Hi,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE

Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?

..... Phil

On 27/07/2021 12:35, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>
> Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/19/ocado-shares-cancels-orders-robot-fire-cancellations

We had an order cancelled last week (well, reduced significantly so we
cancelled it), but normally they're very good. Rarely any
substitutions, and the variety is huge.

--
Cheers
Clive

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-4, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>
> Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?

Too bad there won't be anything for them to pack.

>
>
> .... Phil

On 7/27/2021 6:35 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>
> Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>

That's a good question and I would love to hear his answer in his
typically clear, concise prose.

That's a good video. I found myself mesmerized by the "hive's" activity.

On 27/07/2021 7:35 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>
> Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>

Likely he would talk about the wheels or the lifting mechanism then onto
a specific cart and it's duties. Then discuss the controlling cpu and
the human programmer.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>.... Phil

Dunno. Probably something like: What problem is this expected to
solve and what new problems will it create?

I was on the phone yesterday for an hour, talking to several
representatives of my credit card company, trying to untangle a
problem that some anonymous badly thinking human created. What
impressed me was how well these representatives were able to emulate a
non-thinking robot.

I froze a few frames of the video and attempted to estimate how many
robots were moving in the video. Pulling numbers out of thin air and
on the low end, I would guess(tm) about 3,000 robots. If these robots
were expected to function without a failure for 3 years (about 1,100
days), the number of mistakes and irritated customers would be about 3
per day. That's tolerable.

I've been in automated warehouses. In most cases, the lights are
always turned off (to save electricity). Items are located by
barcodes, RFID tags, location, GPS pseudolite, laser tags, etc. The
prime safety directive is that no human is allowed anywhere near the
robots while the system is running. That begs the question "how does
one recover a failed and immobile mobile robot"? There are some
options, such as marking its location in the computer memory and
having all the other robots avoid it until the system can be shut
down. That works well with only a few failed robots, but really badly
if failed robots are blocking an aisle or area. So, everything has to
be shut down to retrieve the robot, thus making the failure rate the
product of the individual reliability of all 3,000 robots.

Let's see how that works with "five nines" reliability or 99.999%.
Reliability = 0.99999^3000 = 0.970
or a failure rate of 0.030. At 365 days per year, that's
0.030 * 365 = 1 failure every 11 days or about 1 failure per month.
That's also tolerable, except that "five nines" is rather optimistic
for things that move, for computer software, and for a world with
Microsoft updates. That's probably the best that can be done. It
also doesn't include failures in associated services (cloud computers,
power outages, unplanned disasters, accidents, and human
intervention). Pulling another number out of thin air, my guess(tm)
is a factor of 10 worse, which would be 1 failure per day, requiring a
system maintenance shutdown every day. That's not so tolerable.

Incidentally, shutting down and restarting a robotic factory can also
create its own list of potential problem. Orchestrated in a
sequential manner is probably the safest and most reliable way to do
both, but is also the method that takes the longest.

In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
or maybe some cost cutting.

Isaac Asimov might then ask how long is this hypermarket expected to
last and how long until the Luddites arrive to throw a wrench into the
works.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 2021-07-27, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison

> In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
> available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
> transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
> tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
> at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
> between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
> or maybe some cost cutting.

would need several gantries, and they would need to be able to reach
past their ends because there are pillars holding the roof up.

perhaps send two tow-robots to carry the failed droid, but if it's stuck with
it's reaching gizmo fully extended down a hole that's going to need to
be retracted before even a crane can move it.

--
Jasen.

On 27/07/2021 21:52, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2021-07-27, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
>
>> In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
>> available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
>> transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
>> tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
>> at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
>> between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
>> or maybe some cost cutting.
>
> would need several gantries, and they would need to be able to reach
> past their ends because there are pillars holding the roof up.
>
> perhaps send two tow-robots to carry the failed droid, but if it's stuck with
> it's reaching gizmo fully extended down a hole that's going to need to
> be retracted before even a crane can move it.
>
>
There does seem to be plenty of headroom for a specialised robot either
side to lift the broken one clear.

--
Cheers
Clive

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:39:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
><pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>>Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>>.... Phil
>
>Dunno. Probably something like: What problem is this expected to
>solve and what new problems will it create?
>
>I was on the phone yesterday for an hour, talking to several
>representatives of my credit card company, trying to untangle a
>problem that some anonymous badly thinking human created. What
>impressed me was how well these representatives were able to emulate a
>non-thinking robot.
>
>I froze a few frames of the video and attempted to estimate how many
>robots were moving in the video. Pulling numbers out of thin air and
>on the low end, I would guess(tm) about 3,000 robots. If these robots
>were expected to function without a failure for 3 years (about 1,100
>days), the number of mistakes and irritated customers would be about 3
>per day. That's tolerable.
>
>I've been in automated warehouses. In most cases, the lights are
>always turned off (to save electricity). Items are located by
>barcodes, RFID tags, location, GPS pseudolite, laser tags, etc. The
>prime safety directive is that no human is allowed anywhere near the
>robots while the system is running. That begs the question "how does
>one recover a failed and immobile mobile robot"? There are some
>options, such as marking its location in the computer memory and
>having all the other robots avoid it until the system can be shut
>down. That works well with only a few failed robots, but really badly
>if failed robots are blocking an aisle or area. So, everything has to
>be shut down to retrieve the robot, thus making the failure rate the
>product of the individual reliability of all 3,000 robots.
>
>Let's see how that works with "five nines" reliability or 99.999%.
>Reliability = 0.99999^3000 = 0.970
>or a failure rate of 0.030. At 365 days per year, that's
>0.030 * 365 = 1 failure every 11 days or about 1 failure per month.
>That's also tolerable, except that "five nines" is rather optimistic
>for things that move, for computer software, and for a world with
>Microsoft updates. That's probably the best that can be done. It
>also doesn't include failures in associated services (cloud computers,
>power outages, unplanned disasters, accidents, and human
>intervention). Pulling another number out of thin air, my guess(tm)
>is a factor of 10 worse, which would be 1 failure per day, requiring a
>system maintenance shutdown every day. That's not so tolerable.
>
>Incidentally, shutting down and restarting a robotic factory can also
>create its own list of potential problem. Orchestrated in a
>sequential manner is probably the safest and most reliable way to do
>both, but is also the method that takes the longest.
>
>In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
>available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
>transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
>tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
>at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
>between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
>or maybe some cost cutting.
>
>Isaac Asimov might then ask how long is this hypermarket expected to
>last and how long until the Luddites arrive to throw a wrench into the
>works.

I wonder who's making money from this activity?

The facility has a big parking lot. The purchasing and sales
portions of the operation obviousl aren't as highly automated,
though I expect the suppliers and purchasers end up doing
most of the keyboard pounding for them.

I bet each part of the organization is its own LLC.

Easier to skim.

RL

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>
>Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>
>
>.... Phil

Oops.. Feb 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/av-embeds/49071456/vpid/p0707hy0

July 2021
https://youtu.be/GHz9Q9cKxXA

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
===================
> Hi,
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
> >
> >Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
> >
> Oops.. Feb 2019
> https://www.bbc.com/news/av-embeds/49071456/vpid/p0707hy0
>
> July 2021
> https://youtu.be/GHz9Q9cKxXA
>

** So they broke Asimov's third law ?

" ... third law is that a robot shall avoid actions or situations that could cause it to come to harm itself."

...... Phil

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:55:28 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
><pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>>
>>Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>>
>>
>>.... Phil

>Oops.. Feb 2019
>https://www.bbc.com/news/av-embeds/49071456/vpid/p0707hy0
>
>July 2021
>https://youtu.be/GHz9Q9cKxXA

Thanks.

So much for the pre-cooked meals option. I asked for medium-well done
and received incinerated instead.

I guess nobody will be licensing Ocado's patented:
"Robotic fire extinguishing device and handling method"
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190240517A1/en?assignee=ocado>

While the factory burns, the lawyers for Ocado and AutoStore busy
themselves with lawsuits:
"AutoStore Files UK Action Claiming Ownership and Transfer of Ocado
Patents"
<https://autostoresystem.com/news/autostore-files-uk-action-claiming-ownership-and-transfer-of-ocado-patents/>
"Ocado and AutoStore expand robot-assisted technology war to Europe"
<https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/ocado-and-autostore-expand-robot-assisted-technology-war-to-europe/>
It makes me wonder how the fires really started.

One article mumbled something about the fire being caused by a crash
of several robots. For a crash to turn into a conflagration, some
kind of thermal runaway might be helpful, such as found in Li-Ion
batteries with a cobalt bearing cathode. I thought the battery
industry moved away from cobalt after the 2013 787 Dreamliner fire but
possibly not:
"If Cobalt Is So Bad, Why Are Some Companies Still Using It In
Batteries?"
<https://simpliphipower.com/company/news/blog/if-cobalt-is-so-bad-why-are-some-companies-still-using-it-in-batteries-part-one/>
<https://simpliphipower.com/company/news/blog/if-cobalt-is-so-bad-why-are-some-companies-still-using-it-part-2/>
Or do we feel safer if the supermarket robots designed in self
destruct mechanism is to spontaneously combust after going into
thermal runaway?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 2021-07-27, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 21:52, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> On 2021-07-27, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
>>
>>> In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
>>> available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
>>> transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
>>> tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
>>> at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
>>> between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
>>> or maybe some cost cutting.
>>
>> would need several gantries, and they would need to be able to reach
>> past their ends because there are pillars holding the roof up.
>>
>> perhaps send two tow-robots to carry the failed droid, but if it's stuck with
>> it's reaching gizmo fully extended down a hole that's going to need to
>> be retracted before even a crane can move it.
>>
>>
> There does seem to be plenty of headroom for a specialised robot either
> side to lift the broken one clear.

The holes are 21 boxes deep (@1:15). The ceiling is only about 2.5m.

--
Jasen.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:55:28 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
><pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
>>
>>Wonder what Isaac Asimov would say ?
>>
>>
>>.... Phil
>
>Oops.. Feb 2019
>https://www.bbc.com/news/av-embeds/49071456/vpid/p0707hy0
>
>July 2021
>https://youtu.be/GHz9Q9cKxXA

ooh . . . . . insurance. I get it now.

RL

On 28/07/2021 12:50, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2021-07-27, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 21:52, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-27, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
>>>
>>>> In this case, the hypermarket in question has an easy solution
>>>> available. Install an overhead gantry and use it to lift and
>>>> transport any robot that has failed. That should allow the system to
>>>> tolerate failures without the need to shut down everything. Looking
>>>> at the video, I don't see such a system, which suggests anything
>>>> between excessive optimism, lack of concern for dealing with failures,
>>>> or maybe some cost cutting.
>>>
>>> would need several gantries, and they would need to be able to reach
>>> past their ends because there are pillars holding the roof up.
>>>
>>> perhaps send two tow-robots to carry the failed droid, but if it's stuck with
>>> it's reaching gizmo fully extended down a hole that's going to need to
>>> be retracted before even a crane can move it.
>>>
>>>
>> There does seem to be plenty of headroom for a specialised robot either
>> side to lift the broken one clear.
>
> The holes are 21 boxes deep (@1:15). The ceiling is only about 2.5m.
>
Yes you're right - I'd thought the boxes were like a push-up stack, but
it seems not.

--
Cheers
Clive