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.

Comments

Save the Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy clothing that is not pre-worn aka deliberately damaged before sale. It will last longer that way.

Re:Save the Earth

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Buy clothing that is not pre-worn

This isn't pre-worn, actually, is it? But you can get actual pre-worn clothing in a second-hand store - and more cheaply to boot!

The video is cool

[_Sharp'r_]

If you want to see the process on video.

One of the cooler parts is that using software, they can now make reproducible artistic designs, designs to emphasize different body parts, text/image messages, whatever someone can dream up.

Re: The video is cool

[Anonymous Coward]

This generation is hardly the first to buy pre-stressed denim.

Worn or Indigo removed?

[Errol backfiring]

Imagine managing 300 to 400 people who do nothing for eight to 10 hours but to load a mannequin and then with sandpaper on their hands to begin the destruction process to remove the indigo.

Do the lasers still damage the fibres or do they just remove the indigo or even just its colour?

Indigo is a plant chemical that takes a specific chemical reaction to form, and needs special treatment to adhere it to the fibres. The fact that it does not adhere perfectly is what causes the specific worn look on jeans. If the fibres can be kept intact but the indigo selectively removed, you could have a pair of jeans that looks used but also can still be used for a long time.

Re:Worn or Indigo removed?

[dunkelfalke]

Actually yes. The modern process is way simpler.

https://prochemicalanddye.net/...

And 300-400 workers less

[gweihir]

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.

Re:And 300-400 workers less

[tehcyder]

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.

Re:And 300-400 workers less

[MrKaos]

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.

Re: And 300-400 workers less

[gweihir]

History is not a reliable predictor. At some point there comes a game-changer along (hint: "computer") and historical precedent becomes worthless.

Re: And 300-400 workers less

[gweihir]

They will not. These jobs are gone. And the ones doing them cannot "retrain" upwards or they would not have been doping these bad jobs in the first place.

Re:And 300-400 workers less

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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!

Re: And 300-400 workers less

[Bing Tsher E]

There will soon be the need for a great number of garment inspectors, to authenticate actual 'sanded' worn denim from the laser-worn variety.
Because the artisanal hand-worn denim will be far more in demand due to their authenticity.

There are already people who can 'grade' old jeans, who look at thread, rivets, the label and the cut to determine a pair of jeans is authentically vintage.

Re: And 300-400 workers less

[Kiuas]

Where did truck drivers, airplane stewards, luggage handlers, tarmac layers, silicon wafer makers, oil drillers, earset makers, cell tower technicians, etc come from?

None of those jobs nor even the countless ones supporting them existed at one time. If you asked people at the time, they couldn't even imagine such jobs.

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.

Re:And 300-400 workers less

[gweihir]

Well, I did an engineering PhD and I have kept current on AI for something like 30 years now. In actual reality, AI being able to do that is getting farther away. Realistically, "most certainly not in the next 50 years" (the answer a senior engineer in the Watson team gave me recently) is a lower bound. It may well be centuries away or not happening at all. It is also not true/strong AI that is threatening these jobs. It is dumb automation that could not empty a bucket of water unless specifically programmed to do so. However, as it turns out, large parts of many human jobs do not actually need intelligence and that is quite enough. That is, for example, Amazon doing away with 90 human workers, and retaining 10 (low paid ones) that do what the robots cannot do and fix the occasional screw-up by a robot. Add two human engineers to keep the robots running, and that is still 88 jobs lost permanently and only 2 upgraded from low to high pay.

Ahh, sanded jeans.

[Lisandro]

For my life, i can't understand why people are willing to pay a premium for pre-worn out clothing.

Human Sanding

[mentil]

Sanding down humans is SO 20th century. Now they can be ablated with lasers!

great!

[sad_]

Now that these expensive 300-400 workers have been removed from the total cost of producing said jeans, the consumer price will surely drop.

Re:great!

[HiThere]

Cost to make only affects the minimum possible selling price. Actual selling price is more closely related to demand and competition. If there's not much competition, the price will be the highest that people will pay.

OTOH, that's just for manufacturers. Vendors have problems with managing demand, which leads to things like loss-leaders, etc. which are sold at a price designed to attract customers, so you can sell them something else. (Sometimes instead, though that's often called bait-and-switch, and is illegal here, if not often prosecuted.)

Don't expect logic in the fashion business

[Viol8]

Its built entirely on emotion.

Re:Don't expect logic in the fashion business

[Austerity Empowers]

My new product line:

Clothing that was only pre-worn by svelte runway models, hand fed on vegan non-GMO wood pellets and rainwater direct from the skies, unsullied by man-made chemicals. Clothing whose materials are only the finest naturally grown, recycled hemp, crafted in the dark by underprivileged, overpaid tibetan monks. Clothing that is always one of a kind, and intentionally may not fit anyone perfectly to enhance our body positive vibes.

My brand is Smug - I'm Simply Better Than You.

Re:Don't expect logic in the fashion business

[painandgreed]

My new product line:

Clothing that was only pre-worn by svelte runway models, hand fed on vegan non-GMO wood pellets and rainwater direct from the skies, unsullied by man-made chemicals. Clothing whose materials are only the finest naturally grown, recycled hemp, crafted in the dark by underprivileged, overpaid tibetan monks. Clothing that is always one of a kind, and intentionally may not fit anyone perfectly to enhance our body positive vibes.

My brand is Smug - I'm Simply Better Than You.

I'm guessing the models are all kids, because I don't think humans will live all that long on a diet of wood.

Don't worry, it's all just a sales marketing pitch anyway. Their clothes come from the same asian workshops as everybody elses.

Re:Don't expect logic in the fashion business

[lsatenstein]

My new product line:

Clothing that was only pre-worn by svelte runway models, hand fed on vegan non-GMO wood pellets and rainwater direct from the skies, unsullied by man-made chemicals. Clothing whose materials are only the finest naturally grown, recycled hemp, crafted in the dark by underprivileged, overpaid tibetan monks. Clothing that is always one of a kind, and intentionally may not fit anyone perfectly to enhance our body positive vibes.

My brand is Smug - I'm Simply Better Than You.

I'm guessing the models are all kids, because I don't think humans will live all that long on a diet of wood.

Don't worry, it's all just a sales marketing pitch anyway. Their clothes come from the same asian workshops as everybody elses.

I am pushing age 80. My problem with jeans is the rise. I am not a teenager and I need more than having the belt sit on my waist. There is nothing more embarrassing than leaning over and the rear cheek halves show down to my crotch. I need that extra inch of rise so that the belt tightens the jean waist at least two fingers high above my hip bones. I also don't want leg/hip huggies. When I got to pee, I want to pee in the urinal, not half and half.

Yes, but...

[The Grim Reefer]

How much does it cost to keep and train the sharks to hold still?

prefer to 'relic' them myself...

[advocate_one]

just like I do my Guitars...

Levi's is a frustratingly inconsistent company

[damn_registrars]

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.