We thought the rider fell off or something and it was going to crash. Then it turned and kept mowing. Park Roomba!
Another picture:
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
567 points (97.5% liked)
Mildly Interesting
17156 readers
62 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sad really. Somebody lost a job to that. Minimum wage probably, but still a wage.
That's the jobs that robots should be replacing people with.
But there's no UBI to allow the person without a job to skil upl into something else that a robot can't do.
But there is still plenty of other unskilled jobs.
'Unskilled' is a derogatory word invented by the oligarch class to justify paying laborers less.
...And now with even more people lining up for those jobs because others have been taken by automation. That and in order to make a living you need to do at least two jobs per household.
This doesn't allow for any time or energy to skill up into anything else and forces a positive feedback loop in keeping people in this bracket.
Edit: I've just read through some of your other comments and I want to say something about post scarcity. We can definitely approximate what will happen in the distant future by looking at current and past trends. Human nature is the constant.
We can look at how many unskilled jobs are created as a result of automation. From what I can see, the number of unskilled jobs created from automation is in the negative, meaning that less unskilled jobs are created from automation.
What systems are put in place for those without jobs? The trend is abandonment or exploitation. We're currently in a glut of job seekers far exceeding jobs available both in skilled and unskilled areas.
But I digress... This was originally about an automated lawnmower being mildly interesting, which it is.
Sometimes its the only job available. The company with the contract to mow, do you think they now pocket the difference? Because thats what will tend to happen with automation.
Okay, so? Change what you do. Progress always does that. Window knockers lost jobs, miners lost jobs, now it is time for mowers. Which most likely won't happen anyways since it'll be the companies that own the robots.
Eventually there will not be jobs left to do. Then what?
Then we have reached post scarcity. People won't have to work anymore. Also, no way that's happening. There will always be jobs to do.
There are always jobs to do for the people who can get them. However, if robots and AI take all the jobs, then people can't get jobs.
And, in a "post scarcity" world, do the people who control the robots and AI get to keep all of the money and food, or do you have a plan for that?
So there will be a different system once there are no jobs to do and people can do whatever the fuck they want. The reality is you are thinking of something that won't happen for the next 2 centuries at least. There might be jobs that won't ever be automatized. Right now, a single robot was mowing a park. Somehow from this we've jumped to "robot is replacing mowing" - to which the logical answer is "so use robots for mowing and find a job that is still needed". The next jump to "nobody gets jobs" is a way bigger jump than the previous one and nothing that any of us needs to worry about.
This is just the beginning. Two centuries? More like 20 years, the technology is improving at an exponential rate.
As a society we need a plan.
Yeah, and people in the 50s thought there will be flying cars in the year 2000. The tech isn't there yet and is approaching physical limits. Even if, being scared of "I won't need to work anymore" is silly.
I don't agree.
Nah, the guy was still there. He had to bring the robot to the place where it had to mow the lawn and he was observing it to make sure it didn't fuck up. Plus, I'm sure he still had to do stuff like weed whacking, so his job is safe for the time being.
I'm pretty sure this is a remote controlled mower, not an autonomous one.
It really isn't.
https://wrightmowers.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=312
It doesn't go into detail about how smart it is. It does say "drive by wire" but also say autonomous. I am pretty certain it is not meant to be used unattended.
There was a guy watching it who brought it in, but he didn't have a remote control.
That is pretty scary. No e-stop when it hits a gas line. You just have to chase it down.
There’s fully autonomous mowers, I almost worked for a company that builds some.
I understand that their are autonomous mowers. I watch Hank the Tank. I just didn't think this one was. Apparently it is largely autonomous but also has a remote.
Somebody gained a job programming and servicing that mow-bot; maybe even a whole team. Maybe the original driver wrote the path and manages it now.
I get the sentiment, and agree that there's value in keeping labor jobs reserved for people who need them, but using automation isn't inherently evil.
When my company moved our production operations to automatic lines and robots, they promoted everyone to machine operators, taught new skills, and paid out more. It may not be the way every company handles the change, but it can be done, and it's a better path forward than forcing people to accept a life of hard labor.
I remember placing some large equipment in China some decades ago. There was a crane onsite but instead of using it the Chinese insisted on using many men with bamboo poles. We thought it was odd and hilarious that they had to do such make-work. Now here we are. This is why I litter and don't put my shopping cart away. People need jobs.
Oh no, instead of someone doing mindless busy work, they can now live their own lives all day with no loss in productivity what so ever!
Whatever shall we dooooo!