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

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.