Hacker News Reader

Comment by espadrine | Hacker News Reader

> I'd gladly pay 5k for a robot that can auto-organize my stuff around the house

The main equation for general-use household robots is: can it beat human fares?

A good weekly cleaner (4 hours) is about €22/h in Paris, or €4.5k/year.

Let’s say your robot lives 4 years, similar to your computer (which seems fair, since it is one, and an abused one at that). Since you amortize its price over 4 years, its initial cost must be below €18.3k ($21k) with human-quality-parity.

Personally, though, I would bet on dedicated, single-purpose robots, working together through wireless communication. Simpler to build, less costly, easier to replace. One small wheeled quadcopter for cleaning surfaces, one wheeled laundry box to carry it to the washing machine, one arm attached to the washing machine to put it in, etc.

View on HN

I can tell you there is a huge market for something that works well in the 40-50k range. You are vastly, vastly underestimating this market.

Hotels have a variety of tasks they would love to replace a host of low cost labor with robots with.

Someone in a higher income bracket wouldn’t think twice about that cost if it did significant work. On the other hand, the bar is high (cleaning, folding, picking up -- all are still fairly challenging AI problems, to say nothing of the "business" logic that would go into it).

Then you've got that quality servos are expensive. Some of that can resolved with volume, but not all of it.

Your statement and previous do not contradict. Multiplying the hours required to do the job in a larger environment like a hotel (4/week becomes 80 person hours / week) would produce a break-even cost higher than what you suggest.

Indeed. To give further figures, in France the minimum wage is around €10, and employees cannot work more than 35h/week, which yields a price point of €72k below which a 4-year-lifetime machine with human performance becomes cost-effective for a hotel.

In fact, France would probably be a very attractive country for this technology because of this.

A hotel is a great application for robots since the rooms could be designed for their capabilities.

And they are consistent. Make it work in the few distinct layout configurations and specific hotel appliances, and then it can repeat on all the rooms.

yadayada, you're all robots, artificial humans, walking calculators. tell me what those low income workers will do when you take away their jobs?

What happened to gas lighters when street lights were replaced with electric lights?

Or midnight soil rakers

Well, what did happen to them? The implication of your statement was that they were obviously totally fine, but is that a given? It's possible they were miserable and then died. Switching careers is not always easy and smooth.

I believe cost cuts to maximize profit consistently cause an enormous number of people to lose their jobs, yet no one addresses that.

I mean this is absolutely true in the sense that 99.9% of the hours that humans used to spend doing things across history have already been automated away.

The amount of time we used to spend making a single yard of cloth, or creating 10 pounds of flour is almost unfathomable today.

The prevailing economic theory was that we would automate away so much work that leisure time would prevail. Instead our massive increases in output have just driven greater consumption.

But the difference made by housecleaning robots isn’t the straw the breaks the camels back.

It would take a massive breakthrough in AI to eliminate the majority of knowledge workers at the scale that agriculture and textiles have already been transformed.

I'm all for transition assistance and a safety net to mitigate the harms, but halting human ingenuity seems like it would put far greater numbers of people at risk of misery and untimely deaths.

Lamplighters are especially useful to consider here.

How many lives has electricity saved? How many ICUs can operate continual machines because of it? How many people at risk of heat stroke can run AC in summer because of it? How many transplants and temperature controlled medicines got delivered because of it? What about its role in food safety? What about timely communications of life saving information, like those lost at sea asking for help, or severe weather alerts advising others to shelter? That's just the beginning, it seems incalculable really.

That lamplighter should have had a society willing to catch them during the transition. But imagine if it solved this problem by holding that one person's job sacred at the cost of millions of other lives instead.

It's absolutely good and relevant to worry about individual cases, but it seems like society is better off if we allow jobs to adjust to the actual current needs of humanity, rather than holding them fixed. Then we just also try to do our best to take care of as many of those who fall through the cracks as we can.

Wait, so you're suggesting we should think more about what happens to them, rather than ridiculing the question?

Survivor's bias says even for the ones for whom it wasn't smooth and died a horribly gristly death that we wouldn't hear from them.

The killer app here is tele-operated cleaning, with a monthly subscription model. I actually dont think it will replace your aforementioned 4h/week cleaner, just augment it with daily tasks.

Trying to stay as ethics neutral here.

We will probably see something like "Human assisted AI" with a sliding scale from mostly human to mostly AI for various tasks at various stages of development. The operators will be sourced where work is cheap, like Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Once VC gets it they'll fund the first few generations of bots on optimism alone.

Honestly who cares if it cant do everything. Nor can robotic vacuum cleaners and I have three.

@spykie So what if it cant go up stairs, have robots on each level. If it cant pick its self up, have multiple, let them help. Most things it cleans are light, so no problem there either. Cant interact buttons? Give it a rotating toolhead.

@bArray it doesn't need to operate autonomously, see the Human assisted AI argument. With good UX one remote operator will control five or six bots at once, tagging objects, issuing instructions. Give the User a good AR app, let them issue location based instruction around the house that the "AI" (remote operator) will slowly handle during the day.

Honestly, this space will be a primary design driver soon. I cant totally see IKEA making robot compatible cupboards.

If this space isn't huge I will be incredibly surprised.

Killer app... Exterminate!

Yeah I agree, I think this space is huge. Imagine two or three generations down, someone from a poorer country using some form of VR tool with this, maybe with two arms instead of one, navigating your airbnb rental, cleaning counter tops, doing laundry, and organizing your stuff, and then jumping to the next appointment and doing it over and over for a solid days wage for their respective economy. With someone manning the bot, I see this being far more flexible than just your robot vaccum. They might not be able to do as many things as well as an in-person maid, but for 80% of tasks they might be able to do it good enough.

Sounds depressing for the worker here, yes it's a job but only because AI isn't far advanced to replace them yet.

Do you mean depressing like Amazon warehouse workers? Or do you mean more like Uber drivers?

Bezos & company aren't exactly considering the plights of their employees/independent contractors for their quarterly financial report.

Is it bad that I rank how successful a venture might be based on how many jobs it might destroy?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that sentiment could be used to describe between 80 and 95% of the global job market. Most jobs suck, otherwise you wouldn't have to pay people to do them.

Sometimes I read things on HN and wonder if I'm living in some alternate universe by myself. I would never in a million years, allow someone else to remote-operate a robot in my house. The idea of even allowing something above Roomba-level intelligence in my living area is a no-go.

> Sometimes I read things on HN and wonder if I'm living in some alternate universe by myself. I would never in a million years, allow someone else to remote-operate a robot in my house. The idea of even allowing something above Roomba-level intelligence in my living area is a no-go.

Mmm...I guess it's fair to assume that the IQ of a human cleaner is superior to anything resembling a Roomba. Would you hire a human cleaner and grant them access to your living area? And if so would you be monitoring their every move while they go about the job?

No issues with humans being in my house. There is just something abjectly dystopian about robots (imo).

Another possible angle is integrations, i.e. robot-friendly appliances. Maybe the washing machine has a powered door and an API that the robot (or some other software) uses to control it. No need to push buttons. Obviously, this won't cover all scenarios, but as someone upthread said, to be useful it doesn't have to do everything.

The bigger issue, IMO, is avoiding distasters like Roombas trying to vacuum dog poop.

This sounds like a good idea. As you said it doesn't have to cover all scenarios.

I'm happy with our Roomba. We don't have any dogs but is it really that bad!? :-)

Oh, I don't have either, I was just using that as the canonical example.

Can confirm that Roomba running over dog poop is a bad way to start the day

Consider the Pooptastrophe (also known as the Poopocalypse): https://cheezburger.com/897029/dogs-roomba-please-consider-t...

it's the kind of thing that only has to happen once for you to remember it forever.

Yes it is that bad.

Two months ago, my partner vacuumed up fox poop. No idea why he thought it was a good idea. We realised it wasn't when the soft, sticky debris coated the inside of the vacuum cleaner's flexible hose. :(

The smell only improved after I cleaned every internal crevice. Including submerging the crinkly part of the hose in a half-full bath and pulling through a sponge three or four times.

We still have to put deodorant beads inside the vacuum cleaner bag.

> robot-friendly appliances

I agree, although I saw it as implied!

Robots are like AI: once they become widely used, they are no longer called robots. :)

To me, dish washers, mixers, vacuum cleaners are all robots that can be part of the household fleet.

>To me, dish washers, mixers, vacuum cleaners are all robots

Mixers and food processors are robots in French:

https://www.robot-patissier.org/robot-menager-robot-patissie...

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=en&t...

If I’ve learned anything in this industry, it’s that integrations cannot make your product viable. They’re nice, but are more often than not hail Mary’s because the actual product isn’t viable.

Yeah, it might be hard to sell a robot that can do a, b, and c as long as you already have set of devices that meet it halfway. OTOH, if it can do a sufficient set of useful things to get some traction, then you might start to see some integrations.

The thing about examples like the washing machine is, I haven't looked but I would be surprised if there isn't already a networked washing machine, less the powered door, that is meant for smart homes.

>> Personally, though, I would bet on dedicated, single-purpose robots, working together through wireless communication.

Robonix Philosophy at play here, inspired from Unix philosophy [1]

- Make each robot do one thing well

- Expect the output of every robot to become the input to another

- Design and build robots to be tried early, ideally within weeks

- Use robots in preference to unskilled help to lighten a chore task

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Origin

Meanwhile, someone somewhere is probably working on robot-mode for emacs!

Difference is : robots take up a lot more space. Having multiple simple robots leads to traffic in the real world and taking away space that humans could use. If robots could be like bosons that would be better

I'm not actually sure that's a difference. On the old systems where that philosophy was developed, disk space was at a premium. In fact, IIRC, the lack of space precipitated the need for a modular system of the sort described by the Unix philosophy.

For a hundred robots, sure. For inner city apartments, sure. But I could put 10 of these things in the corner of this room right now and mostly not notice.

I use a good weekly cleaner, and she does not organize my stuff. If anything, hiring her has forced me to organize more frequently so my stuff is not in her way when she comes to clean.

It's a totally different use case to have a labor-saving device available 24/7. For example, I did not stop using my dishwasher when I hired a cleaner, and my cleaner does not do my dishes or put them away.

My dream house includes a kitchen with enough dishwashers that they function as the cupboards for the dishes as well. then when the dishes are down they're already away.

I think I would be very interested in this

Just replace your shelves with a couple of desktop dishwashers. The water use isn't great but soap and food waste isn't a heavy chemical. The obstacles to home ownership are problematic, however.

https://www.reviewed.com/dishwashers/best-right-now/the-best...

a human cleaner isn't really a perfect substitute for a robot. people might feel uncomfortable with having a human worker in their house for a variety of reasons. most people I know actually clean their whole house before the cleaning service shows up. you don't have to feel guilt/embarrassment at the state of your house when the robot starts working. I could imagine a lot of people might be willing to pay a premium for this, even if the robot doesn't do as good of a job.

And humans can't come over during a pandemic.

For high risk people, this might be a good alternative for normally-simple tasks they can't do by themselves.

Now I just picture someone passing away quietly only to be found weeks or even months later in a still immaculately clean house.

or in a more Black Mirror-esque reality, maybe after the human dies the robot no longer detects a heart rate or pulse and considers the corpse as trash and just disposes of it automatically.

There's something darkly funny about people so embarrassed to have a cleaning person in their house, that they create a solution that would put most cleaning people out of a job.

The knowledge workers automate jobs away, leading pundits to say the future for low-skilled workers is to provide boutique services for the upper class. The end being that the upper class is too ashamed to actually consume those services if it means looking at a person...well, that's sort of a delicious irony, isn't it?

there's definitely some irony to it. I do think a significant motivation for automating stuff is to avoid firsthand confrontation with the reality of capitalism. some people don't necessarily feel uncomfortable with the power dynamic though; they're just embarrassed that another human sees how unclean their living space is. someone might also worry about theft, or they might not like having to be in their house at a certain time each week to let the workers in. it can also just feel like a general loss of privacy in your home.

It seems to me that the reality of capitalism is why wages are too high for the middle class to be able to afford servants.

I have never hired a cleaner, but I imagine there are also people who are uncomfortable having strangers in their house and handling their things.

I have also heard about people getting cleaners who initially do a good job, but whose work quality degrades over time. You wouldn't have that problem with a robot.

Until it gets a million software updates to add “features” that are really just ploys to slow the device down and encourage you to upgrade ;)

Assuming that the robot is properly maintained and no parts break.

The cleaning performance of my Roomba degraded over time.

Not to brag, but my house has a a machine (and a room!) dedicated to cleaning a very embarrassing thing. I'll go even further and brag that I use this room and machine daily! Western society has normalized using the toilet, thankfully, and for a long time now, but it wasn't always the norm.

At least a human cleaner wouldn't spy on you by default.

Given the proliferation of always-on microphones in people's homes (Google Nest, Amazon Alexa, etc), I'd say we're not avoiding the spying issues...

Well you can not have those if you don't like eavesdropping. A cleaning lady is atleast something you notice might hear you and she wont use the data to decide my credit rating.

A safe assumtion is that all IoT devices spy on you. I wonder how much longer there actually are robot vacuum cleaners that are safely offline for sale with full functionality.

At our house, we don't clean because of embarrassment. We clean because we want them to do the stuff that we don't want to do ourselves. I'd rather they spend time cleaning the oven than pick up toys.

That’s obviously not just about cost. Human beings have schedules and lives of their own. They must eat, drink, shit, fuck, and watch Netflix. I cannot keep a human being in my closet to serve me anytime I want. I’d be willing to pay a premium for a mindless servant that’s available nearly 100% of time.

move to Singapore then. they have full-time, live-in maids from indonesia or phillipines that can cost as low as USD 300-400 a month. i grew up in Singapore, where I had 3 maids on staff at all times, and they took care of everything, 24/7.

I think a lot of people would prefer a non-conscious entity to do their cleaning, who has no ability to judge them in any way.

Most people also don’t live in Singapore.

not sure if this comes across as dehumanizing, but trust me, the employers don't give a shit if the maids judge them. i don't know of anyone who has ever worried about being judged by their maids.

Not everyone is ok with treating a fellow human like a robot.

I am not defending the situation except to point out .. people at the lowest rung of the social ladder need to eat and have work with dignity. This is a complex issue. I'm glad I don't live in a developing country anymore so don't have to come face to face with it. I would like to raise awareness that you , I and a bulk of people on HN live in absolute abundance compared to a wide swath of the population in places such as Philippines, Indonesia, India and Pakistan. It is better not to judge others like the original poster (who may be providing people with dignified labor opportunities).

If Alice hires a full-time live in maid and her just-as-wealthy neighbor Bob buys a robot instead, all else equal, which is having a better impact on the world?

- The robot is in your house the whole 168 hours a week, not just 4. You're assuming a good cleaning robot would be absolutely useless for anything else, like cooking, laundry, etc.

- 4-year robot lifetime is overly pessimistic. If upgrade is not the reason (which has nothing to do with lifetime, it's your choice to upgrade), a robot could last way more than 4-years (especially with right-to-repair laws in place).

- That said, such a robot will most likely be available for less than $21k and very soon in the near future.

The first point has an obvious response and the last is speculative.

I find interesting to address the middle one statistically.

A given machine has a number of random events that can kill it. Each possible event type i can be modeled as a Poisson process Xᵢ with, in a given year, probability λᵢ. The machine survives in a given year if no occurrence of event i happens, with probability Pr(Xᵢ = 0) = exp(-λᵢ).

For instance, a device with an average lifetime of 8 years and a single possible cause of death, has λ = -ln(½^⅛) = 0.087.

Given N independent event types (say, if you have on the order of N components), the yearly survival of the overall machine has probability Πᷡᵢ exp(-λᵢ).

Thus the lifetime of the overall machine is ln(½)÷ln(½^(Σᷡᵢ 1÷Lᵢ)) = 1 ÷ Σᷡᵢ (1÷Lᵢ) if each component has lifetime Lᵢ.

For instance, two components with an average lifetime of 8 years yield a single machine with an average lifetime of 4 years.

The more death-causing event types there are, the smaller the lifetime; and a general-purpose robot inherently has more.

I believe this result is counter-intuitive, and is the reason you might be led to think I am overly pessimistic.

Why does your argument not show that cars would have a similar lifetime?

It shows that cars can never reach the pricepoint of a bike for the same lifetime, because the increased number of failure points require an increased level of quality of each part to yield the same lifetime.

stuff goes wrong with cars all the time. most of it isn't critical to the core function of the machine. cars also undergo routine maintenance where parts are (hopefully) replaced before they fail entirely.

Engineers take this phenomenon into consideration and design systems with redundancy and/or easily replaceable parts. You need specific numbers for the design in order to treat this mathematically.

> ... machine ... has ... events that can kill it ...

> ... N independent event types ...

So if the robot blows a $0.03 (i.e., 3 cents) electrolytic cap [0], that's an independent event type that "killed" the machine? Just trying to get a sense of how you define "machine kill" (and as I said I mentioned a big caveat of right-to-repair laws).

[0] http://amzn.com/B01MSQOX0Q

Sorry, what is the supposedly obvious response to the first point?

I think you have to think beyond equivalencies. We pay for 4 hrs/week because we can't afford more. But what if you could have 15 times or 50 times a day kind of cleaning, just not as thorough?

That's what I think the value is for this robot. A quick clean, reorg of the room / house.

Robots won't accidentally infect you with disease, which is a big worry these days.

They could get infected with a crypto-miner and cause you a high electricity bill.

One could make the argument that you normally want exposure to germs to keep your immune system strong. There’s even some conjecture that exposure to cold corona viruses offers some protection from COVID.

> Personally, though, I would bet on dedicated, single-purpose robots, working together through wireless communication.

This reminds me of the little swarm of robots that come out of the walls to clean up spills in The Fifth Element.

Or If we get a universal income, the cost of personal cleaners goes way up, and it suddenly makes way more financial sense to automate such routine jobs...

A one-time, billion-dollar x-prize package would create plenty of incentive, without requiring the (politically fraught) middle step of UBI.

> The main equation for general-use household robots is: can it beat human fares?

This is where raising the minimum wage can spur innovation. If we gradually increase the cost of human labour (with higher wages, and other conditions), then the market will be motivated to fund & find technological solutions.

Leave a room and a swarm of tiny flying droids come out of the ceiling?

Robot arms coming out of the ceiling is bit more realistic.

... and terrifying. Imagine if they randomly came down from the ceiling due to malfunction.

robot will clean everyday as vacuums already do

Reply on news.ycombinator.com