Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Automation

Automation is not the same as mechanization

Examples of textile machines are not automation and neither do Luddites apply. Automation means that the machine or process does not require constant operator attention.

An early example was the flour mill in Colonial America that was self feeding and regulating and spread the ground flour for grinding. The mill used a variety of conveyors that were all run automatically.

Watt's centrifugal govenor to regulate steam valve opening for his steam engines is an automatic control. James Clerk Maxwell developed control theory from Watt's govenor. After Maxwel's controllers became widely available for regulating machinery and processes. Automation predates computer control by decades. Computer control added to existing factories did not result in significant labor savings.

Limitations Section

I am not up for the task of providing all the sources that would be needed to properly argue that, technology is not only at the point where machine can perform any tasks a human can (one example that surprises some people is impregnation and birthing a human), but is also capable of doing things which humans cannot do. Feel free to suggest specific examples to prove me wrong and I’ll address each with a source or sources that prove otherwise. The accurate statement would be, the limitations of automation is not that the technology isn’t capable, it’s capable but doesn’t provide any benefit and/or creates negative effects (typically it’s more expensive). Also, under the Paradox of Automation section, Lisanne Bainbridge didn’t thoroughly investigate, if she had she would have learned that a.i. is capable of recognizing errors and will adjust. The example with the airplane is pretty weak, because you can reverse the roles, pilots make fatal mistakes too and that’s where an a.i. could come in. I believe people are too focused on comparisons and not focusing on the balancing through cooperation. Creatives that see a.i. as a tool or a collaborator are not only still making money but are doing so with less investment in time. Dyer Debate (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Revolution

In contrast to the above section maintaining that mechanization was not the same thing as automation, I feel like this article is missing quite significant developments related to the industrial revolution. Said above section makes the claim that much of the period's progress was exclusively about machines that required constant human control and attention, but I think that POV's fallacy is to confound the topic too much with cybernetics. I'd argue that the proper definition of automation is that a human pushes a button and then the machine does a pre-scheduled task, namely continuous and/or cyclic ones, required in industrial production. Thus, the current article entirely glosses over the history of how and why increasingly refined and sophisticated stationary steam engines became the norm, or at least a widespread phenomenon, in factories, from the mid-1800s onwards, as well as the significant innovation posed by the assembly line or conveyor belt, namely those not driven by human or animal muscle power. Combined, they gave rise to the notion of the production line, i.e. the machine that, at the mere push of a button, spits out identical products, which has been known in hand-drawn animation since at least the 1920s, as one of the primary metaphors for automation, industrialization, and standardized mass production, the mental image evoked in the general populace whenever these fields are mentioned. --2003:DA:CF2E:4555:4CDD:A569:5333:4B8A (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]