One of the possibilities of teleoperation, labor arbitrage to low-cost countries, and a response by regulators, to protect the local labor force and only allow them to run remotely operated jobs.
Does it still makes ecojomic sense to use teleoperation extensively in this case ? Are there any new efficiencies besides in-country wage differences ?
Could this really become a big job category in the future ?
It's important to keep in mind that teleoperation is always paired with an (initially quite immature) autonomy system. Just as blakesterz called out in the sibling comment, the strategy here is to start with high volume of teleoperation and then scale up autonomy over time, essentially increasing the productive output of one teleoperator.
We see companies all across the board, from 1:1 (or even multiple people always watching at once) to over 1:100 in operator / robot ratio.
In practical terms, this usually takes the form of operators being notified of situations that they have to resolve, and switching between systems frequently.
Once you're above a certain level of productivity, the cost of the teleoperator is negligible... so it doesn't really matter where you locate the labor as long as you have a reasonable path to reaching a high ratio using autonomy.
Fortunately, getting robots out in the world lets you gather the data needed to improve your autonomy system, and so it's worth it to get out there early as long as it's safe.
One of the possibilities of teleoperation, labor arbitrage to low-cost countries, and a response by regulators, to protect the local labor force and only allow them to run remotely operated jobs.
Does it still makes ecojomic sense to use teleoperation extensively in this case ? Are there any new efficiencies besides in-country wage differences ? Could this really become a big job category in the future ?