In what scenario would exosuited workers be more economic than automation?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Warlords I wanted to tap into exosuits, but didn't want them to be one off rich boy toys or just make little to no practical sense. So I'm wondering what industry if any could make use of exosuits and have them be cheaper then robotic counterparts(Right now I'm thinking maybe mining)?
Note:
-Warlords is set only 100-150ish years in the future so nothing too crazy
-Exosuits are roughly a few feet taller and defiantly bulkier than the average human. They sew also powered by small nuclear reactors if energy is a factor.
-The average "working man suit" gives the user roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
science-based
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Warlords I wanted to tap into exosuits, but didn't want them to be one off rich boy toys or just make little to no practical sense. So I'm wondering what industry if any could make use of exosuits and have them be cheaper then robotic counterparts(Right now I'm thinking maybe mining)?
Note:
-Warlords is set only 100-150ish years in the future so nothing too crazy
-Exosuits are roughly a few feet taller and defiantly bulkier than the average human. They sew also powered by small nuclear reactors if energy is a factor.
-The average "working man suit" gives the user roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
science-based
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Warlords I wanted to tap into exosuits, but didn't want them to be one off rich boy toys or just make little to no practical sense. So I'm wondering what industry if any could make use of exosuits and have them be cheaper then robotic counterparts(Right now I'm thinking maybe mining)?
Note:
-Warlords is set only 100-150ish years in the future so nothing too crazy
-Exosuits are roughly a few feet taller and defiantly bulkier than the average human. They sew also powered by small nuclear reactors if energy is a factor.
-The average "working man suit" gives the user roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
science-based
In Warlords I wanted to tap into exosuits, but didn't want them to be one off rich boy toys or just make little to no practical sense. So I'm wondering what industry if any could make use of exosuits and have them be cheaper then robotic counterparts(Right now I'm thinking maybe mining)?
Note:
-Warlords is set only 100-150ish years in the future so nothing too crazy
-Exosuits are roughly a few feet taller and defiantly bulkier than the average human. They sew also powered by small nuclear reactors if energy is a factor.
-The average "working man suit" gives the user roughly 10x the strength of the average human.
science-based
science-based
asked 2 hours ago
Celestial Dragon Emperor
1,2762622
1,2762622
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Mining is a good guess, and so is construction.
Moving through a complex environment, dealing with unexpected circumstances, picking up and moving or using wide variety of tools and materials. All these tasks are very hard for robots. Robots can do well defined tasks like mining out a defined ore seam, or building walls on top of a foundation, but defining the seam and laying the foundation requires humans.
Also, repairing the robots, especially after they crash into something
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Construction seems like the primary use case to me.
First, automata are generally not very good at improvising or thinking on their feet. They could follow a blueprint, but blueprints are rarely 100% accurate to the actual structure that ends up being built, because they rarely account for absolutely everything. Parts arrive that aren't compatible, the ground settles in a strange way, cables need to be run in the wrong order - these things happen, and humans are flexible enough to cope with them, but automata aren't. They would need either a human guide to make corrections on-site, or constantly-updated blueprints, both of which would defeat the speed and cost benefits of automation.
Second, automata aren't in a good position to judge how the building will be used. A human who's working on a construction site can visualize how the building is coming together and how it will be used. They can walk through to decide if a doorway is placed properly, or if there's adequate lighting, and make corrections if there are problems. Automata can't because they can't judge what humans will think of it when it's done.
Third, automata can be a security risk. If a prankster (or a criminal, or a hostile government's agent) makes a correction on a blueprint, a human can double-check it before acting on it. Automata don't necessarily have that capacity. They could also themselves be compromised, requiring additional routines for physical and electronic security that human workers would not be subject to. It's certainly possible to achieve secure automata, but it would be expensive, possibly more expensive than simply hiring living workers.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Where at least the following apply, somewhat following upon Bald Bear's answer:
Complex novel/unanticipated situations can be expected to occur, even rarely.
Tasks occuring under highly varying conditions, where compensation strategies are not easy to automate.
Any tasks not comprehensively & reliably addressed via script.
Short of advanced AI, robots are best used for rote tasks or remotely guided.
EDIT: As HMI sophistication evolves, especially including sensory input, the utility of remote bots increases significantly. This probably happens more readily than AI evolution, since the technological hurdles are far less difficult, less expensive to develop.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Mining is a good guess, and so is construction.
Moving through a complex environment, dealing with unexpected circumstances, picking up and moving or using wide variety of tools and materials. All these tasks are very hard for robots. Robots can do well defined tasks like mining out a defined ore seam, or building walls on top of a foundation, but defining the seam and laying the foundation requires humans.
Also, repairing the robots, especially after they crash into something
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Mining is a good guess, and so is construction.
Moving through a complex environment, dealing with unexpected circumstances, picking up and moving or using wide variety of tools and materials. All these tasks are very hard for robots. Robots can do well defined tasks like mining out a defined ore seam, or building walls on top of a foundation, but defining the seam and laying the foundation requires humans.
Also, repairing the robots, especially after they crash into something
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Mining is a good guess, and so is construction.
Moving through a complex environment, dealing with unexpected circumstances, picking up and moving or using wide variety of tools and materials. All these tasks are very hard for robots. Robots can do well defined tasks like mining out a defined ore seam, or building walls on top of a foundation, but defining the seam and laying the foundation requires humans.
Also, repairing the robots, especially after they crash into something
Mining is a good guess, and so is construction.
Moving through a complex environment, dealing with unexpected circumstances, picking up and moving or using wide variety of tools and materials. All these tasks are very hard for robots. Robots can do well defined tasks like mining out a defined ore seam, or building walls on top of a foundation, but defining the seam and laying the foundation requires humans.
Also, repairing the robots, especially after they crash into something
answered 1 hour ago
Bald Bear
6,9381027
6,9381027
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Construction seems like the primary use case to me.
First, automata are generally not very good at improvising or thinking on their feet. They could follow a blueprint, but blueprints are rarely 100% accurate to the actual structure that ends up being built, because they rarely account for absolutely everything. Parts arrive that aren't compatible, the ground settles in a strange way, cables need to be run in the wrong order - these things happen, and humans are flexible enough to cope with them, but automata aren't. They would need either a human guide to make corrections on-site, or constantly-updated blueprints, both of which would defeat the speed and cost benefits of automation.
Second, automata aren't in a good position to judge how the building will be used. A human who's working on a construction site can visualize how the building is coming together and how it will be used. They can walk through to decide if a doorway is placed properly, or if there's adequate lighting, and make corrections if there are problems. Automata can't because they can't judge what humans will think of it when it's done.
Third, automata can be a security risk. If a prankster (or a criminal, or a hostile government's agent) makes a correction on a blueprint, a human can double-check it before acting on it. Automata don't necessarily have that capacity. They could also themselves be compromised, requiring additional routines for physical and electronic security that human workers would not be subject to. It's certainly possible to achieve secure automata, but it would be expensive, possibly more expensive than simply hiring living workers.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Construction seems like the primary use case to me.
First, automata are generally not very good at improvising or thinking on their feet. They could follow a blueprint, but blueprints are rarely 100% accurate to the actual structure that ends up being built, because they rarely account for absolutely everything. Parts arrive that aren't compatible, the ground settles in a strange way, cables need to be run in the wrong order - these things happen, and humans are flexible enough to cope with them, but automata aren't. They would need either a human guide to make corrections on-site, or constantly-updated blueprints, both of which would defeat the speed and cost benefits of automation.
Second, automata aren't in a good position to judge how the building will be used. A human who's working on a construction site can visualize how the building is coming together and how it will be used. They can walk through to decide if a doorway is placed properly, or if there's adequate lighting, and make corrections if there are problems. Automata can't because they can't judge what humans will think of it when it's done.
Third, automata can be a security risk. If a prankster (or a criminal, or a hostile government's agent) makes a correction on a blueprint, a human can double-check it before acting on it. Automata don't necessarily have that capacity. They could also themselves be compromised, requiring additional routines for physical and electronic security that human workers would not be subject to. It's certainly possible to achieve secure automata, but it would be expensive, possibly more expensive than simply hiring living workers.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Construction seems like the primary use case to me.
First, automata are generally not very good at improvising or thinking on their feet. They could follow a blueprint, but blueprints are rarely 100% accurate to the actual structure that ends up being built, because they rarely account for absolutely everything. Parts arrive that aren't compatible, the ground settles in a strange way, cables need to be run in the wrong order - these things happen, and humans are flexible enough to cope with them, but automata aren't. They would need either a human guide to make corrections on-site, or constantly-updated blueprints, both of which would defeat the speed and cost benefits of automation.
Second, automata aren't in a good position to judge how the building will be used. A human who's working on a construction site can visualize how the building is coming together and how it will be used. They can walk through to decide if a doorway is placed properly, or if there's adequate lighting, and make corrections if there are problems. Automata can't because they can't judge what humans will think of it when it's done.
Third, automata can be a security risk. If a prankster (or a criminal, or a hostile government's agent) makes a correction on a blueprint, a human can double-check it before acting on it. Automata don't necessarily have that capacity. They could also themselves be compromised, requiring additional routines for physical and electronic security that human workers would not be subject to. It's certainly possible to achieve secure automata, but it would be expensive, possibly more expensive than simply hiring living workers.
Construction seems like the primary use case to me.
First, automata are generally not very good at improvising or thinking on their feet. They could follow a blueprint, but blueprints are rarely 100% accurate to the actual structure that ends up being built, because they rarely account for absolutely everything. Parts arrive that aren't compatible, the ground settles in a strange way, cables need to be run in the wrong order - these things happen, and humans are flexible enough to cope with them, but automata aren't. They would need either a human guide to make corrections on-site, or constantly-updated blueprints, both of which would defeat the speed and cost benefits of automation.
Second, automata aren't in a good position to judge how the building will be used. A human who's working on a construction site can visualize how the building is coming together and how it will be used. They can walk through to decide if a doorway is placed properly, or if there's adequate lighting, and make corrections if there are problems. Automata can't because they can't judge what humans will think of it when it's done.
Third, automata can be a security risk. If a prankster (or a criminal, or a hostile government's agent) makes a correction on a blueprint, a human can double-check it before acting on it. Automata don't necessarily have that capacity. They could also themselves be compromised, requiring additional routines for physical and electronic security that human workers would not be subject to. It's certainly possible to achieve secure automata, but it would be expensive, possibly more expensive than simply hiring living workers.
answered 1 hour ago
Cadence
11.1k52142
11.1k52142
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Where at least the following apply, somewhat following upon Bald Bear's answer:
Complex novel/unanticipated situations can be expected to occur, even rarely.
Tasks occuring under highly varying conditions, where compensation strategies are not easy to automate.
Any tasks not comprehensively & reliably addressed via script.
Short of advanced AI, robots are best used for rote tasks or remotely guided.
EDIT: As HMI sophistication evolves, especially including sensory input, the utility of remote bots increases significantly. This probably happens more readily than AI evolution, since the technological hurdles are far less difficult, less expensive to develop.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Where at least the following apply, somewhat following upon Bald Bear's answer:
Complex novel/unanticipated situations can be expected to occur, even rarely.
Tasks occuring under highly varying conditions, where compensation strategies are not easy to automate.
Any tasks not comprehensively & reliably addressed via script.
Short of advanced AI, robots are best used for rote tasks or remotely guided.
EDIT: As HMI sophistication evolves, especially including sensory input, the utility of remote bots increases significantly. This probably happens more readily than AI evolution, since the technological hurdles are far less difficult, less expensive to develop.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Where at least the following apply, somewhat following upon Bald Bear's answer:
Complex novel/unanticipated situations can be expected to occur, even rarely.
Tasks occuring under highly varying conditions, where compensation strategies are not easy to automate.
Any tasks not comprehensively & reliably addressed via script.
Short of advanced AI, robots are best used for rote tasks or remotely guided.
EDIT: As HMI sophistication evolves, especially including sensory input, the utility of remote bots increases significantly. This probably happens more readily than AI evolution, since the technological hurdles are far less difficult, less expensive to develop.
Where at least the following apply, somewhat following upon Bald Bear's answer:
Complex novel/unanticipated situations can be expected to occur, even rarely.
Tasks occuring under highly varying conditions, where compensation strategies are not easy to automate.
Any tasks not comprehensively & reliably addressed via script.
Short of advanced AI, robots are best used for rote tasks or remotely guided.
EDIT: As HMI sophistication evolves, especially including sensory input, the utility of remote bots increases significantly. This probably happens more readily than AI evolution, since the technological hurdles are far less difficult, less expensive to develop.
edited 24 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
theRiley
1,512114
1,512114
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131120%2fin-what-scenario-would-exosuited-workers-be-more-economic-than-automation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown