Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm glad it's gone for good, if the process really works like how it's described in the article. Thousands of poor souls doing terrible pointless menial work just so that a few entitled customers can avoid the clunky self checkout (eww- the horror!). The entitlement of the west has no bounds really.



It wasn’t pointless, they were training an AI that never fully worked. It’s ultimately the same kind of thing as people monitoring self driving cars, a boring task that may be pointless or possibly remove a lot of drudgery longer term.

According to The Information, 700 out of 1,000 Just Walk Out sales required human reviewers as of 2022. This widely missed Amazon’s internal goals of reaching less than 50 reviews per 1,000 sales. Amazon called this characterization inaccurate, and disputes how many purchases require reviews.


That sort of thing seems to improve over time. The USPS has had automatic sorting machines for a long time. At first they could only read pre-barcoded mail. Humans had to key in zip codes. Then character recognition got good enough that printed and typed addresses could be read automatically. Some items were still rejected, and they went through manual stations that added a bar-code sticker.

Then manual reading was made remote. There were about 20 USPS remote envelope reading centers at peak. As the vision systems got good enough to read handwriting, then bad handwriting, those were cut back. Now there's only one remote envelope reading center in the US, and what gets there is really bad.


Tom Scott did a great video showing the last one in operation. They use totally unique keyboards with what is essentially a stenography system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxCha4Kez9c


> Thousands of poor souls doing terrible pointless menial work just so that a few entitled customers can avoid the clunky self checkout

Wanting to make your life more convenient and pleasant isn't "entitled".

99% of jobs are things people would rather not be doing (otherwise you wouldn't be getting paid for it). The point is that we can allocate this work in a way that minimizes the amount of time everyone has to spend doing undesirable work.

Are you mad that I sometimes pay "poor souls" to do the "menial work" of cooking me food so I can avoid doing it myself?

> The entitlement of the west has no bounds really.

A very bizarre response to "darn, this was so convenient" - I wonder if this is a troll.


> The point is that we can allocate this work in a way that minimizes the amount of time everyone has to spend doing undesirable work.

1. Not all work is equally undesirable and the way people are paid is not related to that in any way (in fact isn't usually inversely related)

2. Minimising the undesirable work done in total means some people end up doing almost all of it and some basically none (or, if you consider all work undesirable, some people do only the worst and some only the least bad work).

If before, for example, everyone would spend half an hour of their day to cook for themselves, which might be inconvenient but is overall not a big impact on your quality of life, now we have overworked and underpaid restaurant and related staff doing intense work for crazy hours, which is is a devastating hit to their (and their families') quality of life. The sum of human effort spent on cooking may have gone down in this example, but instead of everyone being a little annoyed by it, some people are living like kings and some are slaving away for their convenience (obviously this wording is exaggerated, but if we look globally, this is basically what's happening).


Sure but you seem to ignore that we don't exist in a socialist society.

Cashiers may have an undesirable job and self-checkout may distribute this undesirable labor among the many instead of burdening a single person with it but those people don't get paid for doing that job whereas the cashier did get paid. Self-checkout is also often slower than checkout at a cashier (it has to be because the cashier is trusted to ring up items correctly whereas the customer has a huge incentive to cheat).

The desirability of being a cashier also isn't inherent to the job. It has more to do with attitudes towards the person doing the job, both from customers and from their employer. Service staff often act as a lightning rod for all frustrations and disdain targeted at their place of work, i.e. they frequently get punished for things completely out of their control. They're also often seen as unskilled labor by their employers so they are treated as easy to replace meaning there is very little incentive to invest in their job satisfaction.

In other words, we have systems that not only require people to work even if the jobs they end up doing are undesirable and undervalued but also actively makes certain jobs undesirable by undervaluing them. If you want to change that, you need to change the system that makes those jobs undesirable, not just do away with the undesirable jobs. People seem to have fewer problems grasping this when talking about the virtues of overseas sweatshops (where changing the system is presumed impossible because the implication is that the system arises from a lack of economic development or cultural inferiority).


This is a great additional perspective, but we seem to be mostly in agreement.

I am quite aware (and rather disappointed) we don't live in a more socialist system, but as we seem to be pretty much stuck under particularly nasty version of capitalism at least for the near future. So unless someone finds a way to turn the whole system around any time soon, I still think at least trying to make some of the worst parts of capitalism somewhat less unbearable is a good thing.


If you don't like going to the grocery store pay someone to go get them for you. Thousands of people remotely "following" you around and scanning things for you, just so that you can avoid using self checkout sounds ridiculous and excessive.


Is it more ridiculous than having someone standing at a cash register in the store doing the same task, while also having to bag for you and pretend to smile?


I don't see where you're getting the impression that 1,000 workers are monitoring every single individual that walks into the store. The figure used was the total amount for the whole program (many locations), only one person was reviewing each case, and they were only even reviewing 70% of cases. Your argument is no different than saying that every time you go to McDonald's, you're entitled for expecting the hundreds of thousands of McDonald's employees globally to band together to make you your burger.


So does having somebody sitting next to the checkout machine watching me (directly or through security camera) while I finish my groceries ? I fail to see the major difference with somebody working physically in the shop that makes it ridiculous and excessive. One may even argue that remotely it could opens the job to more people (one could do that from home in their wheelchair while their baby is taking a nap )


There is a difference. In a typical grocery store, people only have to tally what you bought only once at the end during checkout. Where as in this "walk out" system someone has to follow you around "virtually" and keep track of everything you do in the store.


I've adressed that point with the security camera (or adequatly positionned mirror in old-fashion store)

And the workers just sit idle when there is no customer and you have to physically go there. So I dont see the clear advantage, i see it more as a "choose your poison"


> keep track of everything you do

It wasn't all manual.

An important question to ask is how many minutes of camera-viewing there were per customer. Let's not assume too hard before we judge the level of wastefulness.


Maybe Westerners are entitled, but this one isn't really our fault because we were led to believe it was magical automation instead of menial labor.


Presumably these people applied for the jobs in question. I think it isn't for you to decide that their chosen job is pointless.


The point of the store was to provide the appearance of conventional retail while being exclusive to "members". This would theoretically cut down on shoplifting and boost profits at the expense of shutting out marginalized people.


My first thought is that this was an attempt at satire, but now I realize it's a privileged Western person who has never traveled to a poor country and thinks that if these workers weren't labeling data they'd be self-actualized DJs or crypto investors.


I think your first instinct is the correct one. But I don't buy the argument that these jobs are somehow empowering them.

My criticism is towards the entitlement of shoppers who think self checkout is too clunky and having to interact with a cashier is too annoying but expect an army of people to work behind the scenes (be it anywhere in the world) to make it easy for them.


I'm sure all those fired, new job seekers jn India agree fully with you.


If the system did end up working as designed, wouldn't they get the shaft anyways?


You were upset that due to the "entitled" west, Indians had jobs. You were glad the jobs were gone.

Now you're trying to redirect, and say "Oh well, those jobs would have lasted only a few years more anyhow!".

My respnse to that is the same:

I'm sure all those fired, new job seekers jn India agree fully with you.

Consider te perspective of those you aim to "protect".




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: