Lessons from the first fully automated hotel
designbuild-network.com
designbuild-network.com
So what I mean when I say robot, is a machine that can adapt to a human-oriented environment and fulfill a task with some level of competence that people don't consider it useless. And right now we basically have vacuums, and are a long, long way away from getting much more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COXM2V0wn_I
You will need also a bigger house, probably.
Same thing applies to washing dishes.
The question is not one of how many phds you have to pay to see if it's possible to make something automated - it's whether the automation solves more pain than it creates, how big the demand is, and whether production of it can actually scale at profit. If it does, the research investment can be well worth it.
Yeah, and then it spends 8 hours cleaning another, and soon it'll be spending 5 hours cleaning two, 2 hours cleaning a dozen, and it'll keep going down, and those 5 PhD's will keep improving the robot, more and more. And it doesn't even need to be faster than us, because that one robot can keep washing dishes 24/7, with no rest and no pay.
And eventually it'll catch up to us in speed and precision, and it'll keep getting better and surpass us.
And then, once you have a single good robot. You can simply replicate it, again and again, mass producing thousands of them and they will all keep working 24/7 with no rest and no pay.
Yeah, we're not there yet for most jobs, but we're getting there. It's gonna take a while but it will without a doubt happen
Vehemently disagree. The assumption that technology will continue to improve to be useful for everything is inherently flawed. We don't know what the hard limits are yet, but nobody understood the limitations of the Carnot cycle for energy efficiencies once upon a time (the ICE will get better and better until no efficiency is lost) or limitations of transmission lines (until transmission line theory was established that dictates 50% is the best theoretical outcome, people thought you could approach 100%). We'll discover some algorithms will never be O(n) but the best theoretical solution is O(n^2).
I don't know where the barriers are or what they are, but it's naïve to assume not only that we will solve everything, but even that it's theoretically possible that we can solve everything.
The obvious generic barrier right now for robotics is AI, but that's a complex subject and could mean many different things to many different people.
For example, a "smart" moving base may replace waiters(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1cjhxEhq9Q) . i suspect this could have been built a decade ago. But something has changed, and we'll probably see many more such solutions.
The complexity comes when you try and retain an existing workflow by a robot. You see this same thing when it comes to package delivery or warehouses, where they try to replace a human with a robot instead of redesigning the whole process as robot-first (this mainly aimed at warehouses btw)
[1] https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/innovation/20180405/h...
1) Entering/scanning an order number causes the robot to fetch the packages (plural) in question and deliver to an area for the recipient to pickup. This has the effector/sensors that you mention above.
2) Entering/scanning an order number causes the robot to tell the recipient to go to a given locker and it also pops open said locker. When the recipient picks up the packages from the locker and closes the same, the main screen acknowledges the pickup.
If I appear to be gushing, it is because I am darned impressed by this thing. I am not kidding when I say that it works very well. I found a video that hopefully demonstrates the technology better than my stilted write-up above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71pgd-LzzXc .
Well regardless of whether or not it's a robot (I would argue it is), it passes the most important test: it does something useful and users love it (going by your testimony as a single data point)!
I imagine that the main barriers are maintenance - opening up the walls in case of blockages etc. But maybe the correct design could account for that somehow.
A lot of the robotic stuff is mostly silly in any case. I sometimes stay at the Yotel in NYC which has a robot gadget to store luggage. It's amusing theater but usually you just give your luggage to a person because the robot is so slow (and space inefficient so it runs out of lockers).
Noise of the mechanism is also concerning, and safety (see other reply) are also issues. The loss of floor space is the big one.
It is also a feature that only some guest use at all and use is very limited. If every guest used it several times it a day it would make sense.
Things like reception desk Q&A could easily be integrated discretely, with the human employee getting help from the bot and overriding when it falls short.
There is already a fair amount of automation for tasks like self check in at large economy hotel chains in the UK - and you can see how well it goes down with customers from the queues (which tend to favour waiting for the human assistants except at busy times)
Coherent thinking and creativity (AGI) is way above and away from the neural nets we got now. And I'd argue that's what needed to make robots super helpful with random human tasks.
As it requires a large amount of labour so there is a lot of possible savings and consists of repetitive tasks in a controlled environment.
It would also be better PR to have robots than workers in bad conditions (stories about workers urinating in bottles etc. have made headlines in the UK).