Slashdot Mirror
Levi Strauss Replaces Human Sanding With Automated Lasers (bloomberg.com)
_Sharp'r_ writes: Stressing jeans used to require 300 to 400 workers with sandpaper all day. Now Levi Strauss does a better job by shooting their new jeans with computer-guided lasers in intricate patterns generated in CAD systems. Along the way, they save water and "will cut the number of chemicals it uses to produce jeans from 1,000 to a few dozen," reports Bloomberg.
Buy clothing that is not pre-worn aka deliberately damaged before sale. It will last longer that way.
For my life, i can't understand why people are willing to pay a premium for pre-worn out clothing.
Not that I am complaining. This process is better for (almost) everybody. But it shows how it goes with automation: A few hundred jobs lost, a few highly qualified gained. That is basically how this will work in most places. And the jobs are gone and are not coming back in some other form.
The standard slashdot response to this is along the lines of "well they should re-train as programmers and earn $300k like I do." Overlooking the fact that programming is surely one of the most easily replaced jobs once we have something even slightly close to real AI.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Overlooking the fact that programming is surely one of the most easily replaced jobs once we have something even slightly close to real AI.
Programming isn't the hard bit, figuring out what the humans want, is.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
History is not a reliable predictor. At some point there comes a game-changer along (hint: "computer") and historical precedent becomes worthless.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This generation is hardly the first to buy pre-stressed denim.
Programming isn't the hard bit, figuring out what the humans want, is.
Common IT customer complaint, when a product is delivered:
"Yes, that's exactly what I asked for . . . but it turns out, that it is not what I need."
Now that's the really difficult part . . . convincing customers that what they are asking for will not really help them . . .
. . . without losing the customer!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
No-one is saying that new job descriptions will not appear in the future. But the thing is AI - both the narrow-AI systems being developed now and in the future more generalized AI - is an entirely different shift than that of the previous 'dumb'/mechanic automation. Once AI-guided production becomes more commonplace, which will occur in the coming decades, a big chunk of humans will lose their jobs but they will also not be able to easily train themselves with a new skillset that would be of any value. The more widespread AI-based automation becomes, the cheaper it will become which will lower the marginal utility of hiring humans for most jobs. This is especially apparent on production and logistics side where humans are already most often the slowest and most inefficient part of the process. The only reason not all warehouses are fully automatic at this point is the cost, and the cost is coming down as time goes along.Once general purpose AI is reached (and there's no reason to suspect it won't be reached eventually unless one is stubborn enough to argue for some kind of a 'soul' that would make the capabilities of a human brain beyond achievable for a computerized system) then pretty much any job that requires thinking/analyzing data will be done faster and better by machines.
It's misguided to assume that human labor will remain competitive with super-intelligent systems indefinitely. Essentially any job that requires manual precision or quality control can already be done much more efficiently by computer-aided systems than by humans, and this trend is only going to continue.
The market does not magically optimize itself for full-employment. Humans will only be hired if they're the only way to get something done, or massively cheaper than machines. For the next 1-2 decades this will remain the case in many fields, but with the rate of advancement we're seeing already in AI and the fact that any new production facilities built in the west require a fraction of the workforce from 10-20 years ago, comparing the upcoming shift to the automation boom from the 60s onwards is not a valid comparison.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I always used to buy my jeans from Levi's, and many years ago they were some of the most consistently manufactured jeans around - in particular, when most of their manufacturing was done in the USA. Much more recently I went to buy two pairs of (theoretically) identical jeans - same cut, same waist, same inseam, differing only by color - and they could have hardly been less similar when I tried them on. Then I checked the tag and realized one pair was made in South America and the other in Southeast Asia - again on the rack they differed only in color. Yet one was uncomfortably tight to button and the other was so loose in the waist that it would nearly fall off of me without a belt.
Their customer service has not been terribly useful either.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Actually yes. The modern process is way simpler.
https://prochemicalanddye.net/...
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap