Yes, of course, TMTOWTDI. Respectfully, you sound like an academic or someone with only software-side experience, having less business side comprehension. It's common also with recent grads who often seem to view robotics through a ROS-influenced lens. Stated succinctly, generalist approaches such as robot arm work cells are usually low throughput, high cost, and have numerous limitations (eg. arms can't lift heavy or large items very well). While programming time may be sold as short, the reality is you're building in to a high capex business an avoidable dependence on a software stack which has a half-life of six months where people are hard to acquire and you could buy an objectively superior solution in terms of throughput, accuracy, spatial efficiency and maintainability without these problems.
Case in point: if you look at the build process for any relatively high complexity modern product (phones, cameras, etc.) they generally avoid using arms because they're relatively slow, weak, mandate large motion envelopes with OH&S implications and must be tediously integrated through vendor-linked APIs. There are better building blocks, and they don't involve tokenized fudge-factors. Yes, you could program them this way, no it generally won't add value. Arms are excellent for things like repeat precision welding (due to the high number of axes of motion offering superior approach and tracking options for target parts and sub-assemblies), but control in such cases comes from a combination of prescriptive part models and real time sensors for physical path following and not from AI fudge.
Yes, of course, TMTOWTDI. Respectfully, you sound like an academic or someone with only software-side experience, having less business side comprehension. It's common also with recent grads who often seem to view robotics through a ROS-influenced lens. Stated succinctly, generalist approaches such as robot arm work cells are usually low throughput, high cost, and have numerous limitations (eg. arms can't lift heavy or large items very well). While programming time may be sold as short, the reality is you're building in to a high capex business an avoidable dependence on a software stack which has a half-life of six months where people are hard to acquire and you could buy an objectively superior solution in terms of throughput, accuracy, spatial efficiency and maintainability without these problems.
Case in point: if you look at the build process for any relatively high complexity modern product (phones, cameras, etc.) they generally avoid using arms because they're relatively slow, weak, mandate large motion envelopes with OH&S implications and must be tediously integrated through vendor-linked APIs. There are better building blocks, and they don't involve tokenized fudge-factors. Yes, you could program them this way, no it generally won't add value. Arms are excellent for things like repeat precision welding (due to the high number of axes of motion offering superior approach and tracking options for target parts and sub-assemblies), but control in such cases comes from a combination of prescriptive part models and real time sensors for physical path following and not from AI fudge.