Walmart Tests Shelf-Scanning Robots In Over 50 Stores (engadget.com)

Walmart is expanding a shelf-scanning robot trial to 50 additional stores, including some in its home state of Arkansas. "Machines from Bossa Nova Robotics will roam the aisles to check for stock levels, pricing and misplaced items, saving human staffers the hassle of checking everything themselves," reports Engadget. The robots will be fully autonomous, though technicians will be available in case things go awry. They employ 3D imaging to dodge obstacles and make notes to return later if their path is completely blocked. From the report: Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them -- to eliminate drudgery and the expenses that go with it. This helps workers get to the task of filling empty shelves, and that's a job that the company doesn't see ending any time soon given the difficulty robots still have when grabbing objects. "Store associates will always be better at that," Walmart's Martin Hitch told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. And the chief of Bossa Nova rival Simbe Robotics, Brad Bogolea, added that shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year. However expensive the robots may be, they could pay for themselves very quickly. Whether or not the robots see wider use will, unsurprisingly, hinge on the success of this wider trial. Walmart posted a video about the shelf-scanning robots on its YouTube page.

Comments

Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated

[Dutch Gun]

The entire point of using robots is because they're cheaper than humans in the long run. Human employees are essentially a indefinite rental cost, there's supplementary costs and risks involved, they can quit at any time, and they can only work eight hours a day. Robots are a fixed cost of ownership + smaller maintenance costs, which will presumably cost far less in the long run. They can work 24/7/365, minus maintenance or repair time. In pure economic terms, it's rather nonsensical to hire a human to do a job that a reasonably-priced robot can do.

If you think this isn't the trend of the future, you're in denial. But there's certainly a question of how our society adjusts to robots "supplementing" (in reality, replacing) a portion of a currently human workforce. Certain types of jobs are constantly being phased out due to technology or automation, and while disruptive in the short term, society has adjusted. But many people are worried about the *pace* of these new technologies being a disruptive force, or the notion of AI replacing more skilled workers.

I'm more of the opinion that it won't be catastrophically disruptive to society largely because it will also help lower costs of goods and services. Plus I believe people are over-estimating how fast the transition will occur. Some people tend to neglect to factor in the massive inertia of existing infrastructure. We'll have to see how it goes - but there's really no putting technology back in the bottle.