> If you can show that your robots, working round the clock, can decrease litter at a * low cost *
The idea sounds good, but I'm curious about the "low cost" part. How do you account for vandalism and theft? A sidewalk robot seems like an easy target for being damaged, stripped for parts, or simply stolen.
You just do it in a more civilised country where things don't immediately get stolen or destroyed. East Asian/some SEA countries.
Plenty of delivery robots in Finland at least, with apparently not much problems with them getting stolen or destroyed.
Starship alone seems to have running operations also in UK, Sweden, Estonia and Czhecia.
the countries where this isn't an issue don't have trash all over their streets either lol.
Trash ends up on the streets in non malicious ways all the time. Bins fall over in the wind, stuff flys out of the back of truck beds, etc.
Japan has plenty of trash on steets.
Coincidentally, Asia is a lot more receptive to AI as well. Turns out having strong job protections means that companies actually need to figure out how to make humans more productive with AI, instead of replacing them.
Are you talking about Japan? Because when I think of "Asia" strong job protections are just about at the bottom of the list.
Most of my reference is Japan and South Korea, yes. You're relatively hard to fire there unless you genuinely in the red as a company. They have their own loopholes around this, but you can't just do forever layoffs for no reason like the US.
My much less researched understanding of China is that there's much less protections in terms of well-being (no federal minimum wage, absurd work hours as standard, etc), but China also comes down much harder (at least, compared to the US) on companies that violate laws. Actual punishments will depend on loyalty, but companies take care to avoid that situation to begin with.
I can't speak at all for the rest of SEA.
> much less protections in terms of well-being (no federal minimum wage, absurd work hours as standard, etc)
There absolutely is minimal wage but is set by local governments, because different places have different cost of living.
There are better protections for work hours for salaried workers than America. Anything above 40 hours get paid at 1.5X and anything above 60 hours get paid at 2x.
For layoffs in China, you have to pay N+1 of months of salary in terms of severance. N being the number of years an employee has been there.
And talking about absurd work hours, SK and Japan aren't better than China.
So China overall has far better labor rights protection than the U.S.
>talking about absurd work hours, SK and Japan aren't better than China.
On paper, no. Japan has overtime bonuses too, but you're culturally discouraged from reporting overtime. So 12 hour days are common with no OT. And thats not including "optional" after work outings.
Yet, it's also not uncommon for Japan to bring about the "appearance" of working more than really working. Whether you judge that appearance of work as more or less stressful than China's work standards is a more personal question.
Either way, my main comparison was Asia to the US rather than countries within Asia. US has higher salaries, better minumum wage (but still nowhere near good), and usually better hours. But stability without unions is non-existent as we've seen the past decades.
I don't want to make this sound rude. I'm curious what job protections are there in various Asian countries?
Most of my understanding is based around studying Japanese law, so I wouldn't extend it to all of asia. But the main protection is that much of Asia is not at-will employment. So you can't easily create mass layoffs like the US without good reason (some regions won't do that because wage floors are pathetic or non-existent, but it's still some protection).
Was just in a Waymo in SF and we were attacked by a gang of cyclists repeatedly swerving at and trying to cause our waymo to crash. Really powerless feeling. And they were doing this knowing humans were inside. I don't pretend to know their motivation other than perhaps misplaced social rage, but I'd imagine a litter robot would be immediately destroyed.
Indeed, I was surprised to hear about “Lowell students” robbing people on Muni and “bicyclists” causing trouble in Mission Bay but when I observed some of this anti-social behaviour (when I saw them they were doing wheelies and swerving at people walking) I was rapidly able to discern why the statements were relatively vague as to the categorization.
I suppose it shall be the case for the short term at least that we must admit that “humans” really cause harm. Though perhaps that’s over specific and I should recognize that most crime is committed by eukaryotes.
In SF they would be taken quickly by the homeless for parts, probably the batteries most of all. That and rummaged through for drugs, or repurposed to deliver drugs.
Is this what happens with scooters and lime bikes etc? Because it always strikes me that they’re easy targets for cannibalism yet nobody seems to do it.
They do. Tons of them are stolen or destroyed regularly. The company just keeps buying new ones.
It was common for people to vandalize and throw them in bodies of water for a while before people got used to the idea. I still occasionally see some repurposed from time to time
Surely the robot will have the beta crime fighting package installed.
Pay a little extra for the M134 Minigun attachment and you’re good to go.
Having expensive high tech robots picking up litter while there is an ongoing social crisis like homelessness sounds pretty dystopian.
Have you seen San Francisco right now?
I haven’t been to the city in 12 years. What is it like right now?
Like every downtown in the US. In short: not good.
I don’t want to say you guys overstate things, but literally every downtown in the US? Might be time to move. I was regularly visiting San Francisco in the late 2010s when the tech bro community was really ginning this story up. Was it an ugly clash of both the promise and the failure of US economics? Yeah. Was their shit on the streets? Also yeah. Did I ever feel unsafe? Not really. Anecdata but I remain skeptical because of these Helen Lovejoy-level overstatements.
Just do it in China or Japan.
Cities with the social order required for robotic street cleaning rarely require robotic street cleaning. One might as well suggest a novel heart surgery that works only on healthy patients.
China has very little street crime but they pay street cleaners very regularly. You can actually find videos on YouTube. I just watched one with a 65-year-old man who manages 600m of street and has managed the same street for 28 years. Just using big brushes, dust pans, and putting it all in garbage bins. the city pays him between $600 and $800 a month in USD.
Japan has much, much less litter to pick up. Turns out when your windows aren't broken, that you take pride in the rest of your community too.
How do you account for it? You simply account for it. Viz. if the cost outweighs the projected benefit, you don't do it.
Then people will say "you're doing this for the rich, and say it can't be done for the poor". Not even for long-term ill or old people living in poor areas.
And it will of course be true to some extent.
The robot is likely to have a constant internet connection so it could just call the police.
Alternatively they could add a chain gun to the robot to deal with the vandals
But who is going to pay for all that ammo? That sounds expensive to the tax payer and not ideal for re-election. Perhaps you could employ the robots in ammo factories first to bring the cost of ammunition down and then the frequent use on the lower cla.., I mean criminals, wouldn’t be so costly.
[dead]
>add a chain gun to the robot to deal with the vandals
Asimov reeling in his grave.
Incoming vandalism because of stolen jobs or something.
How do you account for vandalism and theft?
You don't consider the problems. That's how you can pretend it'll be low cost.