all 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 120 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Those robots are expensive! They're not gonna risk something worth so much on anything dangerous - let the worthless humans do that shit!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Kill the meat, save the metal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    I forget which roman senator it was, but in his writings he does say that it is better to pay free-men to work on, eg, malaria invested areas than slaves.

    Why? you don't risk your Capital (slaves). Same thing here

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 65 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Yeah, as an automation engineer, I freaking hate this narrative. "I want the AI to do the dishes not write music"

    You don't need AI for that, you have automation for it. further automation might be cool too, but the LLM has no place in doing a useful task like that.

    You can tell most people making this narrative haven't ever been to a factory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I hate the ai boom.

    We needed to continue to advance automation. Weve had it for years and its all we need. It just needs to continue to improve!

    Why bring on this fucking massive philosophical and ethical issue in an already crazy world? What the fuck are we even doing here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 53 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

    Robots do, there is anlot of automation now in big mines, Copper be extracted in El Teniente mine in chile, in the middle of the andes and the "miners" can sit comfortably in a control room in the city of rancagua with a cup of coffee.

    EDT: Altough part of the mine is still manned.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

    Those machines are not robots in the sense that they can do stuff at least partially autonomously. Everything is remote controlled, i.e. There's a human in the loop at all times. Present day robots can't even do the simplest tasks without being teleoperated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Who cares as long as thr dangerous work in the mines is not handed out to children and other victims of capitalism anymore?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I wasn't saying automation is a bad thing, i just said it's not the same as robotics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Automation of robotics in an uncontrolled physical environment is so, so hard to program for.

    This is why we got advanced language, music, art, speaking models first. There's SO much of that data (they stole and pillaged every scrap, but the fact is that it exists) that models can be trained on.

    There isn't vast stores of raw sensor data that maps physical environments to servo, hydraulic, pneumatics correlated with optical, heat, tactile feedback etc.

    If you think about how uncoordinated toddlers are, and how many years it takes to map all the inputs humans receive and learn how that translates to our environment so we can move around without much thought, you'll kind of get what I mean. That information just hasn't been collected on a large scale in a way that machine learning can train on it.

    This is the underlying challenge of autonomous robotics. We'll get there, but for now we still need humans controlling pretty much everything that doesn't have an ultra-controlled space like factory floors.

    I was in a grocery store the other day and they had some sign on a Roomba looking thing that was struggling to navigate the produce section. I can't imagine how hard it would be to create a machine that can reliably and safely mine ores autonomously.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    That's just not true. I can't speak for mines, but warehousing and collecting garbage from the ocean and other domains do have fully autonomous systems.

    Humanoid robots aren't really used anywhere, but that's cause they aren't really a functional product yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Why don't robots do something useful, like transporting things, washing the dishes or my clothes!!1!

    empties the dishwasher and hops in a car

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    But…robots are doing all three of those things?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The very premise of this meme is ridiculous.

    Mining was one of the earliest adopters of automation. "Robots" have been doing mining jobs for decades, for centuries if you are generous with how you define "robot". Mining companies keep searching for any job they can automate. Even the guys who drive the enormous mine trucks were replaced when they found they could let a machine drive the trucks instead.

    The only difference is that nobody yet knew how to automate "knowledge work". The latest generation of AI can simulate knowledge work, which apparently is good enough for some jobs. But, the fact that it hasn't yet taken some of the few remaining mining and chemistry jobs is a clue that it has severe limitations.

    Sure, you can automate the creation of powerpoint presentations, which is "knowledge work", but is there a mining company that is willing to fire the guy who supervises the robots and replace him with ChatGPT? These are ruthless profit-driven companies. If AI could do that guy's job, he'd be unemployed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Current LLMs are limited by the fact that they can't train during inference. i.e. They can't learn. If we find something better than backpropagation or diffusion, then things are going to actually be different. At that point, the models would be able to compose ideas together instead of just predict the next token in sequence based on previous training.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Current LLMs are limited by the fact that they can’t train during inference. i.e. They can’t learn

    Learning is much more than just training during inference.

    True unsupervised learning is still in its infancy, and requires a completely different architecture than the current fancy auto-suggest boom. Unsupervised learning has been the dream since at least the 1950s when AI was an aspiration, even before transistors existed. Nobody has figured out how to do it yet.

    If pigs learn to fly, then things are going to actually be different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    If you consider LLMs to be robots I guess? I don’t think robots are writing emails, like a robot is not sitting down at a keyboard and typing out emails in your average office, or any office at any scale really

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I don’t care about the overhyped spambots, I’m talking about the plethora of amazing machines that mine, pick plastic out of the ocean, and process hazardous chemicals all day every day. That happens all the time, constantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Not anywhere near at equivalent scale.

    "Artisanal Mining" (ie, press-ganged children forced into mine work in conflict zones) continues to be a lucrative industry in a way freelance accounting or contracting increasingly is not.

    Automation is coming for the high margin jobs, while leaving humans to the low margin manual labor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago

    Robots are doing exactly all the things described because they are hazardous to humans.

    LLMs are not robots.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago*

    You get to replace a lot more cost when you swap engineers and artists for AI slop machines than you do when you swap manual labor for actual mechanical robots.

    The people with the money to make the bots know this too.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    Real answer?

    People who have access to the tools use it to do tasks they want to avoid. Sally from the civil team doesn't work in mines or under the ocean, but she does spend way too much time on PowerPoint slides and emails she doesn't actually care about. So she has Claude handle it so she can focus on her other work.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    We have robots doing the dangerous jobs in this meme. Its just they don't do 100% of the work. They also don't do 100% of knowledge work either to this day. If you have an AI make you a power point and then you don't edit it and do quality assurance on it you are going to have one jank ass powerpoint.

    Even if the crazy miracles its doing with decomp & recomp work on video games lately: that still requires a ton of human involvement.

    They might eventually be able to do 100% of physical labor though. And 100% of knowledge work. They just are not there yet. The former requires use to have enough physical materials though.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    "But that would be to expensive when one is damaged!" /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    When work is done by the underclass, human life is cheaper than maintaining complex automation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    BYD very famously invested in high end manufacturing equipment early on in it's history. But, in trying to maintain, upgrade, and expand the equipment alongside increased production demand, the senior managers discovered that this was significantly more expensive than just hiring and training more local machinists to build the cars manually.

    They ended up downsizing their automated team and hiring/training a huge number of skilled professionals. This allowed the company to grow far more rapidly, while still implementing new changes to their models with minimal re-engineering of their production floor.

    Now, BYD is one of the largest car markets in the world, and they are slowing moving back to re-automate jobs that have become consistent and routine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Physical AI isn't that good yet. It's getting better, but we are still at the beginning. AI hasn't been out of the AI winter for long; these things take time.

    That being said, "dumb" robots already do a lot, and that will probably expand too with new AI support.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    turns out, a lot of manual labour tasks are too complex to automate easily. even if the work is repetitive and seems like it would be simple, there's a lot of things that you can't just stick a robot into and have it work

    computer tasks, on the other hand.. it's a lot easier, and there's much better training data, and the stakes are theoretically (and often in practice) lower.

    now, as for WHY we're not globally prioritizing automating the dangerous stuff completely, that'd be because money, I imagine

    edit: I'm referring to semi-autonomous robots here, not general automation. automation in general is still going strong, as companies love to spend a few millions dollars to automate something so they save on many more millions of labour costs in the future. customers will buy a custom machine from us for a couple million and operator costs will halve while production doubles. the remaining half of the operator costs I mentioned to towards maintenance staff, which is generally a more skilled position than assembly line work. obviously my numbers are rough, but you get the idea

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There's irony in how easy it is to automate jobs that are generally regarded as "higher ups", more intelligent as opposed to lower-tier jobs. And those managers and executives would likely be pretty bad workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I used to despise the thought of AI in the workplace doing my job for me

    but after seeing what apparently above-average employees output.. I understand why it seems appealing

    ex: sent my coworker instructions that made note of particular things, and a template file with clearly documented instructions inside the file. they used the wrong template file, not the one I explicitly sent the filepath for. they asked me to review the file. I made note of the issues that cropped up because they didn't follow the instructions. they asked me to do a final review. I noticed that some of their fixes to my notes did the opposite of what I asked, or were just ignored. like, yeah, AI can do just as well as that. but it can't do it properly, and that's what we need

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    If a robot is being remote-controlled by a human, surely that's using Real Intelligence, not Artificial Intelligence

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    That wouldn't really be counted as a robot. Remote controlled machinery has been around for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    You don't know what robots are, then. Your dishwasher is one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Allegedly the reason can be found in the published Epstein files. But the people told me never pointed me to an exact portion, though it was something in the lines of:

    Can you operate these image recognition and similar systems in reverse? That could be used for art generation, and we could dethrone the left from its ivory tower.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Yeah, I recently watched some chinese robots dancing on america's got talent. What a world. smh.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    As long as they don't solve material coat issue for sophisticated and specialized robot, let alone how their ai work without failure, robot will always be defeated by ol reliable cheap human miners.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Turns out human-like kinesthetics is a harder problem than spreadsheets. Who knew

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Are you nuts, those robots are expensive. We don't want to get them dirty.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    Mining robots won't become computer God, silly! /s

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Why would I want to make PowerPoint??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Robots fail too much, which is what they don't want us realizing.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    I understand what community I’m in, but I feel like this relates to something I’ve thought about since using a rental electric vehicle. There are a lot of people who can write programs for computers. There are far fewer people who can create electronic devices reliably work in an outdoor, exposed environment. I started suspecting one reason so many charging stations want to use an app to collect payments online is because it’s easy to connect to Square or Cybersource or whatever. Making a card reader that supports magstripe, chip, or NFC and can survive being exposed to sun, rain, snow, ice, and extreme temperatures is a lot harder. Gas pumps have done this for decades, although I’m sure the roofs help, but even they had to turn to companies like Verifone when cards started using chips, and those companies didn’t make things easy (they’re why gas pumps play commercials now).

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Is magstrip that's the problem. It means as an exposed component that has to be in the environment and can't be enclosed. NFC readers can read the chips through several millimetres of materials so they can be totally embedded.

    Real solution is for North America to just get off Mag strip no one's used it in the rest of the world in about 20 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    They still use magstrips? That's crazy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Yeah the US banking system is really archaic. They still use signatures as a form of security.

    I'm really not sure what the resistance to modernisation is. But it causes all sorts of problems like this, that the rest of the world just never experiences.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    Mostly no. When they finally transitioned to chips in the US about 15 years ago there was a period where the card issuers maintained the liability for transactions made with stolen cards, but largely after 2015 (except for gas pumps with credit card functionality) any fraudulent transaction made using magstripe fell on the merchant to suffer the loss. Liability is a reason credit cards are much more popular in the US: if a fraudulent transaction is made the cardholder is normally not out any money, whereas a fraudulent transaction on a debit card could result in a permanent loss of money for the cardholder.

    The merchants were responsible for upgrading their credit card terminals at their own cost, so that was how they incentivized upgrading. Still, some organizations with larger numbers of terminals or legacy software implementations were slow to switch to terminals that supported chips. One large local hospital and clinical medical group we visit a lot for specialists and physical therapy only stopped using magstripe this year. The front desk staff told me they were still using the old terminals because of how many they would have to replace and how those integrated with their billing software. They would have to upgrade everything: thousands of terminals across a dozen hospitals and many more clinics along with a major software upgrade or change of providers, and as a non-profit organization owned by the state’s public university system that wasn’t prioritized until it couldn’t be sustained any longer.

    And as @captainlezbian@lemmy.world said, merchants have the option to swipe the magnetic strip if the chip has a read error, but the merchant is then risking the liability for a fraudulent purchase.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    It's pretty simple:

    Robots are very expensive. And ones that could do this type of work cost even more. Nor are they smart enough to be able to reason ahead and envision danger. So they would get crushed in cave ins a lot.

    Human males, and yes its vastly men that do mining, are cheap and in plentiful supply. They can do at least some rudimentary reasoning and will get crushed less often. And if you lose a few, well they are easily and cheaply replaced. Making them far more profitable to use.

    As an aside, companies are designing and building robotic construction equipment these days. It's just that none of you hang around with such "dirty trades".

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    First you say it can't be done because it's too complicated & expensive. Then you say it's already being done. So which is it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    I never said it couldn't be done. Just that it's really expensive and very complicated, (that's the whole looking ahead and reasoning the dangers - AI robots are not yet that capable), vs the cost of human life.

    What IS being done is above ground human supervised robotics doing VERY simple tasks. Because that's all they can do right now. But it's an expensive buy in vs cheap human labor so you don't see it much.

    As I said, none of you here get your hands that dirty with that type of work. You just complain from afar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Did this meme come from Facebook?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    people have been complaining about machines taking jobs since the 1800's

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    As someone who works underground, we don't think they'd last underground. They stuff we currently have UG barely does

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    The people in control of the robots write emails and make PowerPoints, that is how the world works to them.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The only way robots could possibly be successful at mining is if they are controlled and or trained by actual miners. And it's still a long shot.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    You still need these machines to be wired up, because there's no way to do wireless communication in a tunnel network.

    At some point, it's cheaper to have a manual operator directly on hand than to try and automate a remote machine against all the contingencies and complexity of mining work.

  • source
  • parent
  • It’s more important to them to get the educated out of their way

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    The other day I learned about fatbergs and the people tasked with climbing down into sewers with shovels to remove them. Can't this be a job for AI? Please?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Is this account just a repost bot?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Software vs hardware

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Technology isn’t there yet. Don’t worry, our overlords cannot wait to replace us with soulless metal that cannot unionize.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    Those tasks have standards to conform to and real consequences if they fuck it up so ai cant do it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    It's cheaper for the company when a human worker breaks down due to an accident or hazards than a robot.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Because we hid all that shit, so there's no digital data to mimic or copy from.

  • source