kevinmpeterson

Probably - if cost goes down to operate a machine, then the base machines can be smaller. Will eventually be interesting to go for much bigger changes... ditch the cabs, lower profiles, place your cameras in smart spots, move the pivot points so they are best for the job instead of best for a person. Vehicle distribution might change, too - heavy machines are tools and the tool you choose is a combo of best quality, right cost, speed, etc. That landscape will shift.

The variety of machines and their specificity is super fascinating and very specific. Definitely will change.

Ah I misread. We’re working very very closely with design partners/customers for that side right now - they do more civil work than we will ever do and are happy to help us. We also have advisors who are in the civil space.

100%

They will work collaboratively with people

We don't have any relationship with Trimble or Topcon, but yes much more advanced capabilities on the machine. On caving/shoring - ideally we avoid having people in at least some of the trenches... if you can dig a trench and lay a pipe down without manipulating it by (human) hand, then trench collapse is less of an issue. Obviously doesn't work for everything, but we have LIDAR on board, so we can handle surveying remotely without someone standing in a cut with a stick.

Faulty geotechnical - I'd be interested in understanding how the operator helped here. Will take time, but anything the operator is doing (watching subsidance, feeling the ground, watching a wall collapse, confirming that the ground is actually what you think it is), will be doable with the sensors we have on board. The operator we're building will have many lifetimes of experience, so will be able to learn things that even the best operators can't. We saw this at Waymo (now at 100 million miles!!!!) - it seems like magic, but if you had 1000 lifetimes of experience, you'd be incredibly good at very subtle things like this.

Couple of thoughts here:

Software engineering IMO is alive and well, we're just going faster. Job will shift with AI, but that happened with compilers, etc. Clever engineers will continue to build. Going faster could mean you mean fewer SWEs, but could also mean you just go faster and build more things. If we go faster, the next thing will be down the chain (enough compute, enough hardware to work on). Since AI has always been insanely software bottlnecked, if it goes faster yeah there will be more jobs.

Robotics works now! We should build more robots! Some of the best companies in the next decade will for sure be building some of the robots from Star Wars and the Jetsons. This will be heavy on hardware. Outside of robots, hardware will change too - no idea if Meta's glasses are the best thing, but certainly the iPhone format isn't AI native. This will be new hardware, and we'll need smart objects everywhere in our lives (car, home, etc). Will be very cool and definitely more hardware oriented.

Cool idea

We’re mostly focused on the AI and software side of things. There are many great manufacturers for the machines themselves. We have amazing hardware engineers, so if we need to do structural work for our parts, we will. At the moment it’s not core.

Humanoids will be amazing when they get here, but I think there are a lot of challenges between now and then - hardware alone is very challenging - add a ton of sticky mud and it’s going to be complex even if the software works.

Waymo doesn't build cars

There are companies (like Kiewit) that specifically hire and pay (a lot more) to incentivize their employees to travel. It's a really really hard job and many people burn out. The travel is brutal.

CAT, Deere are both doing very interesting things with older autonomy techniques. Deere has acquired several companies, and partnered with others to bring in talent from outside. CAT has worked with outside companies (notably Trimble, Topcon) for key technologies when it makes a big difference. Both are awesome companies, but not AI/ML companies at the core and it'll take a lot of work for them to get there. I think this is very much like the self driving world 10 years ago where OEMs tried very hard to become software companies, but ultimately Cruise and Waymo were the ones that executed.

There is red tape and certainly there are planning bottlenecks, but the GCs already deal with this. Once a project is funded and started, an established GC will move quickly to execute on projects. Also - some states (CA in particular) have an absurd amount of red tape. If you go to states like Texas, it's much easier. Robotic tools are pretty common already (machine guidance for bulldozers, remote ops for excavators, mine trucks), so there's good precedent. We view our machines as tools for people to use, and given the labor challenges, have a ton of customer interest as a result.