You know what else is a mindless robot that doesn't have any deep self reflecting thoughts? A neuron in a human brain.
Making a conscious thing out of non-conscious robots would seem completely preposterous if we didn't already have an example of one (the human brain).
Just like how you can make living things out of parts that are not alive, you can make thinking things out of parts that can't think.
Maybe we don;t have the technology right now to crate an artificial mind, but that doesn't mean it can never be done. In fact there is every reason to believe that there is no theoretical barrier to achieving this goal.
We don't even necessarily have to know how consciousness works before we make it.
Human beings make conscious beings every day. We do so using the tools given to us through evolution, and do not comprehend how these tools we possess work.
To make an artificial consciousness we only need to understand enough to make a system which can make itself. Analogous to how we start babies which in fact make themselves, I think we will know enough to start conscious beings that will learn and essential make themselves.
It's kind of interesting to hear the Mick Mountz explain the inventory management system in that detail.
It looks super inefficient however. Lifting a small shelf and carrying it to a human worker for a single order seems ineffecient.
don't you agree it is more higly inefficient to walk around warehouse and try to finish a box for an order, or 2 boxes for 2 orders? the efficiency comes from the queuing of the small shelfs, not when the worker waits for one after one goes
The reason I don't think its efficient is that they move packages and shelving around that are not necessarily going to be leaving the warehouse. (The shelves won't ever leave the warehouse )
It would be more efficient if you had a robot that expended the same energy (moved the same distance) and only carried packages that were going to be shipped (not take the shelves and extra packages/boxs for ride around the warehouse).
That would also probably get rid of the humans as the robots could now distinguish the package sufficiently to mail them or whatever the humans are doing.
However thinking about it a little more the system is pretty well designed. The robots are small and that allows them to be more efficient then a larger robot that could identify and carrying individual packages which is also a harder problem to solve. As long as there's not too much weight on a shelf the robots won't be too overworked ;)
(waste a lot of electricity)
"don't you agree it is more higly inefficient to walk around warehouse and try to finish a box for an order, or 2 boxes for 2 orders? "
The efficience comes from the robot worker replaces a human worker who goes around looking for packages and the queuing for the next step.
Anyways that's it really. I can see why they did design it that way.
The inventory system is simple but effective.
yeah, it would be waste of energy if packages of low demand be moved around, but the solution is to not only put one kind of product into one specific shelf, and also grouping packages of high demand into as many shelfs as possible. Furthermore, shelfs with high demand products will be stored closer to the station thus minimizing travel time, and vice versa for shelfs with low demand products. The shelving is necessary to be able to carry a multitude of products... they are not necessarily stored after each pick, but assigned to another station immediately or picked from multiple times before being moved again.. the key is balance of product type/product demand aggregation.
The traditional way of fulfilling orders is a human with box on a cart walking around warehouse looking for items to fill that order... which is a far cry from what Kiva is doing there.
As for eliminating human out of the loop completely, there will not be a end effector (gripper) that is as flexible and versatile as the human hands ever designed yet, so it will either result in a long period for return of investment or increasing handling errors. But I like your comments
Is it thought?
Every time in the past that we have thought we had a machine that was "intelligent" the first thing we learned is that our definition of intelligence is flawed.
emfkMay 6, 2011
FTV: "Match it up with a station and match it up with a Robot."
So this is like a Robot's version of eHarmony in the e-commerce world? Poor Robots. :-)
tsuruchibrianMay 7, 2011
You know what else is a mindless robot that doesn't have any deep self reflecting thoughts? A neuron in a human brain.
Making a conscious thing out of non-conscious robots would seem completely preposterous if we didn't already have an example of one (the human brain).
Just like how you can make living things out of parts that are not alive, you can make thinking things out of parts that can't think.
Maybe we don;t have the technology right now to crate an artificial mind, but that doesn't mean it can never be done. In fact there is every reason to believe that there is no theoretical barrier to achieving this goal.
We don't even necessarily have to know how consciousness works before we make it.
Human beings make conscious beings every day. We do so using the tools given to us through evolution, and do not comprehend how these tools we possess work.
To make an artificial consciousness we only need to understand enough to make a system which can make itself. Analogous to how we start babies which in fact make themselves, I think we will know enough to start conscious beings that will learn and essential make themselves.
tylacMay 6, 2011
um robots dont think thats why they are robots but to see one that can think on its own would be awsome
fodderboiMay 6, 2011
It's kind of interesting to hear the Mick Mountz explain the inventory management system in that detail.
It looks super inefficient however. Lifting a small shelf and carrying it to a human worker for a single order seems ineffecient.
apek37May 7, 2011
don't you agree it is more higly inefficient to walk around warehouse and try to finish a box for an order, or 2 boxes for 2 orders? the efficiency comes from the queuing of the small shelfs, not when the worker waits for one after one goes
fodderboiMay 7, 2011
Maybe I don't understand what your saying.
The reason I don't think its efficient is that they move packages and shelving around that are not necessarily going to be leaving the warehouse. (The shelves won't ever leave the warehouse )
It would be more efficient if you had a robot that expended the same energy (moved the same distance) and only carried packages that were going to be shipped (not take the shelves and extra packages/boxs for ride around the warehouse).
That would also probably get rid of the humans as the robots could now distinguish the package sufficiently to mail them or whatever the humans are doing.
However thinking about it a little more the system is pretty well designed. The robots are small and that allows them to be more efficient then a larger robot that could identify and carrying individual packages which is also a harder problem to solve. As long as there's not too much weight on a shelf the robots won't be too overworked ;)
(waste a lot of electricity)
"don't you agree it is more higly inefficient to walk around warehouse and try to finish a box for an order, or 2 boxes for 2 orders? "
The efficience comes from the robot worker replaces a human worker who goes around looking for packages and the queuing for the next step.
Anyways that's it really. I can see why they did design it that way.
The inventory system is simple but effective.
apek37May 7, 2011
yeah, it would be waste of energy if packages of low demand be moved around, but the solution is to not only put one kind of product into one specific shelf, and also grouping packages of high demand into as many shelfs as possible. Furthermore, shelfs with high demand products will be stored closer to the station thus minimizing travel time, and vice versa for shelfs with low demand products. The shelving is necessary to be able to carry a multitude of products... they are not necessarily stored after each pick, but assigned to another station immediately or picked from multiple times before being moved again.. the key is balance of product type/product demand aggregation.
The traditional way of fulfilling orders is a human with box on a cart walking around warehouse looking for items to fill that order... which is a far cry from what Kiva is doing there.
As for eliminating human out of the loop completely, there will not be a end effector (gripper) that is as flexible and versatile as the human hands ever designed yet, so it will either result in a long period for return of investment or increasing handling errors. But I like your comments
Jamc_May 7, 2011
Robots dont "think", they do what they're told ... simple as that
gkiltzMay 7, 2011
Is it thought?
Every time in the past that we have thought we had a machine that was "intelligent" the first thing we learned is that our definition of intelligence is flawed.
tospokMay 6, 2011
It is a nice video but not very much about How Robots Think
ridgerunner5May 6, 2011
We have reached a consensus. This qualifies as "ill."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwzoedQ_ZQ8
npisthojMay 6, 2011
that's because the R in robot stands for Republican.