[decimalenough]

There are plenty of places [1] where garbage is sorted for free by poor people who scrape a living from recycling it.

Sorting garbage is a terrible job for humans, but it's a terrible one for robots too. Those fancy mechanical actuators etc are not going to stand up well to garbage that's regularly saturated with liquids, oil, grease, vomit, feces, dead animals, etc.

[1] https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=96-P13-00022&s...

[tkzed49]

are you implying that society shouldn't aim to reduce human interaction with vomit, feces, and dead animals? Robotics in harsh environments isn't unheard of

[ggm]

I think they're pointing out you need to be cautious assuming a robot can be economically, sustainably deployed to do jobs in environments which are challenging for electro-mechanical systems.

An example: A friend worked on accurate built-in weighing machines for trucks, which could measure axle weight and load balance to meet compliance for bridges and other purposes. He found it almost impossible to make units which could withstand the torrents of chemical and biological wet materials which regularly leak into a truck. You would think "potting" electronics understands this problem but even that turns out to have severe limits. It's just hard to find materials which function well subjected to a range of chemicals. Stuff which is flexible is especially prone to risks here: the way you make things flex is to use softeners, which in turn make the material for other reasons have other properties like porosity, or being subject to attack by some combinations of acid and alkalai.

These units had NO MOVING PARTS because they were force tranducers. They still routinely failed in service.

Rubbish includes bleaches, acids, complex organics, grease, petrochemicals, waxes, catalyst materials, electricity, reactive surfaces, abrasives, sharp edges..

They are not saying "dont try" they are saying "don't be surprised if it doesn't work at scale, over time"

[freeopinion]

It's interesting to think that it is more feasible (including economically) to expose humans to bleaches, acids, catalyst materials, electricity, abrasives, and sharp edges.

[sepositus]

You're restating a one-sided view without acknowledging its real problems. The money has to come from somewhere, and depending on the cost, it may be true that no one is willing to pay for their garbage bill doubling, for example. Then maybe people choose to dump their garbage on the street or in protected parks, and we see an impact on local wildlife.

It's necessary to follow things to their logical conclusion.

[azernik]

Humans are really well designed mechanical systems!

[pjerem]

> human interaction with vomit, feces, and dead animals

Humans can generally stand this without an issue.

In fact you wouldn’t replace a lot of jobs that involves this : doctors, nurses, emergency workers, caregivers…

It just happens to be difficult. But people love doing difficult things as long as it’s : a) rewarding, b) respected, and c) sufficiently paid

[decimalenough]

I'm pretty sure manually scavenging through garbage is none of those.

[timewizard]

What would I have to pay an unskilled version of you, both in terms if gross pay, and in required safety equipment, to get you to do the job? What would be reasonable?

Does the graph of that pay scale cross the cost graph of this robot?

Maybe just paying a living wage is a simpler answer than most AI enthusiasts want to admit.

[dyauspitr]

I think it’s pretty straightforward to cover the entire torso of the robot with a plastic covering.

[genewitch]

Why does it even need to be that type of robot, a conveyor that has items on it, but its a mesh, a camera looks, and if something can be sorted just use compressed air to move it to a collection area/bin. Put an electromagnet at the start of the conveyor that can move on a gantry to another bin.

Why's everything gotta have arms and graspers it's so inefficient.

Robots aren't climbing trees or chasing food. They don't need tails, either.

[dagw]

Why's everything gotta have arms and graspers it's so inefficient.

We have designed a lot of processes and workplaces around the assumption that the 'machine' working there will be be around 160-190 cm tall, with two arms with graspers on the end and equipped with stereo colour vision cameras. The closer you make your new machine match that spec the less changes you have to make to your current setup. It also makes it easier to partially swap in robots over time, rather than ripping everything out and building something completely new.

Having worked at a company close to this field, the real answer through is that both approaches are being done right now. People building new facilities from scratch are building entirely automated system where the 'robot' is the whole machine. People with existing facilities are more interested in finding ways to add robots to their current workflow with minimal changes.

[genewitch]

I am having a hard time imagining a scenario where you have humans working where you can't replace them with a conveyor system. it doesn't need to be that long, you could have a 5 foot, linear, isolated section (about the sphere of a human range), and use compressed air and optical/laser sensing to pop stuff out of that section into a bin/trailer/whatever.

do you have a picture of a facility where they would have to replace humans with humanoid robots and a conveyor would not work?

[fc417fc802]

> compressed air

I believe a short drop and hydraulically actuated metal plates are the more typical solution. That offers a high level of precision.

[dyauspitr]

It’s this same purpose built argument again. That’s not the point of these. The point is to be able to go and do anything a human can, something the entire world has been built around.