Leanna Garfield writing in BI this week outlines how the the New Zealand-based robotics company, Scott Technology Limited is developing fully-automated meat processing bots, which can extract different cuts from lamb, pig, and beef carcasses. Many meatpacking companies believe using this type of technology (rather than human workers) will make processing more efficient. Garfield points out:
The world’s largest meat production company, JBS, is already investing in it. As NPR reported, the Brazil-based corporation bought a controlling share of Scott Technology late last year, in a deal valued at $41 million.
A film created by Carl Schlesinger and David Loeb Weiss documenting the last day of hot metal typesetting at The New York Times.
Certainly a growing and contentious policy debate on the role and purpose of autonomous robots in the “workplace”.
The potential of existential challenges to what we understand the “middle-class” to be [ in the context of a 20th Century definition of a “labour-force], coupled with genuine and profound advances in autonomous and now artificial intelligence, gives one a moment [at least] of pause. Certainly minds [ such as Musk, Hawking, Gates and Omohundro ] that closely consider these technologies and their implications would also agree. The existential challenges may extend far beyond the limited boundaries of what we call the “middle-class”.
As Prof. Stephen Hawking noted:
The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence… a super intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we’re in trouble.
Consider the musings of Elon Musk and remember this phrase. Recursive self-improvement…:
Reforms and dislocations being witnessed in “modern” labour markets are perhaps the first symptoms of genuinely profound changes to what we understand work to be in the second half of this century. The implications of automation, “job-less growth” and widening skills and income inequality suggest profound changes in policy responses will be needed. Examples such as the development of “universal” or “basic income” schemes coupled with labour market and education reforms will no doubt begin to get more attention in the coming decade.
In January, the WEF estimated that over 5 million jobs will be lost globally due to technological change. Recently published figures from the International Federation of Robotics predict that annual global sales of industrial robots will almost double in volume by 2018.
The IFR also pointed out that:
By 2018, around 1.3 million industrial robots will be entering service in factories around the world. In the high-revenue automotive sector, global investments in industrial robots increased by a record-breaking 43 percent (2013-2014) within one year.
human capital investment must be at the heart of any long-term strategy for producing skills that are complemented rather than substituted by technology……Significantly, mastery of “middle skill” mathematics, life sciences, and analytical reasoning is indispensable for success in this training.
Certainly the changes in economic and social policy are “well behind the curve” currently. I see little indication that this trend will improve. Given the latest work from the World Economic Forum’s research on The Future of Jobs where they state:
Today, we are on the cusp of a Fourth Industrial Revolution. Developments in genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, 3D printing and biotechnology, to
name just a few, are all building on and amplifying one another. This will lay the foundation for a revolution more comprehensive and all-encompassing than anything we have ever seen. Smart systems—homes, factories, farms, grids or cities—will help tackle problems ranging from supply chain management to climate change. The rise of the sharing economy will allow people to monetize everything from their empty house to their car.
Perhaps most saliently, they note:
While the impending change holds great promise, the patterns of consumption, production and employment created by it also pose major challenges requiring proactive adaptation by corporations, governments and individuals. Concurrent to the technological revolution are a set of broader socio-economic, geopolitical and demographic drivers of change, each interacting in multiple directions and intensifying one another. As entire industries adjust, most occupations are undergoing a fundamental transformation.
Proactive adaptation by corporations, governments and individuals. Historically, a challenge at the best of times. Anticipating and proactively adapting to what the WEF considers the fourth industrial revolution?
Good luck with that…
When considering the global policy responses to Climate Change, a phenomenon that we have decades of evidence-based, scientifically verified research to support our understanding of both the near and long-term implications for humanity [with unprecedented consensus ] and yet adaptation, let alone proactive adaptation seems non-existent in the policy sphere, beyond the well-intentioned.
WEF founder Klaus Schwab and board member Richard Samans opined that:
To prevent a worst-case scenario — technological change accompanied by talent shortages, mass unemployment and growing inequality — re-skilling and up-skilling of today’s workers will be critical…
Now, for a response, we turn to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science , the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills [ [ along with their State counter-parts of course ], for some proactive adaptation and hope we don’t get only recursive self-improvement…
Australia tops Global Creativity Index
Mapping the connection between cities, inequality, and creative economics http://t.co/ZaHzQscksk pic.twitter.com/0Udmiy6Z6S
— CityLab (@CityLab) July 9, 2015
For those living and working in rural areas, the importance of providing genuine pathways to skilled employment for local populations, particularly young-people, is paramount. We understand in great detail, the challenges of ageing rural populations and structural adjustments. This is more than just a “microcosm” of the challenges facing our national economy.
Working in the field of skills development, labour markets and rural and regional planning, the nature of this model of collaboration and its result, has genuinely raised my interest and admiration.
The genesis of this idea [among others] came about during a meeting of 11 School Councils in 2005.
I have had the honour of attending the dual official opening[s] of the $AUD 11.3 Million dollar, Central Ranges Trade Training Centre, a unique collaboration of nine Government and Catholic secondary schools spanning a potential student population of some 3,500 across the shires of Mitchell and Murrindindi and the City of Whittlesea.
I say “unique” with genuine intent. It is rare [at least in my 30 years of experience] to see a level of collaboration, governance and coordination, that sees a number of individual schools, TAFE Colleges [Goulburn Ovens and Kangan Batman], Industry partners and a community-based planning network [Central Ranges LLEN] agree to fore-go individual funding, to maximise and pool available funds to establish a distributed network of infrastructure and human resources to supply a quality and depth of training opportunity that is clearly greater than the some of its parts.
Today in Seymour, the “Northern Hub” was officially opened by the Federal Minister for Skills and Training, The Honourable Brendan O’Connor and the Member for McEwen, Mr. Rob Mitchell. This completed the “bookend” of the opening of the Southern Hub, at Whittlesea Secondary College, just over a week ago. This complements the two other minor hubs, established and on-stream in 2012 at Alexandra Secondary College and Assumption College Kilmore.
In this expanded regional network, there are schools from the Government and Catholic sectors, their key leaders, school Principals, have chosen to take on a level of planning complexity and responsibility that is not easily reconciled with their “day-to-day” core-business, yet is clearly in the best interests of young people and employers throughout the region to gain access to training facilities and high-level qualifications in key areas of long-term skill-shortage.
Broadford Secondary College, as lead school in the consortium, coordinated and managed the five year project, yet received no capital investment. Seymour College and Whittlesea Secondary College, provided technical, programmatic and planning expertise and shared this with all schools and partners. This is what genuine leadership is, at the community level, these leaders have taken responsibility to build something for a region and the young people within it, well-beyond their individual school gates…
The other partners, specialists, governments and individuals have all contributed, having recognised the depth of collaboration and commitment of this consortium. To also complete such a complex task on budget and ahead-of-time, certainly challenges the stereotypical view of the public sector.
A genuine model of cluster-collaboration with concrete, long-term success. Congratulations to all involved.
The Central Ranges Trade Training Centre Consortium
Can a 3D printer cool the Planet? Stay with me on this..
As we once again hear that the 1990 IPCC Climate modelling for the planet is “on trend” or “coming true”, I ponder the relationship between some of the major policy challenges Australia faces and see opportunity where at present we seem only to be experiencing confusion and much hand-wringing. It appears as clear as it was in 1990 that climate is the context for all other policy work.
There is no doubt that past and current political leaders have dropped the ball, and if my understanding of the research is correct, we have already locked in a temperature rise that current political leaders appear too timid or intellectually incapable of addressing.
We need greater strategic collaboration between education, IT, manufacturing, workforce and environmental portfolios than ever before. This is a challenge for all levels of government.
You might ask what the Climate, Australia’s NBN, Employment and Education policies have to do with one another? … Well, that’s my point.
There appears little or no effort [or perhaps ability] to truly connect some of the major policy challenges facing the country and the globe. Australia, as a nation, is very well placed to respond to and lead the changes required to address the challenges of global climate change and simultaneously address the current national and global debates about education and skills for modern communities and their economies.
There is [rightly] much concern in policy circles about the skills and opportunities that will be available to young people in the future. There is also, [rightly] concern about the relative level of skills and employability within the Australian workforce and the competitive advantage [or lack there-of] of the Nation over the coming decades.
If one looks at [for example] the current political debates surrounding teacher salaries and school performance, infrastructure spending for the National Broadband Network, the tense debates on Murray Darling Basin and particularly the ongoing critical debate about the necessary ”adjustments” or ”transformations” required in the Australian manufacturing industry, it would be easy to be overwhelmed by any one issue and you would certainly be excused for not relating one issue to the next, let alone, the debate about climate change.
I was struck by a piece from The Economist in 2011:
More than 20% of the output of 3D printers is now final products rather than prototypes, according to Terry Wohlers, who runs a research firm specialising in the field. He predicts that this will rise to 50% by 2020.
This got me thinking about the pending revolution in manufacturing and the preparedness [or not] of our Education and Industry sectors.
Concepts of school or home-based manufacturing seem fanciful, but for those of us that have witnessed the changes in the printing industry, it is not such a big leap to see what is coming.
In March of this year, The Atlantic magazine did a cute piece using the resources of the Prelinger Archive, entitled: Why Typesetting Is the Career of the Future (or Was—in the 1940s).
Schools, universities and their IT departments were some of the earliest adopters of “new” dot-matrix and “desktop” printing technologies. We saw a profound change in an established “heavy” industry over just two decades, and we are still witnessing the fallout from those changes in the news and media fields today.
I have no doubt we will see a similar adoption and change in the coming decade, although this time, the change will be across the entire PROCESS of manufacturing.
Our educators, schools and universities are more important than ever before.
Consider the recent news.
In February of this year, an 83 year old woman had her lower jaw replaced, using a jaw that the surgeon PRINTED in a 3D printer.
As recently as last month, GE Aviation, part of the world’s biggest manufacturing group, bought a privately owned company called Morris Technologies. Morris Technologies is expert in 3D printing equipment and will be printing parts for jet engines. [The Economist]
A new start-up company, FormLabs, has even announced a high quality DESKTOP 3D printer in development.
It has been quite routine for about a decade for prototyping pieces in 3D printers. Architects, Engineers, Medical researchers, Physicists, Chemists and many others are all familiar with this field.
This is what 3D printing looks like:
Conceptually, 3D manufacturing becomes an additive more than subtractive process, thus less raw materials, [lower carbon footprint] and the benefit of unitization [less parts] is realised [because each item can be altered all within software, there is no re-tooling, or in many cases, any tooling [beyond the 3D printer and operator]. This fundamentally changes the nature of the enterprise, at every level, from supply, logistics, quality control, marketing… You name it, it changes.
The competitive advantage becomes almost solely the skill of the user; their ability to respond to market need and their ability to protect their intellectual property.
When one combines this with a highly trained and skilled workforce that has access to computing and bandwidth resources, you create the circumstances for genuine innovation.
Consider for a moment the major inputs required for an economy based on virtualised manufacturing.
The education, skills and collaborative abilities of the new manufacturers will be paramount. Their access to bandwidth will be central to their viability. Their relationships with research institutions will be critical. These manufacturers will not require some/many of the industrial-age inputs that have produced such carbon-intensive enterprises that now threaten the planet. This is one of the few times when the use of the word “revolution” could be genuinely justified and not considered hyperbole.
Innovation clusters and the ability to network strategically will be the norm.
In last months Technology Spectator, Thomas Birtchnell and John Urry envisioned four ways that 3D printing could change the world. They posited four alternate futures:
I would suggest that any combination of the first three “futures” suggested by Birtchnell and Urry are desirable.
Australia seems particularly well placed to take advantage of the benefits in such changes to the manufacturing process if it is able to harmonise its key strategic public policy platforms in education, IT infrastructure, manufacturing and climate.
I think a 3D printer in a classroom just might cool the the planet!
Food for thought..
At a time when Gender equity is so prominent in much media coverage, both within Australia and across the Globe, it is also sobering to consider the structural challenges faced by girls entering the workforce and adult-hood for the first time here in Victoria.
This graph shows Vet is Schools [VETiS] enrolments for Girls as a ratio of the Boys enrolments. 0% would mean there is an equal percentage of both boys and girls enrolled. A negative percentage [i.e. Building and Construction] shows girls are under-represented. A positive percentage [i.e. Community Services and Health] shows girls are over-represented.
Where are future opportunities for girls?
Where are the proposed cuts being made?
The current and proposed cuts to TAFE programmes, listed here [PDF] by the AEU, further enforces an already structural disadvantage for girls and young women. Compounding rural and regional disadvantage and the already stark labour-market inequities that have occurred over the last twenty years, there is little or no defence in my view for the changes as I understand them.
These changes do not encourage or address the growing lack of job-ready individuals and further solidifies a structural bias that I doubt few inside “urban” policy contexts seem to really understand. Given the responses to these announcements, it does not appear Gender issues were considered appropriately. This is a matter of both social cohesion and stark regional economic development that should be reconsidered with the highest priority.
There is nothing like good public policy to improve regional and rural competitiveness; these proposed cuts are nothing like good public policy.