A robot as cheap, easy-to-use, and safe as an iPhone
August 26, 2012
Rethink Robotics’ goal is that its [forthcoming] cheap, easy-to-use, safe robot will be to industrial robots what the personal computer was to the mainframe computer, or the iPhone was to the traditional phone, says The New York Times writer Thomas L. Friedman.
“That is, it will bring robots to the small business and even home and enable people to write apps for them the way they do with PCs and iPhones — to make your robot conduct an orchestra, clean the house or, most important, do multiple tasks for small manufacturers, who could not afford big traditional robots, thus speeding innovation and enabling more manufacturing in America. …
“It eliminates bad jobs, empowers good jobs, but always demands more skill and creativity and always enables fewer people to do more things. We went through the same megashift when our agricultural economy was replaced by the industrial economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, what this election should be about is how we spawn thousands of Rethinks that create new industries, new jobs and productivity tools.”
“Rethink Robotics was founded in 2008 by Rodney Brooks, a co-founder of iRobot and former Director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The company’s mission is to bring to market a new generation of robots to improve productivity in manufacturing environments. Rethink’s goal is to introduce robots into places that have not been automated before, making manufacturers more efficient, their workers more productive and keeping jobs from migrating to low-cost regions.” — Rethink Robotics (formerly Heartland Robotics).
Comments (28)
by Cybernettr
If history is any guide, the advancement of technology will NOT wipe out all human jobs in one fell swoop. It’s going to come one little manageable bit at a time.
The problem is that technology tends to wipe out the middle-class, such as manufacturing, jobs FIRST, leaving only the upper-class (and highly competitive) jobs like doctor, lawyer and scientist and lower class (and poorly paying) jobs, such as janitorial work and house painting. So, rather than massive unemployment, it’s going to drive an even bigger wedge between the rich and poor.
There’s going to be a small, highly-paid “priestly” class and a far larger, poorly paid “drone worker” class. And I suspect this unfortunate state of affairs will linger on far longer than the singularitarians imagine.
by Phil Osborn
Wow! What a great conversation! I did the early post that framed this idea of some kind of negative income tax in the theoretical Commons/Common Law mode, which I suspect is the only really fair and durable solution – or something close to it. There are also similarities that I haven’t discussed with the Henry George position, which is still current, although trying to read through his “Progress and Poverty” is a real task for anyone used to getting ideas in small, tidy chunks. It’s aimed at a 19th Century attention span, altho definitely worth the effort.
I think that we can settle and solve most of the current grievances, such as the 1 in 6 humans that “live” on less than $1 per day, with a simple planetary dividend, and that puts almost everyone on the same page. The more productive we are as a species, the bigger the dividend from renting out the commons. Productive people will have every freedom to do what they want, so long as they compensate the rest of us for their privatization of the commons, and the more of them and the more productive they are, the more the rest of us will benefit, both from the advances in productivity – MORE, BETTER EVERYTHING – and also from the dividend. And the equal shares of that dividend takes most of the politics out of the equation. The only major issue being how much of the land rent goes for infrastructure vs. how much gets distributed to everyone individualy. And that’s a matter of rational economic analysis and prediction, not political squabling over a finite pie. Meanwhile, bring on the bots! The more work they do, the more we all profit, under a Commons analysis.
by Dave Wyland
We have been here before: agricultural revolution (farming), the industrial revolution, the automation of farming (beginning of 20th century), automation of management (computers). Most of the work people used to do is being done by machines today. Now, people are working at jobs few, if any, used to do. So it continues. Remember, technology is just any method of doing something better or faster. If you discover a faster route to work, this is also technology.
The key is that people want things – and experiences – that other people can find or make for them. And we will pay with our human labor for their labor to provide it. Machines want nothing. Machines do not buy anything. But people always want a better life than they are presently living. As one wag once put it, “There is always another, higher shelf in the candy store.” For example, I would love to spend a week end in a posh hotel in orbit, with an excursion trip to the moon – among other dreams.
by trakk
well during all those revolutions, human population was almost constant. For eg from 1812 to 1912, the growth was far more marginal than it was in the last 100 years from 1912 to 2012. And all this automation is making the existing population unsustainable. I am not saying it is bad or good. Nature is the best judge of how many people earth can handle. I am only describing the changes taking place.
by trakk
We human beings are becoming more and more obselete in the workplace every year.
by Gorden Russell
Did any of you click on the blue hyperlink at the end of the last paragraph of this article? The one for Rethink Robots. There you will see that Rodney Brooks is funded by Jeff Bezos. Bezos made his billions from Amazon. If he has the confidence to put his money into this, then it will succeed.
This reminds one of a line from a horror movie, Rosemary’s Baby. “This is no dream! This is really happening!” I want you to remember that the woman was being raped by the devil when she screamed these words. I’m not joking, I foresee a future history of societal collapse caused by mass unemployment.
#
Did any of you watch the CBS news program 60 Minutes last night? They had a segment interviewing the Republican Party tax-cut maven, Grover Norquist. He is going to be in Tampa at the Republican convention, busy twisting arms to get congressmen to sign his pledge for no new taxes.
People tend to vote along the same line on their ballots, so if Romney is elected, he will take a number of new Tea Party freshmen to Congress. They will all be against raising taxes.
If these new cheap robots come online in the next two years and start putting people out of work the Republicans will vote along the party line in a single bloc to deny new training programs for these people because that would raise taxes for the 1%.
When robots take jobs away from people, these jobs are gone forever. Yet unemployment benefits only last 26 weeks. These benefits are small enough as it is, they are only half your regular pay. Many people are losing their homes and ending up living in their cars even while still drawing unemployment.
If the Republicans take a majority to congress, they will vote down extended unemployment benefits. What will these people do when their checks run out? These are people with children. What will they do?
This is a first step on a slippery slope to the collapse of society.
by trakk
My guess, republicans might lose the congress, even if they win the presidency. And with people commonly agreeing that senate will continue to stay with democrats for atleast another two years, i think left and right will balance each other out.
by Will Truth
Gorden Russell. The first step on a slippery slope to the collapse of society? Stop being so melodramatic please. Society survived the mechanisation of the textile industry in the 19th century despite the concerns of the Luddites. It survived the further advances of Henry Ford et al. And it will survive this.
by Phil Osborn
A possible solution would be a model for the economy that started out with the Commons, instead of private property. I.e., Common Law, instead of Locke’s “mix your labor with the land.” (Problem with Locke’s position is that there isn’t and never has been any “free land” to be the first to mix your labor with. Every piece of land in the universe is in the plans or use or potential use by every intelligent entity.) Under a Commons model, those of us who agreed via the courts to allow privatization of portions of the Commons for a fee would be due a planetary dividend based on those fees. Imagine this on an L5 colony, if it makes it easier, where one would obviously rent out space to the highest bidder, with procedes going to the owners – in this case corresponding to the people – for infrastructure, etc, and then as a dividend. Since every person has an equal inherent birthright to the commons as part of the general social contract – or we go to war… – the dividend would also be equal, so that so long as we are reasonably prosperous as a species, we would get a reasonable stipend. So, a system that ensures that we have enough to survive and yet does so in the process of conjointly ensuring that we all have a strong vested interest in maintaining prosperity and progress. And, it is uniquely designed to function even if all the actual labor is done by robots. Note that this is not a welfare boondoggle or “need-based” system, but rather a simple recognition of the real state of affairs. And it accomplishes “social justice,” unlike all the left-wing schemes.
by Charlie L
Phil, Isn’t this what we have already? property taxes target our use of land and our profits/income are taxed as companies or individuals. Surplus goes into infrastructure and common goods. The only question is how you spend the dividends (reinvest ie. lower taxes, invest in culture i.e sports/arts/eduction or create safety nets for people ie. welfare/healthcare). We all have a lot of opinions on that which I’m sure left and right will argue about till the cows come home, but I’m not sure what your system does that is innovative and would help solve what is just a subjective view of priorities (for distribution) that people will never agree on.
by David Clark
I am a Conservative but I can see only one future and that is a guarranteed minimum income for everyone. In the future, we will not need most of the labour of humanity because of AI and robotics. Let’s use that surplus labour to maximize people’s happiness and not try to create make work projects.
The future can be much better than today or much worse, we get to choose which one but we won’t get to choose to keep the current system.
by tim the realist
This really come down to increases in worker productivity due to technological advancements. some of this goes to corporate profits, some to reduced csot of goods and services, and some ends up with displaced workers. the only options i see are an ever increasing number of unemployed people, or adoption of shorter work weeks to balance it out a little. Why have ever more people doing nothing, and the rest working >40 hours / week to support them at a low standard of living? Fewer work hours / week will benefit everyone.
by Rob Larson
It still amazes me how short-sighted people are when it comes to technological advancement. The Luddites basically made the same argument at the dawn of the industrial era. What they didn’t understand was that by doing more work in less time, leisure time for humans increased dramatically. Prior to the industrial revolution, there was little time for recreation due to the fact that if you didn’t farm and weren’t part of the aristocracy you pretty much starved.
It was only with mass production by the masses for the masses and the resultant rise in the standard of living that accompanied the change that you started to see the affluent modern society emerge. This new technology will take much of the drudge work out of life and enable people to become more productive, productive in new ways and have more leisure time. Everybody wins.
by Gorden Russell
Sure, Rob Larson, but only if the Republicans let us have a Negative Income Tax.
by Tobomorph
Do you think employers will pay you when a robot will do your job just fine? When demand is equal or less do you think having a robot around will help you keep your job?
by Bri
The big question is what jobs we can do that a robot won’t take away? The rules of economics make them cost effective. They don’t buy houses, send kids through school,etc. Even if they can’t do it better, if they can be competent, what employer wouldn’t want to not pay employee taxes? Instead they are a write off.
by smb12321
Human history is replete with cries of, “What will we do when a machine (or system) replaces a worker?” Whether its the printing press, light bulb, car, train or automated phone, traffic and airline systems, it’s the same cry. We hear it today from publishers, CD makers and even doctors as machines steadily increase in both precision and intelligence.
If folks can’t find something to do with their time, they need to rethink their lives. Volunteer at your local charity, help inmates learn to read, plant a garden, take up a hobby – there’s a million things to keep people busy.
by Gabriel
I feel i’m inclined to agree….this is a very old fear, maybe an irrational one….new jobs and careers will be created through new technologies that simply didn’t exist before, and the overall results from machines taking over will mean more leisure time and capability to do things you “want” to do over what you fee you “have” to do…it’s up to you to decide what to do with your time with what you are capable of personally doing.
All sorts of things will overlap….machines will take over the drudgery which leaves the question of where people fit in…but then again, when you can print and create all sorts of stuff cheaply and easily….the whole nature of working, money and commerce changing completely….not to mention the augmentations….
So aside from being an old fear, I honestly feel it will be lost underneath the other revolutions that are supposed to come in the next few decades.
by Bri
I’m happy to see people looking at this issue. The more it’s talked about, the less it will turn ugly. There are lots of good creative minds coming together to make society better. Working together we can find the solutions and ways to implement! As I’ve said before, it really is a good time, it will get a little scary.
by Justin
Why not think of anew way to keep people working or payed? Why sacrifice comfort, efficiency, and the general advancement of humans for something as simple as no one being able to think of new ways for people to contribute in order to get payed?
by aus
If you crowdsource app development out to the public- it will only be a matter of time until the best AI programming rises to the top of the apps market. Utilize the power of crowd intelligence to make the robot intelligent.
by Celina
Normally I’m against killnig but this article slaughtered my ignorance.
by Bri
I don’t want to sound like a pessimist, so I hope they are right. If I get one to help my elderly parents, and it cleans the house, we will save money, by not having a house cleaning service. Those people will have to retrain. I brought home some Chinese take out, and my mother said the fried rice was bland. If that same robot could cook like Rachel Ray, we might not buy Chinese food from take out kitchens. If it could do the gardening, why hire a gardening service. If it can take blood pressure and do other medical things, we might not have to hire a home health care worker. They will very quickly evolve to do all those tasks and more. Several of them working together could do all the tasks in my shop. I’ll make out like a bandit. I won’t hire. Why hire? Workers in my field are so poorly trained, they are late, won’t show up, complain, talk on the telephone, steel from my clients refrigerators, medicine cabinets, or worse. Need vacations, want overtime pay, etc. So the sixtyfour thousand question is what will they retrain to do. As soon as you tell me, I’ll show how a robot will quickly evolve for that task. What about a CFO. They are instrumental for a corporation. A good R2D2 robot or C3PO could have a Watson style program, mixed with a finance program that the best money could never get you, if you went to college for twenty years. It would give the most accurate account of the financial status of the company, at any instant,and it wouldn’t cook the books and run off with the secretary. What better paying jobs are they proposing? Please tell me, any of you out there, cause I’ll just show you advances that will make that job obsolete, before you get a chance to retrain for it. It’s not like the transformation from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy. As I’ve said before, I WILL buy these robots for my business, but they will eventually take my job away. It will seem like the blink of an eye in comparison to other cultural shifts. What comes next could be great, if we come together and peacefully find a solution. I think I see one, but the one percent that own most of everything aren’t going to like it. Our economy runs on consumption. We need money to consume. At any given moment we only use a small amount. Once we spend it it’s back in a bank or the materials nessecary to produce new products. If it were tied together in a closed loop, there is more than enough out there for us all to have very happy productive lives. It hasn’t worked before because greed gets in the way. If all the COs of every company was an AI, and all money transactions were totally transparent, it could work. I just don’t see any other solution. Please suggest whatever alternative you can think of. In particular, what jobs we all could be trained for, after a robot take it away. To me it seems like an inevitable outcome. Right now it sounds outlandish, speculative, wishful, but as jobs start to disappear, and the pain starts to happen, with all it’s social discord, my thoughts won’t be so farfetched. It will become the only hope, other than financial collapse.
by Tobomorph
No, you’re right. The problem is that Heartland can’t say “we’re gonna help employers eliminate a bunch of jobs and lower their payroll.” That would make some people angry. Because that’s the stock line when a business gets automation. They say they’re gonna make new jobs.
Only thing I’ve thought of to help would be creating an alternate economy where people do more hands-on work.
by Vin
Perhaps we ‘retrain’ to be individuals to foster the ‘creativity and skill’ this new approach is said to demand. As proud individuals we learn and accept our strengths and weaknesses, which we can then consolidate, mitigate or exploit until there is no such distinction, and so can apply ourselves anew, be uniquely creative, attain skill by unique routes, contribute to an increasingly enriching ecosystem of progress and reward? But the transition will be painful unless managed with awareness, focus and vision to foster this leverage of individualism. Even the country with the best secular individual-empowering constitution in the world is swamped by ideologically stifling conformity, witch-hunt and social control. And other up and coming countries display the self-same faults as if immune to the natural human solipsism displayed by their competitors. But if there is individual empowerment, the status quo built on self-serving institutions, and the lack of visionary leadership… it’ll all simply be bypassed by the plebeians in the background? If i can say all that without sounding like a fantasy communist or out-of-touch dreamer! :D
by GAUSS
Good thoughts, Bri. And good questions! As an AI programmer and robotics enthusiast, these are things I wrestle with constantly.
The honest truth is that money and commerce will take on different meanings. What exactly those meanings are, nobody can know until they’ve already come to pass. But the good news is that alternatives are wide open to our imaginations. We can pursue a Star Trek-like reality in which there’s no longer such things as money, or we can return to a strictly barter economy, or really whatever makes the most sense. Money as an empty symbol with numbers attached will inevitably cease, whether by the robotics / AI revolution or by the inevitable fall of all of our current economic models. I look forward to these times! It marks a new chapter for our species, for better or for worse.
That said, I hope it’s apparent that consumerism never could have lasted forever. It’s already on shaky ground, as is our entire fiscal structure. New models will be adopted one way or another, because we all seek our own survival and benefit. Look no further than the nearest shelf of history books for confirmation of this.
Hope this helps. Be excited! There’s so much to look forward to, despite how scary everything is right now.
by Gabor
Yes, this will inevitably happen in the next 20 years. Machines will take over most of the jobs. Get prepared to 50% unemployment. Retraining won’t work either because most available jobs will be so out of the regular person’s liege that they won’t even bother trying. That is when we will have our little revolution, changing political system and resource distribution for good. I don’t see it as really violent but more like no other way. If half the people won’t work, somehow they will have to have money to buy the things the 1% produces with all their robots and remaining slaves. By then powerful technology will be available for almost free and people could almost create their own resources without the need for buying it from the 1%. As I see it this transformation will be in about 20 years, it will be swift but mainly non-violent. Give another 10-15 years after that and it will be the most “natural” thing that we will work for bragging rights and not for survival anymore. Also by then we will be able to upgrade ourselves to start working on much more interesting things that we can’t even imagine today. There will be probably groups of “thinkers” working in unison while having private fun in a parallel consciousness of some sort (maybe living full 60-year lifetimes in virtual reality with different settings for each “life”). There will also be some who chooses to leave Earth for exploring the Universe perhaps in other then human form. But that’s not for another 100 years or so… Somehow we have to survive the next 20 years though, this is when people will be most unhappy and technology will miniaturize into fearfully seamless creative or destructive force.
by Scott
Very excited to see what they come up with. This is just a start.
Human Race get off your Knees! Let machines do the routine manual labor.