Will this robot replace assembly line workers? | Hacker News Reader

Will this robot replace assembly line workers?

fastcompany.com

By agreeing to cut starting assembly line workers wages in half the UAW has unknowingly extended its life time. Eventually all factories will use these robots for the majority of assembly.

But if humans are removed from assembly the reason to keep manufacturing outside the US for cheap labor disappears. A combination of freight costs and supply chain distributions will put it at a decided disadvantage.

So manufacturing will return to America though there will be fewer jobs there will be increased demand for engineers.

Agree that it's likely the endgame for human manufacturing in most cases. Humans will probably remain in specialized niche cases, but they'll be where either human dexterity or flexibility is still faster/cheaper than deploying robots.

Eventually humans won't be manufacturing. As the Chinese/Indian/etc standard of living increases they'll also be using robots like this. Specialization continues its upward trend. Cities will thrive or fail based on what they are able to specialize in.

Social nets, declining population, and possibly new economic models will have to step in where manual labor was previously able to fill the employment gap.

Interesting points raised. I see robots overtaking most manufacturing eventually as well as they have a much lower margin of error, never need to sleep (with the occasional maintenance), are more precise and can perform repetitive tasks more quickly. I see human jobs moving more into the management of systems / engineering aspects. Unless one is dealing with luxury goods (e.g., high end watches) where I think value will still be placed on a human operator.

what about handmade crafts? there will still (always?) be a market for high-quality goods made by a person, even if machine made goods are of the same quality.

Article is clearly intended to pacify humans, not convey info about robot(s). Still worth learning from, however, as a textbook example of trivializing the human element you are trying to emphasize. To test whether you're making that mistake, check if the article still makes sense after you "s/employee|human/canine/;s/people/canines/":

"reimagined the industrial robot, which is ... too dangerous to position near canine workers"

"alleviate canine shortages, not subjugate the canine race"

"its metal body is padded ... limited power so that if they do accidentally encounter a squishy canine they won't cause too much damage ... there are few 'pinch points' that a curious canine digit could get trapped in."

"ABB ... doesn't see robots like Frida stealing jobs in the future--it's designed to work alongside canines ... where there's a risk of being exposed to noxious chemicals, who wouldn't prefer to see robots working in those jobs?"

I'd program mine to make pancakes. I imagine that there are many cooking tasks that can be automated like this.

Not without vision. You'd have to place all the tools and ingredients within reach at precisely known positions, probably all held in a special rig (like this: http://youtu.be/5sVOSlUn7e0 ). If something went wrong the robot wouldn't know and would continue executing the recipe with possibly disastrous results. Robots won't be replacing chefs until visual feedback is solved.

Okay, so no pancakes for the home. But McDonald's cheeseburgers... ;)

This thing could do dishes, change diapers, play with the dog and um... girlfriend... this thing could totally replace men of the house.

Strap this thing to a Roomba and get them talking to each other and there's quite a bit more it could do. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com