to the point where UBI will be cheaper than the cost of government assistance plus the lost cost of higher crime and prison for the poor.

      First of all, taxing the wealthy elite to fund UBI appears to be just about the only way to fund it, and we all know how easy it is to extract taxes from them today. This is is the first challenge of UBI, and it's a considerable one.

      The little taxes you do succeed to extract will be so obscenely small that UBI will be Welfare 2.0 for the unemployable masses and not a penny more, confirming my initial statement regarding disposable income and goods and services. Those currently on welfare are not exactly living a glamorous lifestyle. As an example of the impact, Apple is one of largest corporations on the planet, and sells tens of millions of units, but essentially makes nothing that would be considered an affordable necessity for those barely able to fund their sustenance.

      Perhaps taxing the robots and using the money to fund the rest of UBI would work.

      Taxing the robots is taxing the wealthy elite. I've already described how that will work out. They'll lobby to maintain tax havens and loopholes, and lobby to pay the bare minimum. And they will succeed, much like they do today.

      We could also lower the SS retirement age, or go to a 4-day work week.

      To do what, drain it even faster, and accelerate it's already predicted death? Automation seeks to remove the human worker altogether, so there won't be a 4-day work week. It will be a 0-day work week for the unemployable masses.

      Lots of options, many would work or could be made to work.

      But we have to start transitioning just about now, or risk the downfall of our culture.

      Many won't work. Greed N. Corruption is the CEO of capitalism now. Solve for that issue first, and then you might have a chance. Probably not though. Eat the Rich might be one option after the downfall.

    3. Re:US production by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, there is no economical value in education beyond the point where someone can use it. There's already legions of people walking around with worthless college diplomas, and yet you're suggesting to take money out of people's pockets to create more of those.

      No, the problem is that people seem to think education should give people the exact skills and knowledge they need to do a specific job. That's stupid because the nature of work changes over time, even over the three or four years someone studies for.

      University level education is more about giving people a mixture of skills for further learning and general knowledge of common techniques. That's why most courses include general classes on things like economics, basic law, mathematics, English, research techniques, the scientific method etc.

      It's then supposed to be up to employees to specialize new employees, with training and accumulated experience.

      Instead companies want to treat workers as commodities, and if they can't get those skills locally they just import them. The idea of finding someone who has proven they can learn and has the skills necessary to do so to a high standard and training them doesn't seem to fit the model of "next quarter's bonus" very well.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. The real value by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real value of this tech is that it will allow for bespoke clothing to become a lot more accessible. Whether or not this iteration is capable of it, that future is inevitable.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  4. Re:We need basic income or do you want smash the r by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought jails were gender-segregated. How are you going to get a broad in a jail?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Re:shocked by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I honestly thought a robotic sewing machine would be called SEWER instead of LOWRY.

    That name stinks.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Good idea, but... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would rather actually fund education so more people would be qualified for work beyond being a meat-part in a machine, doing the same thing over and over again for days, months, years.

    That was a good idea in previous decades.

    Currently the number of jobs is shrinking, while the workforce is not(*). it's already causing a lot of stress in our society, and probably one reason for the recent election results.

    The system was able to soak up some of the excess - the meme of children living with their parents until well into adulthood is one result - but it's starting to show signs of saturation. The burgeoning debt of education versus finding a job, currently being a topic of concern, is one bit of evidence.

    Training and education are certainly important, but it doesn't address the problem. It'll only result in educated unemployed.
    We need a way to support non-workers in our society, and pretty quick.

    (*) Roughly speaking, population is remaining steady. Meanwhile, productivity keeps rising.

    1. Re:Good idea, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Currently the number of jobs is shrinking

      Bullcrap. Productivity growth is stagnant and job losses to automation are mostly not happening. The easy gains in automation of manufacturing are mostly over, and service jobs are proving much harder to automate.

      It is fun to hypothesize about robots taking over, and how society is going to adapt to post-scarcity, but that is theoretical conjecture, and not based on the reality of what is actually happening today. The truth is that improvements in automation are happening far too slowly to produce the higher living standards that people have come to expect.

    2. Re:Good idea, but... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is fun to hypothesize about robots taking over, and how society is going to adapt to post-scarcity, but that is theoretical conjecture, and not based on the reality of what is actually happening today.

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      Human beings, unlike some other living creatures on Earth, are not evolved and adapted to any specific environment. If the environment changes, we'll pick up our marbles and go play somewhere else. The history of humanity is a series of great disruptions and changes . . . sure, a lot of folks die prematurely along the way, but the vast majority seems to just muddle on.

      Human beings are like toenail fungus . . . very difficult to get rid of completely.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Good idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Automation is gonna be kinda like global warming, short term signs are so subtle, that it's easy to miss the long term trend but bam! It will hit someday. The U3 graph going back to 1950s does show a trend where the peaks of unemployment would be the valleys now:

      https://www.economicgreenfield.com/2014/07/03/u-3-and-u-6-unemployment-rate-long-term-reference-charts-as-of-july-3-2014/

      Anyway, unlike what economics teaches, I think humans do have limited wants and needs and that's the problem. Our limit is connected to our (inability) to multitask and our limited attention span. For example, when I'm really into a good book, or movie, unlimited wants and needs can't kick in and say I need 10 good songs or movies right that minute. Same with food for most people.

      I mention this because that's how people usually argue out of this automation problem. Something like, "oh yeah, all the carriage makers just moved onto cars!"

      You see, that's true but so many of our industries are tied to solving old wants and needs (cars - age old point A to B problem), or this article about clothes, etc.

      What happens when industry effectively solves the problem so that no human can compete, like sewing clothing here... will every sewing machine operator become a fashion designer? While I'm sure like printing in the past, this tech will open doors to more designers, it won't be any fraction to recover the lost jobs. Just like we can't have a poet and artist based economy (from products to services).

      Now, it may not happen this decade, or century even, but if progress continues, I'm sure enough there will be a point when mundane human wants are effectively satisfied and the people left unemployed will not be remotely equipped to handle any other type of need or want no matter their education.

      The real question is how to handle that transition period where employment needs to keep going... but not everyone (or even half) can be employed.

    4. Re:Good idea, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And even if our want was unlimited, our funds are not. And no matter how much someone wants (or even needs) something, if he cannot afford it, no sale will happen.

      If we want to fix our economy, we need more money on the demand side. The supply side is adequately funded. Actually, overfunded. Interest is bordering on becoming negative and STILL nobody can invest in something worthwhile.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Good idea, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.

      No, that's bullshit on literally every level. First, nothing human is almost infinite. We're tiny little squishy things. Second, we are using up natural capital faster than it can be replenished already. We need to engage in less economic activity, not more. We use up our year's allotment of resources by mid-August. We need to do less work as a species, or we will surely perish. Third, in order for someone to be paid for work, someone has to be willing to pay for it. It's not enough for it to theoretically be work, it has to actually be work. And the ultra-wealthy are accumulating cash that they literally cannot physically spend before they die, and then refusing to invest it, which is how jobs are created. They're not the "job creators", they are the job preventers.

      The question is, what will people choose to do in order to maximize their effort to benefit others the most

      The question is, will the already-rich fucks who have all the money take their finger off the wheel, and start placing bets themselves so that someone else can have some money?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Good idea, but... by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is fun to hypothesize about robots taking over, and how society is going to adapt to post-scarcity, but that is theoretical conjecture, and not based on the reality of what is actually happening today.

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      Human beings, unlike some other living creatures on Earth, are not evolved and adapted to any specific environment. If the environment changes, we'll pick up our marbles and go play somewhere else. The history of humanity is a series of great disruptions and changes . . . sure, a lot of folks die prematurely along the way, but the vast majority seems to just muddle on.

      Human beings are like toenail fungus . . . very difficult to get rid of completely.

      Actually, automation has steadily been destroying jobs at a pretty good rate. The thing is, and what we humans are good at, that we're adapting to new conditions. Take garbage collection, previously you had 4 people, 2 operators and two collectors. Now that's down to 1 or 2 operators and realistically, the 2nd operator is only required by union or OH&S rules. As I've said, we've been adapting, university participation rates amongst young people in 1950 were 3.4% of the UK population, in 2013 it's over 50%. We've been replacing the automated jobs with higher skilled opportunities.

      Now this robot isn't going to replace any jobs here in the developed world because we either outsourced clothing manufacturing to the developing world decades ago... or bought it back in recent years to be done by robots. The only real clothing industry in the west that requires staffing, are the high end tailors (read: completely bespoke, the cost of which makes your made to measure Armani look positively peasant in comparison) and that isn't a huge industry. So this robot will only affect developing nations with large manual seamstress operations (I.E. China, Honduras, Bangladesh).

      That being said, advances in technology are looking to put a fair few industries out of human employment. Not just manual labour, but a lot of what used to be considered, safe careers will be replaced by soft AI's. Particularly ones that don't require a great deal of problem solving and rely on applying situations to rules (I.E. accounting, legal services) and there's no stopping it. So its a good thing we're considering what happens in the near future where the number of workers far outpaces the number of opportunities available to them. This kind of thing has happened in the past, if it wasn't dealt with in advance (like in the UK and US) it usually ended with the leaders and aristocrats being hoisted from balconies (I.E. Russia).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Good idea, but... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      Yep. Watching old documentaries it's crazy to think about how many people doing things used to take.

      PBS had a Walt Disney documentary and they showed rooms full of people drawing. Complaining of low pay, long hours and no credit. A middle schooler could crank out the level of animation they were doing with some scripting.

      The old rail way system is fascinating at how many jobs it used to take. People to mechanically throw switches. People to go around and lubricate every single point. Teams of engineers to draw machine test each part. All sans internet. Teams of people to load and unload every car by hand.

      Mining was the same way. Human history is full of "throw warm bodies at the problem, figure it out, automate it and move on". Computers came about because we figured out and automated a whole lot of everything we used to do before them.

    8. Re:Good idea, but... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps the stock market it at record highs _because_ interest is approaching negative rates? If you can't put your savings in the bank that money has to be invested somewhere. More investors chasing the same shares = higher share prices.

    9. Re:Good idea, but... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      You are kinda whining too, but let's take this elsewhere.

      How about some prognostication or even discussion of what might follow? It is bottome tier of the food chain easy to say Everyone will have jobs, world without end, amen. But that's ending up sounding like Malthus detractors who say he will always be wrong, and that means that you argue for an infinite number of people being able to exist on earth because "Malthus is always wrong".

      In other words, it is folly to declare that everyone will get better jobs after all the jobs are gone, based on the fact that the industrial revolution created jobs in industry. The goal of the automation is not to make factories that make stuff. The goal is to get rid of humans in all money generating processes in order to lessen expenses and increase profits for shareholders. Humans extracting money from the process by employment will be marked for elimination when possible.

      So what do you think? After almost all menial work is gone, what will people do? What happens as this process moves up the food chain?

      So far, the answers I've received to this question - when I've received one - are along the lines of "I don't know, but I do know more jobs will be created" Which isn't an answer - its an expression of faith.

      So I'll start......

      As success in elimination of human employees continues, there will be a large and growing class of surplus population that do not produce. It is pretty simple that this will be a drain on the economy, as more people will be unemployed than employed.

      Here is a forking moment. When we decide as societies whether to keep this surplus population alive or not. Will we decide that their lives are worth something, or will we continue to believe in the adage that has been true for most of humanity - work or die?

      The other concept is almost a utopian idea, of people freed from labor if they wish, to pursue education, or just hang out and enjoy life.

      I'm saying about 75 percent likely that we will choose the first setup - the excess population will be marked for death. But most of us don't want to have an obviously genocidal situation, so we will have some pretty grisly wars. I predict somewhere around 95 to 99 percent reduction in human population.

      Then, if we haven't reduced ourselves to hunter gatherer status - which cures the problem of employment - we'll hopefully be able to enjoy the fruits of a society where work is optional.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Good idea, but... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Whenever I hear an economist arguing about the "wonders of the free market", I notice that he always assumes that the market would be some abstract entity with unlimited funds and unlimited consumption capacity , completely ignoring that for you have a market you need to have consumers and that to have consumers it is necessary to have people with jobs (for wages).

      No people with jobs => no consumers => no market.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  7. Re:We need basic income or do you want smash the r by DanDD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. OMG, just No.

    Instead of $12, can I get a decent shirt, made locally, not by children in Asia, for $3? Perhaps you can be employed in servicing the machines.

    Please, go throw a brick through the window of a combine, or modern tractor, and insist we all go back to manual reaping and threshing. Or tear down miles of electrified fence, spill the livestock from the feedlots, and insist it's your God given right to be a shepherd.

    When you realize the futility in that, then maybe you should learn to code. Or play a musical instrument. Or sing and dance. Or raise and love a child. Or extract a principle of nature from odd and surprising observations. Or recycle the mountains of plastic floating in the south Pacific, or your local landfill. When machines can do all those things then you can smash society without me getting in your way. Except, if a machine could raise and love a child, perhaps a special loving machine can be made just for you and your rage....

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  8. Re:We need basic income or do you want smash the r by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Informative

    What do you propose we do with the people who can't just learn to code? Society doesn't pay people to do a lot of the things you mention unless they're truly exceptional. How do you propose we allow people to make a living while maintaining the money-based economy we have?

    Think outside of the dev/IT world for a second. Not everyone is super-brilliant, or even latently super-brilliant. Most people need jobs that they can just show up at, perform a set of tasks, and go home when it's done. I'd argue that lots of corporate jobs paying decent salaries boil down to applying a fixed set of rules to an input stack of work. There are a lot more modern shepherds and manual farmers out there in the world than you think. Before all the factory work was offshored or moved to non-union states, low-skilled people could have a decent lifestyle. This is just the next step -- and it's not going to end well unless we figure out a balance between the Luddites and the ultra-wealthy robot owning class locking themselves in fortresses.

  9. Sutures by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how big the step would be to get that robot to make a suture, sewing skin instead of a t-shirt.

    Two years ago, I had a bite at a restaurant but the meal didn't sit so well. I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and for some reason lost consciousness. I got to my senses and discovered I was bleeding profusely from an actually very small cut in my forehead. I went to the doc next morning and he stitched the cut.

    Two weeks later, he removed the stitches and told me he was quite happy with the result. He mentioned that the cut was actually not a straight cut, but a "hook" which apparently is difficult to cleanly close without later showing an obvious scar.

    From the summary: "uses machine vision to spot and adjust to distortions in the fabric". It would be very interesting to know whether it could lay a stitch to prevent scar tissue.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  10. Re:huh by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe it was Henry Ford who once said that it made no sense to pay his workers so little they could never afford to buy one of his cars.

    Good luck running a successful business in a world where only business OWNERS make money with which to buy stuff.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  11. Limited time offer by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For everyone saying the unemployed will rise up against the AI and automation of generic manual labor and white collar jobs just remember one thing - this advancement applies to the military as well. Once the autonomous military capabilities, including automated manufacturing, exceed the manual ones, humanity will be at the complete mercy of those few who own the armies and factories unlike any time in all human history. Good luck with that humans.

  12. Speed versus cost by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . SoftWear Automation's big selling point is that one of its robotic sewing lines can replace a conventional line of 10 workers and produce about 1,142 t-shirts in an eight-hour period, compared to just 669 for the human sewing line.

    That depends ENTIRELY on the costs involved and you'll notice costs were not mentioned at all here. It's possible to automate all sorts of things but it doesn't matter if the costs don't work out favorably. Faster does not automatically equal economic efficiency. You have to do a minimum efficient volume of work and the cost of labor has to be sufficiently high to make the capital investment worthwhile. Most textile work is done overseas in countries with VERY low labor rates. It doesn't matter if it is 10 times faster if it is 20 times more expensive.