I attended an event recently where the blockers to the commercial adoption of robotics in the UK were raised, these typically included lack of testing facilities, standards and infrastructure. I'm keen to know what the IET community thinks, why is it that the UK has a strong academic base in robotics, and yet the conversion to industry adoption of the technology is comparatively low?
I'd turn the question around: what are the problems that could be solved with autonomous robots in the UK that aren't, and why not? As engineers it's very tempting to start with the solution and then find a problem to fit it, but if there's no actual need then it won't get taken up.
History tends to show that effective product introduction is through someone seeing an actual problem and realising that they know a solution to fix it.
(Same comment of course applies to almost any discussion involving AI...)
I'd turn the question around: what are the problems that could be solved with autonomous robots in the UK that aren't, and why not? As engineers it's very tempting to start with the solution and then find a problem to fit it, but if there's no actual need then it won't get taken up.
History tends to show that effective product introduction is through someone seeing an actual problem and realising that they know a solution to fix it.
(Same comment of course applies to almost any discussion involving AI...)
Thanks Andy, so is it that the UK doesn't have problems that could be solved by the current state of robotics/ autonomy? And that's why we don't see a level of robotics adoption that matches the hype? Is it a case of waiting for the technology to mature so that the problems that can be solved by the technology become more apparent?
depends what you think the problems are. If the robots could solve youth unemployment, lower house prices and stop small boats landing on the south coast, there are enough folk here that would welcome them for each of those with open arms. Mundane stuff, like dentistry, hair cuts and unblocking drains and replacing tap washers we are used to having done by humans, but if it did it faster and cheaper, maybe, but only after its had a decade or two to bed in. And I for one would prefer different ones for the drains and the teeth rather than some universal machine.
Mike.
We all submit to our new robot overlords!
I can't help but think this is just going to be another example of the complicators gloves. The generalised AIs are only as good as their programmer and the data they are trained on. The LLM's seem to be trained on all sorts of junk. Junk in, junk out.
The other issue is safety. Although a human is an unreliable and buggy device, for generic tasks its more efficient and predicable otherwise they would have banned human drivers years ago. Tightly constrained specific AI's can achieve achieve better quality, but that takes a lot of sensors and training data to get that far. My car can't detect pedal bikes at all. I wouldn't let a generic AI operate any vehicle - ever. Its not a case of waiting for technology to catch up. Fundamentally its the wrong tool for the job.
The original article mentions that we are statistically 24th in the world in terms of robotics use and is specifically concerned with food processing industries. But chasing the linked articles, it later goes on to say that one of the reasons is that a lot of UK manufacturing are SMEs which lack the capital for large investments, such as automation. There is however, no data provided on any of the linked articles.
Hi Nicky,
Probably mostly that the UK decided to exit manufacturing as a major sector of its economy in the 1980s. I suspect (although I may of course be wrong) that the countries that are driving up that average in the article you linked to (assuming that it's correct of course!) are those which have heavily manufacturing based economies. As an economy based on finance and service industries there's going to be less demand in the UK. Of course that's a problem for robotics suppliers - i.e. the authors of that article - but not necessarily for anyone else!
Although there is a question as to whether the decision to exit manufacturing still makes sense given the capabilities of modern robotics. And the other question as to whether it made sense even at the time...
Thanks,
Andy
Economically (though maybe not socially) the close down and off-shoring of factory work made sense when north sea oil and gas could be exported in volume, and if we liked it or not that skewed our balance of trade, and made the pound desirable, making export harder as our labour and products looked expensive to overseas buyers. It also softened any incentive to do anything more than let it happens so perhaps new methods like automation were not investigated & implemented as much as they might have been.
However, the gas and oil have both peaked, and now clearly visible after the fact, it was at some point in the late 1990s. So, like many other former fuel exporters, we are now net importers, at least for the cold parts of the year, and that makes us poorer, or rather, for at the moment at least, it does not as we can borrow, but it actually gives us a rising national debt instead.
I'm not sure how well we are realising this and making the necessary modifications. I suspect the govt. may just look surprised and expect some other clever chaps to do something - a policy that has worked for them for most of the 20th century.
Its not just energy of course, but it has been a big factor in the decline of the non 'city' side of UK business.
Mike.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
