Boxing items of different shapes and sizes and including packing material for shipment is a very complex task to automate. Advanced computer vision and nimble robotic arms will likely enable it to happen somewhat soon.
The reason is the products are different sizes and shapes, and their position is not precisely known. This means packing robots need to use computer vision to find the objects and know how to pick them up. Finally they need to be fit in the box very precisely. Think about how soft vs. hard objects should be packed. Watch a few videos of robots (?v=c3Cq0sy4TBs) picking up stuff and you'll see how slow it really is. There are fast pickers (flex picker), but they can only pick up 1 kind of object.
@sadjesture An algorithm can easily be created for the packaging of goods in the most efficient way. You could, for instance divide the items into cathegories: cans and metal containers, glass, plastic, fruit and vegetables (by their bar code, perhaps) and them pack them so that the heaviest/most resistent items are on the bottom and the most fragile on top. As for the volume it's a simple matter of feeding the robot info about the size of each item in respect to the box.
I would argue that having standard size boxes and engeneering robot arms that can manage all of them is actually quite easy. Technology has accoplished far more complex things already.
Sure you are right about that, but I think if all products need to be put in standard sized boxes you'd lose a lot of valuable space in your parcel. I'd say most products are not box shaped. Shipping costs would be much higher. On the other hand, you do save on labor cost, so I don't know which way is cheaper.
@TheUnchainedMind not what i meant by adapt and be creative. yes we could create a system where all the tasks are done by robots. packing 3d objects into boxes would be easy for a computer that's just math. but what happens when an unexpected instance shows up. a human could adapt and overcome that but a computer might not be able to. humans and machines work better together then they do separately. besides the more machines you have the more people you need to fix them.
Yea AMAZing, anyway could be implemented also the "scan" isn't it? (and also the packaging but maybe that is really $ because of 3xzy robot placing.. anyway what a slowness by the pickers0_o!
@bakasheru If it's food they're transporting then I'm quite sure they'll be carefull with the way they do it. And if you're implying that the boxes are put at random and flip around then all the better reason not to have human beings, because their efforts would ammount to nothing, just like the robot's.
Eventually the pick-pack worker will be replaced with a robot just as few jobs exist for horse-pulled carriage makers. Our kids may grow up deprived of the option of working as a pick-pack worker but whatever job they do will probably only exist because of systems like this.
@madbr3991 Yes, you would need one guy, maybe 2 or three, to supervise the place. What is better/more convenient ? Having thousands of people who monotonously pack stuff non stop or having a much lower number of technical experts who repair the machines when they break down ?
Wrong. Whatever the cost of the machinery is, it will always be absorbed over time, since the cost of salaries is vastly superior to that of electricity and some maintenance now and then.
@madbr3991 You underestimate our technology. A supercomputer called Deep Blue who beat Garry Kasparov in 1997 could evaluate 200 million positions per second. Today, with better algorithms, the same can be obtained with a regular PC, and it only needs to evaluate 8 million positions per second. I'm pretty sure a PC could figure out how to best fit a couple of tens of boxes in a truck if it can win against a grandmaster ;)
@dreamer98 Once you know how to build the robot you can just make hundreds or thousands of them. Even if the system cost ten million dollars to build, which is very unlikely, it would still be worth it because it just works tirelessly for as long as it is mantained, and it will outperform the minimum wage worker in terms of speed. If you sum up those wages, eventually it adds up to more than the system, it's inevitable. It would be a good investment.
I don't really see why human beings are involved at all in the packaging of these goods. Couldn't a system of conveyor belts do the job even faster and at no cost other than that of the electricity used ?
How many people is this tech going to put out of their jobs? Efficiency that threatens the people it is meant to serve is risky to the said people and should be checked. Great idea though.
@dreamer98 I'm sorry, but what is with this idiotic response ? We were talking about how convenient a packaging method this was, it has nothing to do with me. Why do you feel that you must come to ad hominem attacks ?
leaving workers at home and you will sell less goods! and so on until the economic system collapse under its own gravity! but that's good! thanks god capitalism has this profound contradiction and we will be forced to move into another type of economy! maybe where we are not manipulated to buy stuff we don't need! but rather save production for efficiency sustainability and abundance! have you ever heard about technological unemployment and resource based economy???
Did my first project on pick automation in this sector 35 years ago. An excellent piece of lateral thinking and innovation. I like it :)
Wonderful!
The perfect fusion of exciting robotics with increased job satisfaction.
Boxing items of different shapes and sizes and including packing material for shipment is a very complex task to automate. Advanced computer vision and nimble robotic arms will likely enable it to happen somewhat soon.
I enjoyed this topic, and Nick's presentation of it, a great deal.
The reason is the products are different sizes and shapes, and their position is not precisely known. This means packing robots need to use computer vision to find the objects and know how to pick them up. Finally they need to be fit in the box very precisely. Think about how soft vs. hard objects should be packed. Watch a few videos of robots (?v=c3Cq0sy4TBs) picking up stuff and you'll see how slow it really is. There are fast pickers (flex picker), but they can only pick up 1 kind of object.
@sadjesture
An algorithm can easily be created for the packaging of goods in the most efficient way.
You could, for instance divide the items into cathegories: cans and metal containers, glass, plastic, fruit and vegetables (by their bar code, perhaps) and them pack them so that the heaviest/most resistent items are on the bottom and the most fragile on top. As for the volume it's a simple matter of feeding the robot info about the size of each item in respect to the box.
Holy crap, did TED really change the intro music? THANK YOU!!!
I would argue that having standard size boxes and engeneering robot arms that can manage all of them is actually quite easy. Technology has accoplished far more complex things already.
Love this! Living in a third world country we are nowhere close to this. I really need a new job!
@zanycaswell some go to charging stations. but some of the new ones are using induction charging from the floor.
Nooice! 😎 STOC
Sure you are right about that, but I think if all products need to be put in standard sized boxes you'd lose a lot of valuable space in your parcel. I'd say most products are not box shaped. Shipping costs would be much higher. On the other hand, you do save on labor cost, so I don't know which way is cheaper.
The workers still stand, reach, turn and move. They probably get more exercise than many desk jockey. I say this as a former desk Jockey myself ;-)
@TheUnchainedMind not what i meant by adapt and be creative. yes we could create a system where all the tasks are done by robots. packing 3d objects into boxes would be easy for a computer that's just math. but what happens when an unexpected instance shows up. a human could adapt and overcome that but a computer might not be able to. humans and machines work better together then they do separately. besides the more machines you have the more people you need to fix them.
Once the machine is build, or bought, then it will more than pay its cost, whatever that is.
@TheUnchainedMind
Why does everyone always assume that during shipping the top of the box stays up?
Very good!
Yea AMAZing, anyway could be implemented also the "scan" isn't it?
(and also the packaging but maybe that is really $ because of 3xzy robot placing..
anyway what a slowness by the pickers0_o!
Good talk, interesting :)
People talk about unemployment as if it's a bad thing. It is not: it is awesome. It frees up our time to do better things.
Agreed!
@bakasheru
If it's food they're transporting then I'm quite sure they'll be carefull with the way they do it.
And if you're implying that the boxes are put at random and flip around then all the better reason not to have human beings, because their efforts would ammount to nothing, just like the robot's.
Eventually the pick-pack worker will be replaced with a robot just as few jobs exist for horse-pulled carriage makers. Our kids may grow up deprived of the option of working as a pick-pack worker but whatever job they do will probably only exist because of systems like this.
No está en español..??
@madbr3991
Yes, you would need one guy, maybe 2 or three, to supervise the place. What is better/more convenient ? Having thousands of people who monotonously pack stuff non stop or having a much lower number of technical experts who repair the machines when they break down ?
Why does he say "goo"?
Wrong. Whatever the cost of the machinery is, it will always be absorbed over time, since the cost of salaries is vastly superior to that of electricity and some maintenance now and then.
How do you charge all 10,000 - 1,000,000 robots? :S
@madbr3991
You underestimate our technology.
A supercomputer called Deep Blue who beat Garry Kasparov in 1997 could evaluate 200 million positions per second. Today, with better algorithms, the same can be obtained with a regular PC, and it only needs to evaluate 8 million positions per second. I'm pretty sure a PC could figure out how to best fit a couple of tens of boxes in a truck if it can win against a grandmaster ;)
@dreamer98
Once you know how to build the robot you can just make hundreds or thousands of them.
Even if the system cost ten million dollars to build, which is very unlikely, it would still be worth it because it just works tirelessly for as long as it is mantained, and it will outperform the minimum wage worker in terms of speed. If you sum up those wages, eventually it adds up to more than the system, it's inevitable.
It would be a good investment.
I don't really see why human beings are involved at all in the packaging of these goods.
Couldn't a system of conveyor belts do the job even faster and at no cost other than that of the electricity used ?
i would love if someone got dropped in the middle of the moving shelves. Would make a great 2d arcade game simulation.
@mecon2 They probably drive themselves to charging stations when they get low
Because people are cheaper.
job satisfaction = les people working.. happy boss..
Less stress on workers
Back when TED talks were actually good and about real technology, education, and design. Nowadays there's a lot of woke, useless information.
@EdgarGG89
Thank you for the reply, all-knowing being.
Care to grace us with a reason for such a firm answer ?
I was waiting for the moment He will start playing keyboard and djembe... :(
@criverock if automation really caused unemployment the economy would have crashed a long time before now
This explains exactly why slavery was popular
How many people is this tech going to put out of their jobs? Efficiency that threatens the people it is meant to serve is risky to the said people and should be checked.
Great idea though.
lol, UA-cam comment arguments XD
@dreamer98
I'm sorry, but what is with this idiotic response ?
We were talking about how convenient a packaging method this was, it has nothing to do with me. Why do you feel that you must come to ad hominem attacks ?
leaving workers at home and you will sell less goods! and so on until the economic system collapse under its own gravity! but that's good! thanks god capitalism has this profound contradiction and we will be forced to move into another type of economy! maybe where we are not manipulated to buy stuff we don't need! but rather save production for efficiency sustainability and abundance! have you ever heard about technological unemployment and resource based economy???
@dreamer98
Ok, dreamer boy, I accept your withdrawal.
Have a good day :)
Gay