Are Robots The Ultimate Answer?

The New York Times has a feature article today, written by Cade Metz, that explores the realm of AI-powered robot houseworkers. This happens every couple of years or so as both AI and robotic technologies continue to advance. The reporter visits somewhere, in this case a home, and observes the robot in a tightly-controlled environment doing the precise things it has been programmed, or in this case taught, to do. Everything looks cool and futuristic, but like every other article before it, this one ends with the caveats of things that the robot still can’t accomplish and may never be able to accomplish.

Well, not yet, perhaps.

One possible solution is being tested with the robot shown in the Times article: humans. I know, it seems rather strange, doesn’t it, that the solution to robots being effective workers could be the humans they’re supposed to replace. Humans may, for a time, simply be a bridge until more well-developed robots arrive on the market. There are plenty of predictions lying all over the place, like discarded starts to a thesis that never gets written about when AI-powered devices might pass the Turing test and demonstrate some form of sentience.

In the article, the robot, named Neo, is autonomous up to a point. It can walk on its own and do a limited set of tasks that are, on their own, somewhat impressive, such as greeting a visitor at the door and fetching a bottle of water. Loading a dishwasher demonstrates limited use of fine motor skills, and emptying a basket of laundry shows the robot’s range of mobility. All very impressive.

But some glitches just don’t want to go away. So, Neo has a human friend living in the basement of their boss’s house who helps navigate the robot using joystick commands. The concept is that one day, in the relatively near future, warehouses full of humans would control cities full of robotic workers. One human would control multiple robots at a time, keeping the employment costs down.

That got us thinking. We discussed in an article earlier this week the upcoming shrinkage of the US population by as soon as 2032. Even if the government’s immigration policies were reversed today, it remains likely that many of those deported would not risk returning. A government that changes its mind every four years, going from one extreme to another, does not create a stable environment for anyone. There are going to be more jobs than there are people to fill them.

Which jobs are likely to be left open? The ones that have always been the most difficult to fill: farming. While having a robot butler or maid might sound fun to some rich SOB who likes showing off, having a robot that can take care of the hot, sweaty, and somewhat dangerous jobs involved in farming makes a lot more sense.

The challenge in such a solution is that farm field workers have to do more than just identify an object and pick it. They have to determine if the product is ready to be picked, if the color is correct for picking, and if the product is free from any sign of bugs or worms. There are hundreds of variable with every task that makes training robots using current models difficult and time consuming. The robot would need sensors that allow it to “feel” what it’s picking and “smell” whether it is good or rotten.

By most estimates we’ve found, it appears that there are not likely to be partially autonomous robots out and about on their own until at least 2050, and more likely later than that. But with the right modifications, a remote-controlled robot might be able to pick up some of the slack in the workforce before then. This hybrid workforce could even be profitable if handled correctly.

One of the issues with human field workers is weather conditions. Skies can go from sweltering heat to pounding rain and wind all in the same day. RC robots would be able to keep working regardless of the conditions as long as they were able to maintain a wireless connection with their controller. The robot in the Times story was connected via Bluetooth. A significantly stronger and more flexible type of connection would be necessary to control a field of workers.

The RC robots wouldn’t need to take lunch breaks, though, or need to stop and use the restroom. They wouldn’t call in sick, even if their human handler did. The reduced risk of physical injury to the robots would decrease the employer’s insurance costs as well.

There’s also a benefit in having remote workers who don’t have to be anywhere near the actual work site. A set of robots picking berries in a California field could be controlled by someone sipping on cocoa while at home somewhere in Maine. AI could handle the less complex aspects of a task (e.g., moving the robot arm close to the target), allowing the human operator to focus only on the critical fine motor control, potentially speeding up the overall process compared to fully manual labor for some tasks.

Sound fun? Yeah, well, there are still significant obstacles.

These things don’t come cheap. There’s currently no Temu or Shein for robotics, and with tariffs being tossed back and forth between the US and China (and other Asian countries), that cost is likely to remain high for quite some time. Your grandchildren have a better chance of seeing robots in the fields than you do. The investment cost is too high for the type of large-scale testing that could significantly boost advances within the industry.

We also have to consider how many robots one remote operator can effectively control simultaneously when fine motor skills are required. If it’s mostly 1:1, the labor cost savings might be less dramatic than initially hoped. Operator fatigue during intense remote manipulation tasks is also a factor. Even the military is encountering this problem with their drone pilots. Sure, the pilots are thousands of miles away from the action, but the suicide rate is well above average for the military.

Maintenance is going to be an issue no matter what. Consider that some foods, such as rice and cranberries, require flooded fields. Workers have to be able to walk through the water. Have you seen what happens when electronics come into contact with water? The result is not a positive one and we’re pretty sure that dunking an entire robot in a bag of rice isn’t going to fix the problem. No matter what environment they’re in, a maintenance crew is bound to stay busy taking care of the little problems that inevitably occur with any type of electronics.

Currently, for many applications requiring fine motor skills (like delicate harvesting), this model is likely still too expensive and complex compared to traditional labor. However, as technology matures and labor costs potentially rise, the economic equation could shift, making this a viable cost-saving approach for specific industries or tasks in the future.

Of course, fewer people means we don’t need as much food, but that is a different problem for another day.