Post

Hi, it’s me, your neighborhood robotics business guy, to inform you that if robots were actually ready to automate a process at scale, they would likely already be deployed

Chris Rugaber@chrisrugaber.bsky.social

Fascinating interview with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on @cnbc.com this morning: He said that US manufacturers can use robots to offset the low wages paid in other countries, enabling the return of more production to the US, and Americans can get jobs building and maintaining the robots.

123 reposts752 likes

Any process with bottlenecks worth automating at scale gets rearchitected around the automation, thus removing the design constraint that they need to look human or navigate environments designed for human navigation

Last Gamer on the Left@lastgamerontheleft.bsky.social

Exactly. The only thing blocking us from fully automated corporatist dictatorship is the fact that humanoid robots cost more than $8/hr to run.

Also... if you wanted to engineer something to be good in factories, you would not design something as complicated and prone to breaking as the human body. There are 26 bones plus a whole bunch of important connecting stuff in the human foot alone, because (I assume) evolution.

Also, it's probably easier to automate away jobs maintaining robots than it is to automate away much more varied and unpredictable jobs done by humans. It's definitely easier to automate away jobs building robots than it is to automate away much more varied and unpredictable jobs done by humans.

Lutnick's "plan" is great for robot full employment, & employers--who will reap reduced labor costs--but it wld mean a net human job loss. Would these hypothetical robots spend money in our economy to offset loss of consumer demand? What happens to the poor robots when consumer demand tanks?

No disagreement in general, but it is true that differing labor costs can lead to different process investments in factories - the most cost-effective process in a low labor cost market may use fewer robots than what you would engineer for in a high cost area. So there's _some_ room... 1/2

The problem being that the manufacturer already calculated that the less-automated process in the low labor cost scenario was more profitable than throwing more automation at US-based production, so any way you look at it, manufacturing costs will rise. 2/2

The idea that people would be building the robots is as laughable as the idea that robots are currently ready for deployment as work force replacements.

And they are! Does our commerce secretary not have any idea how incredibly automated our manufacturing already is? Every single shop has a CNC, usually a bunch of them. McDonald's is automated a shitton despite requiring a lot of workers. Starbucks espresso machines do lots of the work.

Large-scale 3d print farms use robots to change plates. For 20 years, industrial mfg has effectively been people supervising robots. The idea that there's room for some large scale mechanization of American industry, like we're the Soviets in the 30s or China in the 70s, is incredibly ignorant.

and the reason McD's and Starbucks are still located in the US is bc they essentially have to be--transportation costs. if you've got robots making stuff and the robots need supervision and a firm *can* have that happen in the place of lowest labor cost, ofc it will do that production there.

I'm tired of the "eat the bugs" dialogue (even though there are genuine efforts to make insect proteins more available). I'm way more comfortable with saying that tech executives and a16z types want us to "bathe the bots, serve the agents, scrub the data".

Is it just me, or do others think people (not robots) need jobs in order to have money to buy the crap that robots (not people) make? How does the automation of everything work in a consumer-dependent economy?

our government is a bunch of old people who don't understand technology at all, but rather than being scared of that decided that anything tech is effectively magic and can fix/do anything