If this makes it easier and faster to sort garbage, we could probably improve the efficiency of recycling 100x. I know there are some places that do that already, but there are so many menial tasks that could be done by robots to improve the world.
There are plenty of places [1] where garbage is sorted for free by poor people who scrape a living from recycling it.
Sorting garbage is a terrible job for humans, but it's a terrible one for robots too. Those fancy mechanical actuators etc are not going to stand up well to garbage that's regularly saturated with liquids, oil, grease, vomit, feces, dead animals, etc.
are you implying that society shouldn't aim to reduce human interaction with vomit, feces, and dead animals? Robotics in harsh environments isn't unheard of
I think they're pointing out you need to be cautious assuming a robot can be economically, sustainably deployed to do jobs in environments which are challenging for electro-mechanical systems.
An example: A friend worked on accurate built-in weighing machines for trucks, which could measure axle weight and load balance to meet compliance for bridges and other purposes. He found it almost impossible to make units which could withstand the torrents of chemical and biological wet materials which regularly leak into a truck. You would think "potting" electronics understands this problem but even that turns out to have severe limits. It's just hard to find materials which function well subjected to a range of chemicals. Stuff which is flexible is especially prone to risks here: the way you make things flex is to use softeners, which in turn make the material for other reasons have other properties like porosity, or being subject to attack by some combinations of acid and alkalai.
These units had NO MOVING PARTS because they were force tranducers. They still routinely failed in service.
It's interesting to think that it is more feasible (including economically) to expose humans to bleaches, acids, catalyst materials, electricity, abrasives, and sharp edges.
You're restating a one-sided view without acknowledging its real problems. The money has to come from somewhere, and depending on the cost, it may be true that no one is willing to pay for their garbage bill doubling, for example. Then maybe people choose to dump their garbage on the street or in protected parks, and we see an impact on local wildlife.
It's necessary to follow things to their logical conclusion.
What would I have to pay an unskilled version of you, both in terms if gross pay, and in required safety equipment, to get you to do the job? What would be reasonable?
Does the graph of that pay scale cross the cost graph of this robot?
Maybe just paying a living wage is a simpler answer than most AI enthusiasts want to admit.
Why does it even need to be that type of robot, a conveyor that has items on it, but its a mesh, a camera looks, and if something can be sorted just use compressed air to move it to a collection area/bin. Put an electromagnet at the start of the conveyor that can move on a gantry to another bin.
Why's everything gotta have arms and graspers it's so inefficient.
Robots aren't climbing trees or chasing food. They don't need tails, either.
Why's everything gotta have arms and graspers it's so inefficient.
We have designed a lot of processes and workplaces around the assumption that the 'machine' working there will be be around 160-190 cm tall, with two arms with graspers on the end and equipped with stereo colour vision cameras. The closer you make your new machine match that spec the less changes you have to make to your current setup. It also makes it easier to partially swap in robots over time, rather than ripping everything out and building something completely new.
Having worked at a company close to this field, the real answer through is that both approaches are being done right now. People building new facilities from scratch are building entirely automated system where the 'robot' is the whole machine. People with existing facilities are more interested in finding ways to add robots to their current workflow with minimal changes.
I am having a hard time imagining a scenario where you have humans working where you can't replace them with a conveyor system. it doesn't need to be that long, you could have a 5 foot, linear, isolated section (about the sphere of a human range), and use compressed air and optical/laser sensing to pop stuff out of that section into a bin/trailer/whatever.
do you have a picture of a facility where they would have to replace humans with humanoid robots and a conveyor would not work?
It’s this same purpose built argument again. That’s not the point of these. The point is to be able to go and do anything a human can, something the entire world has been built around.
Some (most?) of these aren't really AI-based at all. For example. traditional optical sorters typically rely on the reflectivity of materials at one or a few laser wavelengths directed onto the material.
The mapping between sensor signals and material types is usually hardcoded from laboratory test results.
Sure. What they will call AI [an unspecified number of years in the future] will be compared similarly the the SOTA AI models.
For long time the term "artificial intelligence" has just gone out of favour, but I do remember the days where a good AI research lab had a bunch of symbolics lisp machines
I mean that we have visual recognition systems that do not use any kind of machine learning whatsoever and those are the majority of systems in use at industrial scale.
Laser interferometry and DCT image distance, primarily.
Haha I just came up with that off the hip (never heard of, seen, or even contemplated sorting garbage before) because the idea that this needs articulation and graspers is the height of "we're VC funded and don't care about anything except runway". Laughable.
The nuanced answer to this is they have a first mover advantage and make a great robot. The point of the thread is that new development is much cheaper for folks to figure it out. Recyclers are the most entrepreneurial people you will ever meet. we’ll figure out some good uses for this stuff when it gets cheaper.
Yeah, maybe someone with more industry knowledge can give a better picture, but I have a hard time seeing how these robots would fit into and improve existing processes [0]. Garbage is mechanically sorted most of the way already; then IR is used to identify different plastics and air blasts are used to separate them out at dozens per second.
The Gemini robot tech is cool as heck, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't seem particularly well suited to industrial automation.
I dont see why a Gemini robot couldn't grab 20 dark clothing items from a hamper, put them in the laundry machine, wait an hour, take them out and put them in the dryer while I was at work (thanks return to office)
I doubt anyone would use this kind of fancy machine to garbage handling until they become a commodity. I would bet that the first application would be to send those robots to trenches and foxholes...
Well, it's actually good to have that kind of marketing. First, because there are people that don't care anyway and keep mixing things. So, robots can be useful just the same.
And for the ones that actually follow the marketing, it's a good incentive to try to reduce the usage of one use plastics and packages in general. Recycling is the last of the 3 Rs for a reason.
Honestly I am so frustrated with the approach of "lets take a population of millions of people and ask them all to sort perfectly". 'Tis a silly thing. Some people won't care, some people will care but mistakes will happen, some people will care about money more and so will deliberately dump things in the wrong bucket.
Get everyone to dump their crap into one pile and actually invest in industrial processes to sort the crap out.
Huge con: this is a complex problem with possibly poisonous/explosive ramifications if it goes wrong.
Huge Pro: If we can solve this issue, that is a society changing capability, forevermore.
Or until armageddon/robot overlords/singularity/zombie plague at least.
Picking up after your dog. Putting the grocery cart away after unloading. Shoveling the sidewalk in front of your house. Waiting to the side of the subway doors. Not talking during movies.
We are asked to do hundreds of little things that mildly inconvenience us in order to maintain some social contract. Sure they could be made easier/nonexistent with better technology, but I:
1) don't see why asking people to do their part is silly
2) don't see why this particular problem would be more frustrating than e.g. the others I've mentioned. I feel like they are all similar on the "effort" scale.
Although I guess I'd admit that asking people to sort recycling properly is very different than relying on them to.
> Picking up after your dog. Putting the grocery cart away after unloading. Shoveling the sidewalk in front of your house. Waiting to the side of the subway doors. Not talking during movies.
If 10% of people don't put their cart away, then 90% of carts still get put away. If 10% put things into the recycling bin that shouldn't go there, then 100% of that batch of material becomes unsuitable for recycling process unless expensive remediation is done first.
If those things can be automated, we should not waste time doing them. It’s not like they are enjoyable anyway. Count the time wasted sorting stuff and multiply for millions and millions of households
I have no issue with the simple niceties of life. It's nice to do the nice things for those around and helps create a high trust society.
But I don't think this is a good system of caring for our environment. If we cared properly, rather than half-arsing it we'd have a proper industrial system with known outputs that we could improve upon. Instead we seem to have a "feel good you did your part, now forget about it" process. I guess it is shambling it's way to something more but it doesn't seem like it's in a rush - kinda the same way the world agrees on acting on climate change but no one is in a rush.
Most folks when they think of recycling, think of the blue bin they put out every week.
That’s about 25% by weight of all that gets recycled in the country.
Metals, industrial scrap, and other sources are 75% of what gets recycled in the US.
We are blue collar businesses, with high labor costs. Many are exploring robotics actively for repetitive tasks. We have some robots in our process, looking for more when the ROI makes sense.
It may not be 100x, but there will be value in robots in recycling.
Soda bottles can be washed and nearly directly used by 3d printers. Spiral cut the bottle, Thermoform it into a continuous cylinder (it folds it in and heats it to make it solid, then immediately fed to the printer or spooled.
If plastic recycling was actually being done and was profitable I don't think there'd be a Pacific garbage patch and pfas in my heart right now.
Big corporations definitely care about recycling. Sustainability is a major issue for them, not for marketing and such, but because they're thinking 50 years down the line. If they can't keep making xPhones then, they'll need to find a new product or invade a country, and both of these things need to be planned decades in advance. If recycling is a gimmick, it's more to stakeholders than consumers.
Plastic recycling, as commonly understood and promoted, is largely a myth. While technically possible, the reality of plastic recycling falls far short of public perception and industry claims.
# The Reality of Plastic Recycling:
- Low recycling rates: Only 9% of all plastic worldwide is actually recycled[1][2]. In the United States, the recycling rate for plastic waste is even lower, at just 5-6%[5].
- Limited recyclability: Most types of single-use plastic cannot be recycled in the United States. Only plastic #1 and #2 bottles and jugs meet the minimum legal standard to be labeled recyclable[1].
- Downcycling: The majority of recycled plastic is of inferior quality, resulting in downcycling rather than true recycling[2].
- Economic challenges: Recycling plastic is often not economically viable compared to producing new plastic[4].
# Industry Deception:
The myth of plastic recycling has been perpetuated by the plastic and oil industries for decades:
- Misleading labeling: The Resin Identification Codes (RICs) on plastic products were created by the industry to give the impression of a vast and viable recycling system[3].
- Disinformation campaigns: The fossil fuel industry has benefited financially from promoting the idea that plastic could be recycled, despite knowing since 1974 that it was not economically viable for most plastics[3].
- Lack of commitment: In 1994, an Exxon chemical executive stated, "We are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results," regarding industry support for plastics recycling[5].
#Environmental and Health Impacts
- Pollution: Most plastic items labeled as recyclable often end up in landfills, incinerators, or polluting the environment[1].
- Health hazards: Plastic waste contamination affects soil, water, and air quality, potentially impacting human health[4].
Conclusion
The concept of widespread plastic recycling is largely a myth propagated by the plastic industry to distract from the real issues of plastic pollution and to avoid regulation. While some plastic can be recycled, the current system is far from effective or sustainable. To address the plastic crisis, focus needs to shift from recycling to reducing plastic production and consumption.
