Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

[Chomsky]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

We not only like to see you think, but to have fun doing it as well.

[EJ]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

I don't think the current components will drop in price quite like that, but there could be a breakthrough that cuts the cost dramatically. I'd say the current system is massively over-engineered in an effort to get the things on the road as fast as possible in a safe manner, but the ultimate goal is to get it done software more than hardware. A human drives a car with only a stereo HD camera (on a very flexible swivel mount) and two directional microphones. Clearly it would be inefficient to try and imitate that exactly, but relying on lasers for measuring distance feels like cheating to me. I won't be impressed until computer algorithms are processing standard color video feeds to determine the conditions of the road and other vehicles. How long will it take us to develop algorithms that can process images reliably enough to do that is an open question. The driverless car doesn't have to drive quite as well as a human since it can drive less aggressively to simplify things.

A friend has worked as VP Engineering in the machine vision industry for 20 years. She taught me that getting a computer to recognize an object is a Herculean task, never mind trying to get a robot to do the right thing with it.

She offered this as an example. You can teach a computer to recognize a bottle from a full profile view.

This is a bottle.

Here's the same object from the top.

Now what is it? To a human it's still a bottle.

To a human it's the same object but a computer has no high level concept of "bottle" so in the second view it's a different object altogether unless the object has been imaged from many angles and light conditions and backgrounds so that it can be pattern-matched against thousands of similar objects that have also imaged at many angles.

The same principle applies to objects along the road, such as a mailbox. With a concept of "mailbox" and known behaviors of "mailbox" the human mind can make inferences and instantaneous decisions based on them, unconsciously. For example, "mailbox" is unlikely to leap off the sidewalk and hit your car, so the human driver ignores the mailbox on the sidewalk at the intersection and isolates his or her attention to object classes that are likely to pose a threat, such as "pedestrian" and "vehicle."

When the google car is driving down the road is isn't processing visual information the way a human does. Since it doesn't have high level concepts of objects it can't make judgements based on probable behaviors of objects. It can't see a pedestrian and think, "This object may cross in front of me." Instead, all objects are imaged in the pre-mapped route. Think of the Google Streetview on steroids with far more images taken from all angles from the car. The images in this database for that route are the universe of objects that the system can ignore in future passes on the route. The next time the car takes the route all image data processing is isolated to objects that were not imaged before and need to be tracked as potentially moving objects to be avoided. If any of these objects are moving then their speed and trajectory has to be calculated in real time and the car's steering and braking adjusted as needed. If too many new objects have been added since the route was mapped or there are too many moving objects for the system to process in real time then the system will be overloaded and control returned to the driver.

The car cannot be driven in driverless mode on any route that has not been recently image mapped.

As you can see, this is a very long way from the concept of a driverless car that takes you anywhere you want while you read a book.

At this point subscribers may be wondering why I'm devoting so much time to this. I'm hoping to demonstrate the principle of rigorous, skeptical thinking that we apply to finance and economics here.

The devil's always in the details, far under the surface.

[ou812]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

At this point subscribers may be wondering why I'm devoting so much time to this. I'm hoping to demonstrate the principle of rigorous, skeptical thinking that we apply to finance and economics here.

Highly insightful and greatly appreciated. Same goes for the discussion on bicycle components a few weeks ago.

The devil's always in the details, far under the surface.

Great slogan for the next round of t-shirts in the iTulip store. Although I'm still waiting for the "Discerning reality through the fog of distortions created to maintain a politically expedient false reality, and betting against that false reality" hoodie...

[radon]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

If we're talking about future dystopian scenarios based on a runaway technology, I think that nanorobotics/nanotechnology would be more threatening than life-sized robots. A self replicating, difficult to observe nanorobot can't be easily stopped,

We already have those. Bacteria are everywhere.

[radon]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

In your mind, one fry cook equals all the other fry cook

But they are interchangeable and working in a job that is designed to make them so. All your hand wringing and ad hominem nonsense wont change the nature of that sort of work. I'm sorry if my candor offends you, but I don't find PC euphemisms terribly useful.

There's a big difference between using a power outage as an excuse and physically not being able to do anything.

I stand my my assertion that that a power outage would cause issues for both people and machines and is hardly a barrier to adoption.

Given that I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out the adaptability, cost, and societal trust/adoption issues - your comment above is just as worthwhile as what prompted the response said comment is for.



If you cannot recognize the fundamental limitations of robotics as exemplified by those who do it for a living, I cannot help you.

You seem to have no idea whatsoever of the economics of technology development. Could Baxter be created for $22K? I'd bet any sum you care to name that this price tag assumes a huge volume and equally discounts warranty/liability, not to mention initial R & D expenditure and training/programming for specific tasks. The $22K is almost certainly just what it would take to buy all the parts that make up said object - and is assembled by free graduate student labor. Not exactly scalable.

Given that you've mostly just raged on about what a bad employer you think I am and have not bothered to refute any of the reasons one might find this robot desirable I think your deliberately specious reasoning only demonstrates the weakness of your position. Maybe this robot won't work as advertised or be way too expensive but that doesn't change the properties many employers find desirable.

If you cannot recognize the fundamental limitations of robotics as exemplified by those who do it for a living, I cannot help you.

So I should just take your word for it? What sort of conceit is that? Instead, why don't you expand on what you think are the fundamental limits of robotics are and why you think this cant change in the future?

[radon]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

At this point subscribers may be wondering why I'm devoting so much time to this. I'm hoping to demonstrate the principle of rigorous, skeptical thinking that we apply to finance and economics here.

The devil's always in the details, far under the surface.

Eloquent, persuasive and much appreciated.

[radon]

Re: People are treated like cogs

I remember reading in the newspaper that major silicon valley employers required managers to give a certain percentage of negative reviews to employees, regardless of the managers actual judgement of performance.

Not just silicon valley, this is standard fare for many companies. Even if your entire team did a fantastic job you are only given a few superior ratings to distribute. It isn't necessarily fair, but seeing as performance is usually linked to compensation these days there is an incentive to limit them.

[reggie]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

Father of Cybernetics Norbert Wiener's 1949 Letter to UAW President Walter Reuther, warning him about new technology and the negative impact it would have on manufacturing workers.
http://libcom.org/history/father-cyb...walter-reuther

South Tamworth, August 13, 1949

Walter Reuther
Union of Automobile Workers
Detroit, Michigan

Dear Mr. Reuther,

First, I should like to explain who I am. I am Professor of Mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Iam the author of the recently published book, Cybernetics. As you will see, if you know of this book, I have been interested for a long time in the problem of automatic machinery and its social consequences. These consequences seem to me so great that I have made repeated attempts to get in touch with the Labor Union movement, and to try to acquaint them with what may be expected of automatic machinery in the near future. This situation has been brought to a head by the fact that I have been approached recently by one of the leading industrial corporations with the view to advising them as to whether to go into the problem of making servo-mechanisms, that is, artificial control mechanisms, as part of their extended program.

Technically I have no doubt what direction my advice should take. My technical advice would be to construct an inexpensive small scale, high speed computing machine, together with adequate apparatus for putting the readings of photo-electric cells, thermometers, and other instruments into the machine as numerical data, and for putting numerical out-put data into the motion of shafts and other out-put apparatus. The position of these output shafts should be monitored by proper sense organs, and be put back into the machine as part of the information on which it is to work.

The detailed development of the machine for particular industrial purpose is a very skilled task, but not a mechanical task. It is done by what is called 'taping' the machine in the proper way, much as present computing machines are taped. This apparatus is extremely flexible, and susceptible to mass production, and will undoubtedly lead to the factory without employees; as for example, the automatic automobile assembly line. In the hands of the present industrial set-up, the unemployment produced by such plants can only be disastrous. I would give a guess that a critical situation is bound to arise under any condition in some ten to twenty years; but that if war should make the replacement of labor mobilized into the services an immediate necessity, we should probably have a concentrated effort put into this work which might well lead to large scale industrial unemployment within two years.

I do not wish personally to be responsible for any such state of affairs. I have, therefore, turned down unconditionally the request of the industrial company which has tried to consult me. However, it is manifestly not enough to take a negative attitude on this. If I do not put this information in the hands of the industrialists, it is merely a question of time when so obvious a method of procedure will be urged upon them by other people.

Therefore, the procedure which I shall follow depends finally upon whether I can get you and the labor interests you represent to pay serious attention to this serious situation. I have tried to do this in the past without success; and I do not blame you people for it, but since then there has been a turn-over in personnel among you and the present group of labor leaders seem to have transcended the point of view of the shop to a sufficient extent to make it worthwhile for me to make an appeal to you again.

What I am proposing is this. First, that you show a sufficient interest in the very pressing menace of the large-scale replacement of labor by machine on the level not of energy, but of judgment, to be willing to formulate a policy towards this problem. In particular, I do not think it would be at all foolish for you to steal a march upon the existing industrial corporations in this matter; and while taking a part in production of such machines to secure the profits in them to an organization dedicated to the benefit of labor. It may be on the other hand, that you think the complete suppresion (sic) of these ideas is in order. In either case, I am willing to back you loyally, and without any demand or request for personal returns in what I consider will be a matter of public policy. I wish to warn you, however, that my own passiveness in this matter will not, on the face of it, produce a passiveness in other people who may come by the same ideas, and that these ideas are very much in the air.

If you determine that the matter does not deserve your serious consideration, you will leave me in a very difficult position. I do not wish to contribute in any way to selling labor down the river, and I am quite aware that any labor, which is in competition with slave labor, whether the slaves are human or mechanical, must accept the conditions of work of slave labor. For me merely to remain aloof is to make sure that the development of these ideas will go into other hands which will probably be much less friendly to organized labor.

Under these circumstances, I should probably have to try to find some industrial group with as liberal and honest a labor policy as possible and put my ideas in their hands. I must confess, however, that I know of no group what has at the same time a sufficient honesty of purpose to be entrusted with these developments, and a sufficiently firm economic and social position to be able to hold these results substantially in their own hands.

I have a book ((The Human Use of Human Beings) which will be forthcoming with Houghton-Mifflin next spring which will bring these ideas to a head. If you so wish, I shall send you copies of the relevant chapters.

Naturally, I do not expect you to take these matters on my momentary say-so. If you show sufficient interest to be willing to push the matter further, I shall be glad to put my ideas both technical and social at your disposal, so that you will be able to judge them better.

Sincerely yours,

Norbert Wiener
Department of Mathematics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

Okay, so I'll give everyone ONE guess what the Industrialists did with Prof Weiner's information?

[gnk]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

We already have those. Bacteria are everywhere.

Good point, in a biological sense. Which brings up another topic, (not to get off track)

We are inadvertently breeding the next superbug in Agriculture. The heavy use of antibiotics and synthetic insecticides/aracicides, etc... is very common in agriculture. And with each dose, we are producing a stronger strain of the organism we are trying to kill. But's that's another issue...

It's simple evolution. We treat bees, cows, chickens, etc... and what is really happening is that we are affecting evolution. We are creating domesticated animals that are evolving to be more and more dependent on human medical interaction, while we are putting pathogens and parasites on a fast track to becoming indestructible super organisms. With each dose, a stronger strain/parasite develops, and a weaker host becomes more dependent.

I know I am sounding alarmist, but I am no kneejerk doomer either. I'm just saying that our quest for efficiency, whether it be in technology in the workplace or how we grow food - may have some unintended consequences we are not fully aware of. I am being cautionary here. I'm not saying the sky is falling anytime soon. But we can't be pie in the sky cornocopians either. There are limits.

We must be more aware of unintended consequences. A benefit today may become a larger detriment tomorrow.

Mankind has been on a fantastic ride for a couple centuries now. Let's keep our hubris in check. Nature has a funny way of teaching every organism who is ultimately "the boss."

[Polish_Silver]

Prototype vs production costs, Machine Vision

When the google car is driving down the road is isn't processing visual information the way a human does. Since it doesn't have high level concepts of objects it can't make judgements based on probable behaviors of objects. It can't see a pedestrian and think, "This object may cross in front of me."

Excellent point. Humans also get overloaded, but the human performance probably decreases at a slower rate than the machine vision system. The system might be more appropriate for a controlled access freeway than for a residential street.

If you can't read while in the driver's seat, the value of the system goes way down.

Concerning the hardware costs, are these prototype costs, or high volume production costs? Prototypes can cost 100X what the production version costs.

[c1ue]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

But they are interchangeable and working in a job that is designed to make them so. All your hand wringing and ad hominem nonsense wont change the nature of that sort of work. I'm sorry if my candor offends you, but I don't find PC euphemisms terribly useful.

You still don't get it.

Sure, fry cooks are interchangeable from a certain perspective.

So are employers.

However, people aren't inanimate objects. If you treat them as such, then you're going to reap what you sow.

As for ad hominem - what I've repeatedly said is that I'd never want to work for someone who thinks of employees like you do. If you treated your wife, your kids, your friends the same way, you'd equally get the same result.

Given that you've mostly just raged on about what a bad employer you think I am and have not bothered to refute any of the reasons one might find this robot desirable I think your deliberately specious reasoning only demonstrates the weakness of your position. Maybe this robot won't work as advertised or be way too expensive but that doesn't change the properties many employers find desirable.

You don't seem to actually know anything about robotics and automation - instead merely focusing on what you think you'll avoid by not having those uppity people working.

So I should just take your word for it? What sort of conceit is that? Instead, why don't you expand on what you think are the fundamental limits of robotics are and why you think this cant change in the future?

As I am not the only one speaking to the fundamental limitations robots and automation have - your comment once again is completely off the mark.

I noted that automated delivery trucks can't actually deliver. EJ noted the same, although he added that maybe customers can be made to take this over.

I noted that automated driving for buses incurs fundamental limitations because bus drivers do more than just move from point A to point B. EJ noted that auto-driving in general has limitations because robot vision is only pattern match based.

All the other points raised - they didn't arise from thin air. I either know people who do this for a living or have direct hands-on experience with technology ranging from semiconductors, to computer design, to mobile apps.

But hey, you clearly don't want to know that your dream robot employee is, right now and for the near future, a fantasy.

[BadJuju]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

[dcarrigg]

Re: Prototype vs production costs, Machine Vision

Excellent point. Humans also get overloaded, but the human performance probably decreases at a slower rate than the machine vision system. The system might be more appropriate for a controlled access freeway than for a residential street.

If you can't read while in the driver's seat, the value of the system goes way down.

Concerning the hardware costs, are these prototype costs, or high volume production costs? Prototypes can cost 100X what the production version costs.

I'll believe in widespread baxter and robot cars seven years after we finally get a damned robot with tank treads and a shovel that wonders the neighborhood digging out cars and dispensing hot cocoa.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

This gives me a cool idea for a business plan. What if ( go with me here ), we install a vast system of pneumatic tubes under the streets. These tube can go to a central location like the post office or something. Envelopes and even small packages can be transported by tube from one building to the next. Think of the terrific savings! Obviating most short trips in town and eliminating huge amounts of traffic!

How can we patent this idea? Move quick before someone else thinks of it.

[c1ue]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

This gives me a cool idea for a business plan. What if ( go with me here ), we install a vast system of pneumatic tubes under the streets. These tube can go to a central location like the post office or something. Envelopes and even small packages can be transported by tube from one building to the next. Think of the terrific savings! Obviating most short trips in town and eliminating huge amounts of traffic!

How can we patent this idea? Move quick before someone else thinks of it.

Seems like it would be awfully expensive.

But in the vein of your idea - already 382000 patents...

http://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#hl=en...iw=782&bih=458