Latest / Mark and Pete / Robots, Junk Food, and Talentless Tennis

Transcript

Robots, Junk Food, and Talentless Tennis · Mark and Pete

• 0:04
  Robots, junk food and talentless tennis.
• 0:08
  Welcome to Mark and Pete on why the future is automated, over
• 0:14
  regulated and still wildly incompetent.
• 0:18
  This is Mark and Pete, 2 blokes with half an opinion.
• 0:22
  Here's our first story. Automatic busy body.
• 0:27
  A robot can do a lot. A human does much less.
• 0:32
  A robot can pick and plot. A human suffers stress.
• 0:36
  A robot will clean on the spot. A human can make a mess.
• 0:41
  A robot does things on the dot. A human will regress.
• 0:45
  A robot can work cold or hot. A human may transgress, but what
• 0:51
  a robot has not got as a trade union to address.
• 0:56
  Yes. I think that we can all relate
• 0:59
  to that. Well, interestingly, Hyundai
• 1:01
  Motor Group says it will roll out human like robots in its
• 1:06
  factories from the year 2028 onwards and this is a major
• 1:10
  initiative and a race to get the new technology into all of their
• 1:14
  factories. Mr. Pete, I know that many
• 1:17
  people are concerned. The robots are good in some
• 1:20
  ways, but they replace people. What say you about this new form
• 1:23
  of technology? Well, if robots are better, I
• 1:27
  think, why shouldn't they do it? That's what I think.
• 1:31
  The thing is, is it works. This, this is my take on this
• 1:34
  sort of issue when it arises every now and every now and
• 1:37
  then. Well, I'm thinking back to the
• 1:40
  time of the Luddites a few 100 years ago, and obviously I was
• 1:43
  there. So it was a tough time.
• 1:44
  Of course you were. They were complaining against
• 1:48
  mechanisation, chiefly in farming, but this could be
• 1:53
  applied. Their set of reaction can be
• 1:56
  applied to people. Today.
• 1:56
  You are Luddite in that what you don't want robots doing things.
• 2:00
  Robots doing things that they can do well frees up humans to
• 2:05
  do things that they can do well. That's what's always happened
• 2:07
  with these innovations. It isn't that people are done
• 2:10
  out of work per SE. They are replaced in certain
• 2:15
  jobs and they do other stuff. That's what's always happened.
• 2:18
  I mean, it casts people's minds back.
• 2:20
  For those who were around back to the 1980s when and 90s when
• 2:24
  it was believed that with automated automation, with all
• 2:30
  the technology being used in offices, we would end up being
• 2:35
  just doing a four or even a three day week because
• 2:37
  everything will be automated. That isn't what happened.
• 2:41
  And we're also told there'll be a paperless office.
• 2:44
  Meanwhile, computing takes up more paper than ever before.
• 2:48
  So, you know, these things never work out in the way that they
• 2:52
  that that's suggested by futurists.
• 2:55
  Rather robots will have their place and they will be used by
• 3:03
  humans. So I'm not, I'm quite sanguine
• 3:05
  about it. But Mark, and I guess this is
• 3:08
  your, your interest, Miss Mark, as a businessman, if robots are
• 3:13
  the new growing things as a business, you'd better get into
• 3:17
  it, right? Well, I agree.
• 3:18
  I think this is the thing. Wake up, get into the game.
• 3:22
  Because the bottom line is, is that Hyundai is not the only
• 3:25
  company humanoid robots in their operations include companies
• 3:28
  such as Amazon, Tesla, even the Chinese car maker BYD.
• 3:33
  They are now all moving into the space.
• 3:35
  Many manufacturers, whether you're in food, whether you're
• 3:39
  in automotive, whether you make any kind of widget.
• 3:41
  The fact of the matter is, is that robots are very efficient.
• 3:44
  The one thing that you may be aware of and you would have seen
• 3:48
  by the company called Boston Dynamics is that they've sort of
• 3:52
  shown what really robots can do. Most notably Spot.
• 3:56
  The robot dog, as it's known, can do many agile things.
• 4:00
  It can flip, it can jump, it can move, and it does sort of look
• 4:03
  like a robotic dog. It's very clever, OK, it's good.
• 4:07
  It may not have practical purposes, but what you can see
• 4:10
  is, is that maybe it could in things where it comes to things
• 4:15
  where a human being may not want to go.
• 4:18
  For example, it might be in a chemical plant where you need
• 4:22
  things cleaning or certain things where a robot can just be
• 4:26
  far more efficient at picking and packing and pushing.
• 4:29
  So those I definitely see as being important.
• 4:32
  But the thing that I do think is important, and I think you've
• 4:35
  alluded to it, is it takes nothing away from the human
• 4:38
  mind. The human is still in control.
• 4:41
  The human is somebody who's there who will be there to work
• 4:44
  with the robots. And I think you're right.
• 4:46
  We're in an evolution, maybe even a revolution, where
• 4:49
  software and hardware are working together with the
• 4:51
  humans. I think it's obvious that we do
• 4:54
  need to sort of point to that to elephant in the room, whether
• 4:57
  it's a robot elephant or not. But the fact of the matter is it
• 5:01
  will replace jobs, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing
• 5:05
  because other jobs will come up. There'll be software engineers,
• 5:08
  there'll be hardware engineers, there'll be those who perhaps
• 5:11
  need to do different types of jobs because new products can be
• 5:14
  made. Because, you know, products that
• 5:17
  sometimes, you know, design engineers work on may not
• 5:21
  necessarily be scalable, whereas robots can produce them much
• 5:24
  more efficiently. And So what what you might find
• 5:27
  is that, you know, companies can, can really scale much
• 5:31
  better. Now the one thing that we know
• 5:33
  of course is artificial intelligence.
• 5:35
  Now we already recognise that this is automating a lot of the
• 5:40
  processes both at the design and of course the operations level.
• 5:43
  Look at Elon Musk's electric car maker.
• 5:46
  He's using a combination of, you know, artificial intelligence
• 5:50
  and robotics throughout his manufacturing plants at Tesla.
• 5:53
  So I think that we're really at that point where we just simply
• 5:57
  have to recognise that things aren't going to go away.
• 6:00
  So you're right, those Luddites, well that legacy manufacturing
• 6:05
  look at it, go to a museum and and sort of smile.
• 6:09
  But the fact of the matter is, is that it is true that from a
• 6:13
  commercial perspective, if you really want to compete, you
• 6:16
  almost certainly need to be in the game.
• 6:19
  I think that there is a place where robots and artificial
• 6:22
  intelligence won't play, but they'll be in a very niche,
• 6:26
  almost cottage industry sort of realm.
• 6:30
  But certainly when it comes to scale, you have to have robots.
• 6:35
  Yeah, that's my thing. Yeah, you're going to be left
• 6:37
  behind. I mean, if we take, if you take
• 6:41
  a new innovation, they tend to have their time and eventually
• 6:44
  they find their place within the economy.
• 6:46
  That's what's really what I was saying earlier, not the robots
• 6:50
  are going away. They will eventually find their
• 6:54
  place where that is, people will know how how to use them.
• 6:57
  At the moment, people who aren't using this sort of robotics
• 7:01
  technology, particularly as you say, when they're trying to work
• 7:05
  at a large scale, they're going to fall behind.
• 7:09
  So now is the time to make the changes because otherwise it's
• 7:14
  too late because your competitors will get ahead.
• 7:17
  Correct. Well look, let's take a
• 7:20
  different angle, something which may or may not be completely to
• 7:25
  your own tastes. If you are binge watching TV and
• 7:30
  you're craving junk food in your diet, instead swallow the remote
• 7:34
  control. It might keep your stomach
• 7:37
  quiet. Well, the whole point here is of
• 7:40
  course, junk food adverts are going to be banned on television
• 7:44
  and indeed online, and this is part of a drive to tackle
• 7:47
  childhood obesity. Now from the United Kingdom's
• 7:51
  point of view, as well as many other countries around the
• 7:53
  world, the ban in theory is meant to stop the really growing
• 7:59
  use of food drinks with high fat, salt and sugar.
• 8:02
  Mr. P, what's your thought about banning adverts of this sort of
• 8:07
  nature and do you think they they really will work?
• 8:11
  Well, I'm a big advocate of free speech and allowing people to
• 8:15
  express things, but that doesn't necessarily mean persuasive
• 8:20
  adverts that trick you into eating food that's bad for you.
• 8:23
  You see, I think there's a balance to be on.
• 8:26
  You know, the the Bible says First Corinthians 6 verse 12.
• 8:30
  All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.
• 8:34
  You should be allowed to have information freely available
• 8:38
  about different food stores. But if it's presented in such a
• 8:43
  way as ads on TV that it seems that food that is bad for you is
• 8:48
  actually good for you, even if it's not technically lying, but
• 8:52
  it's been very persuasive, I think that that is a bad thing.
• 8:56
  I, I'm, I don't have a problem with it being banned.
• 8:59
  In fact, I think you could be more nuanced about it in that
• 9:05
  you, you could advertise it, but make, you know, not make false
• 9:09
  claims even by imputation or persuasion.
• 9:12
  But I think that that's, that's difficult.
• 9:17
  Let's just say it, it may be possible and they could do some
• 9:20
  experimentation in that area with testing whether you, you
• 9:24
  can do that. But I think a ban for me, even
• 9:28
  though I don't like government intervention in this case, the
• 9:32
  stakes are so high, pun intended, that you that people
• 9:38
  are dying of this, of of having too much sugar in their diet.
• 9:42
  Yeah, they need help. Well, they do need help and what
• 9:46
  they're trying to do is particularly children, but I
• 9:48
  think it does also apply to adults as well when they're just
• 9:51
  sitting watching these programmes wash over their TV or
• 9:55
  their computer screens. However, where they choose to to
• 9:57
  view a programme, they're just absorbing and consuming soft
• 10:02
  drinks, chocolates, sweets, pizzas and ice creams and that's
• 10:06
  fine. But the fact of the matter is I
• 10:09
  think a band, this is just from my point of view, from a
• 10:12
  commercial point of view, this is clearly going to affect a lot
• 10:14
  of broadcast companies. They gain a lot of revenue and
• 10:17
  sponsorships from these type of companies that make these
• 10:20
  products. But even if that were to be the
• 10:23
  case, I can assure you that these advertisers will find
• 10:26
  other ways of getting in front of the audience.
• 10:29
  I think where the government steps in, it's surely got to
• 10:32
  encourage people to be much more active, get out and about, walk
• 10:35
  about, play a game, have a have, have some form of activity in
• 10:40
  your daily routine. Because there's nothing wrong
• 10:43
  necessarily with having a pizza or a chocolate or even a soft
• 10:46
  drink. I think it stands to volume,
• 10:48
  surely. I mean, if you're just
• 10:49
  constantly binging, not just on the TV, but on binging on food
• 10:55
  whilst you're watching the TV, that can't be healthy for
• 10:58
  anybody. So it's it's got to be a
• 11:00
  combination of of education just as much as legislation.
• 11:04
  Yeah, no, I agree with that. And I suppose it is exacerbated
• 11:06
  as listening to you say that about binge binge eating as well
• 11:10
  as binge watching. And yeah, you can watch one of
• 11:13
  these adverts, get online and order, order the product even
• 11:19
  while you're still watching the advert about it, couldn't you?
• 11:21
  You could get in there. Well, that's right.
• 11:23
  I just think people, this has really transformed.
• 11:27
  The Western world's people are fat and sick because of this,
• 11:31
  the terrible food that we eat. I think it's a mistake to say
• 11:36
  that we all eat. Obviously Mark and Pete
• 11:38
  listeners are amongst the most intelligent and healthiest in
• 11:41
  the world and may not be taken on by such things, but I'm just
• 11:43
  talking generally. Well, what's interesting to sort
• 11:47
  of reinforce the problem, the National Health Service, the NHS
• 11:51
  data shows that almost one in 10 recept reception age children
• 11:58
  are now living with obesity, while one in five children have
• 12:01
  tooth decay by the age of 5. Now it's estimated that an
• 12:05
  obesity cost to the NHS is more than 11 billion pounds for every
• 12:13
  year, for every year. So you think about that.
• 12:17
  That's billions of pounds that are trying to tackle the
• 12:20
  problem. So I can clearly see there is
• 12:23
  definitely a need for the campaign.
• 12:26
  The question of course is, are they really going to succeed?
• 12:30
  Well, maybe that sort of leads to our next story.
• 12:34
  Maybe it's a case of game, set and scratch.
• 12:39
  If your talent for tennis is in poor class and you have feet of
• 12:43
  clay, perhaps you should be put out to grasp when your game is
• 12:47
  out of play. Well, quite remarkably, the
• 12:50
  organisers of a professional women's tournament which has
• 12:54
  gone viral on social media, ironically because of a wild
• 12:57
  card player's dire performance, have acknowledged that she
• 13:00
  should never have been allowed to play.
• 13:03
  Now Mr. Pete, I'm all for activity and I think it's great,
• 13:07
  especially from our previous little subject, but the fact of
• 13:10
  the matter is surely how? How on earth did the
• 13:15
  International Tennis Federation, ITF allow the Egyptian player
• 13:21
  Hajar Abdel Kheltada to come in at the age of 21 and lost 6
• 13:27
  loves? 6 loves served 20 double faults
• 13:29
  during the first round match. Even you might have done better.
• 13:35
  What say you? About this story.
• 13:39
  Well, I think it is a shame. I mean, because it's like a
• 13:42
  public humiliation, isn't it? That's why it needs to be
• 13:46
  questioned. I mean, if someone does badly,
• 13:48
  that's fair enough, but the 20 double faults probably point out
• 13:53
  extreme nervousness. So it may be choose.
• 13:56
  I mean, I think this is the case.
• 13:58
  You're just very, very inexperienced and overwhelmed by
• 14:01
  being placed in the spotlight like that.
• 14:03
  So it's, it's not, it's not really a sport, is it?
• 14:08
  When it gets to that level, it's just, you know, public suffering
• 14:13
  with all boys in attendance. It's, it's not, it's it, it
• 14:17
  stops being a sport because of the cruelty, as I see it, of
• 14:23
  putting the young lady whose name obviously I could say, just
• 14:26
  drips off the tongue. I just choose not to put her in
• 14:30
  that position. I think it's just a cool thing
• 14:33
  to do. And I don't know what you do
• 14:36
  about it because you're asking the, the country's federation to
• 14:40
  recommend someone and they recommended someone who couldn't
• 14:43
  play. What can you do?
• 14:47
  Well, it goes even worse than that.
• 14:49
  Because this particular. Player only won three points
• 14:53
  during a 37 minute debut, and those points were two double
• 14:57
  votes by her opponent and an unforced error from a bemused
• 15:01
  German. His name was Lorena Shadel, so
• 15:06
  the match was part. She didn't.
• 15:07
  Win a point. It was gifted 3 points.
• 15:12
  Yes. Correct.
• 15:13
  So it's most unfortunate, but the ITF, I mean, we're obviously
• 15:18
  conducting this woman's tournament.
• 15:20
  Now, what's interesting is, is that when you think about the
• 15:24
  scrutiny, why didn't they test the standard of this?
• 15:27
  Because this person was given like a wild card.
• 15:30
  Why on earth she was? Was she allowed to play?
• 15:34
  Because really, it's almost as though she had never played
• 15:38
  tennis before. And it does tend to underlined a
• 15:41
  tournament that's trying to bring bring in standards of
• 15:44
  credibility. Yes.
• 15:46
  I mean, as I understand it, and wild cards are normally given to
• 15:50
  people who you know of the right standard.
• 15:52
  It's just that they didn't, they, they missed out by a
• 15:54
  technicality. I thought that's what they did
• 15:56
  anyway. So I missed my misunderstanding
• 15:59
  on my part. You know, listeners will let us
• 16:01
  know in comments. But I, I, that being the case,
• 16:04
  if you did what I said, so someone with a reputation who
• 16:07
  didn't technically get through, you let them through.
• 16:10
  But in this case, they didn't have a well, if they had a
• 16:13
  reputation, it wasn't for playing tennis, let's put it
• 16:15
  that way. So, yeah, I do think that
• 16:18
  something needs to be done, maybe something along the lines
• 16:20
  of what I said. You know, you might not want to
• 16:23
  do an actual test, but you could ask for proof that they could
• 16:26
  play, you know, you could show footage of a previous game,
• 16:29
  anything like that. Would it would be quite simple
• 16:32
  to put that in place. Now this has this has happened,
• 16:35
  OK, We can't change it, unfortunately, this has already
• 16:38
  happened. But you can put things in place
• 16:39
  in the future, surely? Yes, I think this has fallen
• 16:42
  between two stools as to say, because the Egyptian Tennis
• 16:47
  Federation said they'd like to clarify that the the lady in
• 16:52
  question, Hajar, was not registered with the Egyptian
• 16:55
  Tennis Federation, however, that the player had been residing in
• 16:59
  Kenya. And they basically they gave a
• 17:04
  granted the the the wild card. But either way, you would have
• 17:09
  thought that somewhere down the line you you.
• 17:13
  Say, can you actually play? Can you?
• 17:16
  Actually play What is this? You know, holding a tennis
• 17:18
  racket. What is this?
• 17:20
  Which is which is called. You recognise it.
• 17:22
  Literally in the media, Well, it's quite evident as far as I'm
• 17:26
  concerned that either way, really it's all about standards,
• 17:30
  isn't it? I mean, maybe what we should be
• 17:33
  looking for is not just all automated robots in
• 17:36
  manufacturing. Maybe we should have automated
• 17:40
  tennis players and just have the tennis match between the robots
• 17:45
  whilst binge watching tvi mean that who knows that could be
• 17:49
  the. Future Yes, I guess you're
• 17:51
  right. But that's it.
• 17:53
  We leave you with a world in which robots will continue to do
• 17:57
  more, governments will continue to ban more, and some people
• 18:01
  will still be spectacularly unqualified.
• 18:04
  But that's it for this week from Mark and myself.
• 18:07
  We'll catch you the same time next week.