Intel introduces its newest employee, Chip the robotic inspector, just after announcing mass human layoffs

Comments

• ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Working in IoT and seeing AI/robotics, manufacturing and basic office duties is completely automated. Yeah it’s not 100% but it’s fucking way cheaper in short term and other many light benefits. I’m not happy about this and that’s just logic to acknowledge the truth. I’m for employee of people but next automation is already here.

  source
• Zacpod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yet another reason to look at non US CPUs going forward. Either RISC-V or ARM put of Europe/Korea.

  source

  • toastmeister@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Its the business cycle. Smart companies are slowing production.

    source
• rabber@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Specifying “human layoffs” is weird

  source
• dbkblk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  A AI robot to look for sensors that can be already read since decades? What is that bullshit?

  source
• partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If Intel had trotted out Chip and then announced it would be creating a universal basic income scheme based on the savings the company was amassing by using Chip, then I’d be clapping along with the audience. As it stands, it just seems like bad taste during a difficult time.

  I’m not sure the author of the article has a realistic understanding of Intel’s role or ability to affect change public policy.

  source

  • Daggity@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not a great place to be. Intel and other major corporations buy political influence. Politicians act in the best interests of their benefactors, and for most, that’s not the voters. I don’t think it’s practical either, but maybe there’s some use in including these kinds of political ideas when these things happen, as a reminder that they wield political influence.

    source
  • aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s true that Intel probably shouldn’t be handing out UBI, but if companies want to promote how much they don’t need people’s labor anymore, than that should be taken into consideration in policy making.

    Somewhere along the line we lost one of the basic things underpinning our current economic structure – that corporations are supposedly better at allocating, distributing, and utilizing resources than a centrally planned economy with a governmental overlord – it sure sounds to me like Intel and other companies that are handing out pink slips for every bit of thing they automate cannot find anything to do with the human resources they’ve been allowed.

    To put it much more simply, corporations aren’t allowed to exist purely because they “make money”. One of their primary functions is to employ people.

    source

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s true that Intel probably shouldn’t be handing out UBI, but if companies want to promote how much they don’t need people’s labor anymore, then that should be taken into consideration in policy making.

      Yes exactly, policy making at the government level, not at the corporate level as the author was suggesting.

      To put it more simply, corporations aren’t allowed to exist purely because they “make money”.

      Under capitalism, yes they are.

      One of their primary functions is to employ people.

      I’d argue under capitalism, that isn’t even a secondary function. Employing people may be tertiary at best.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So they’ll lower prices. Right?

  source

  • toastmeister@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Their margins are being squeezed by AMD, so they already are.

    source
  • pulido@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Nah. This just increases profits.

    source

    • slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      But it also lowers yhe quality

      source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Something a lot of people don’t understand (you obviously do) is that pricing is not based on what something costs. It’s based on the absolute maximum a consumer is willing to pay. If they cut costs somehow, they just pocket the difference. If it costs more to make than a consumer will pay they just don’t make it.

    source

    • ripcord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.

      But usually it’s the thing you said. Capitalism fundamentals are pretty broken in most markets.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • dinckelman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’ll take another massive quality scandal, or just a generation of shit products, but sure

    source
  • pikmeir@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Padme: Right?

    source

    • einkorn@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Anakin:

      source

      • -> View More Comments