this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
1486 points (94.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5878 readers
3770 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

[...] I just want to point out that automating things that exist purely in the digital domain is far easier than automating things like ship breaking.

Not that you're saying otherwise, however isn't that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, I don't see how you would do it without general AI, which is something that will be solved in the digital domain first anyway.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Eh, it could be done with non-general AI. There are a finite number of different types of things to handle, so as long as it's not thrown off by some bent steel or some missing consoles, I'd be amazed if they couldn't automate at least specific ship designs.

[–] epyon22@programming.dev 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They still manually build ships right now what makes you think they could automate taking one apart

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Firstly, much of shipbuilding is automated. They use robots to paint them and apply anti-fouling coatings. They also use loads and loads of automated machinery to create the steel parts that make up most of the ship. Do you think some dudes are forging rivets, beams, and pipes by hand? No, those are made by machines that make zillions of them.

Secondly, nearly every ship--even ships that seem generic like big container ships--is a custom, one-off thing. They're all bespoke (for the most part), being engineered for specific purposes, routes, and they even have "upgrades" for companies that pay extra (e.g. nicer quarters, extra antenna masts, more and special equipment mounting options, etc).

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They use robots to paint them and apply anti-fouling coatings. They also use loads and loads of automated machinery to create the steel parts that make up most of the ship. Do you think some dudes are forging rivets, beams, and pipes by hand? No, those are made by machines that make zillions of them.

The missing piece here is assembly, and disassembly is like 95% of what goes into recycling from what I understand.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Notice how my post is not talking about the present tense.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Automation requires very high precision/consistency in the parts you want to work on. I seriously doubt that after many years of wear, tear, and impromptu repairs, those ships would be anywhere near consistent enough.

[–] echodot 1 points 9 months ago

In fact they cannot automate the disassembly of cars even though their construction is highly automated. We just grind them up in a big grinder and separate the materials. So basically the same thing as with ships just on a smaller scale.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

Automation does not require very high precision though it does require a modicum of consistency. Millions of vibratory bowl feeders with huge tolerances on their alignment mechanisms demonstrate this fact ("Damnit! A part got caught again... Gerry! Loosen that tolerance screw much farther out so that won't happen again" LOL).

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's why I said, "eventually with non-general AI".

Even a well written algorithm could work with something that's mostly in expected shape. How in the flying fuck is everyone so brainless that they cannot understand non-general AI can still adapt to things? Fucking hell.

I'm not talking about current industry practices. I'm talking about combining existing technology with unlimited bidget to create a factory that could kinda' do the task.

"Possible" and "practical" are two extremely different things, and you goons pointing out that most obvious basic fact are adding nothing.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

A single repair or modification would ruin the entire automation process. One single screw off by a single mm type thing.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

This depends on the system. Mechatronics engineers spend a lot of time learning and figuring out how to make systems that can withstand edge cases like an incorrect screw size. There's whole engineering/mechatronics disciplines around automation reliability (though much of it involves lots and lots of sensors and cameras, haha).

The way they test these things is by intentionally throwing bad parts into the mix at various stages of their automation. Something like a screw being too big/small is a trivial matter that won't make it through a system or facility designed by professionals.

The real problem that really throws a wrench into every mechatronics engineer's carefully-planned automated masterworks is people doing things like throwing wrenches into their carefully-planned automated masterworks 😁

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Why the flying fuck do you think I said, "non-general AI"? Even a well written algorithm could handle things coming in not in perfect shape, yet everyone pretends "non-general AI" means, "execute instructions repeatedly without any input what so ever."

Use your brain. Even basic dumb algorithms that can run on an Arduino can respond to input. Machine learning can easily respond to dynamic input, so stop failing to imagine the most basic of basic things I say.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Not that you’re saying otherwise, however isn’t that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

You're solving for the wrong problem from the perspective of people with money investing money to solve these problems.

  • Shipbreaking, while dangerous for the workers, isn't expensive because it is done in far flung countries with workers that have low wages, few protections for safety, and long term health consequences.

  • Art and writing (for western consumption) requires educated and talented people which are expensive to employ.

People with money, looking for a return, want that return their spending, not reduce human suffering.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Processing the digital world is just the first step. You can't just build a safe autonomous ship disassembly robot without making sure your algorithms are actually sound. Look at self driving cars, they're far from being safe and acceptable. Jumping straight into this problem without testing the shit out of your code in a virtual world is a mistake.