Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour 299
kkleiner writes "No longer will they say, 'He's going to end up flipping burgers.' Now, robots are taking even these ignobly esteemed jobs. San Francisco based Momentum Machines makes a robot called the Alpha that can churn out 360 gourmet burgers per hour. The company plans on launching the first ever burger restaurant chain with a cook staff made entirely of robots. You think Americans are obese right now? Just wait."
Mmm-mm! (Score:5, Funny)
That is a tasty burger.
Re: (Score:3)
You mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down?
Re: (Score:2)
You mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down?
What?
Re:Mmm-mm! (Score:4, Funny)
SAY WHAT AGAIN.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Mmm-mm! (Score:4, Informative)
Hamburger corporations are people too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"That is a tasty burger."
Is it?
I wonder how well it does with "hold the salt" or "lighten up on the mayo."
At least it won't spit on your burger
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mmm-mm! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there are two established points of view on this problem - idealistic and cynical. Idealistic view says that after a while it would cost almost nothing to produce food, clothes, even housing for every living person, so it would became a part of the guaranteed social minimum. Luxuries (informational also, like newest music, books and other art) would cost real money, which would be available to small, but active part of humanity, but most of the people would be pretty happy with what they can get for free.
Cynical view says that only a tiny fraction of all people would still be entitled to more and more luxurious style of living (maybe even smaller than 1% of population), and their status would be reinforced through ever rising army of robotic workers, policemen and even soldiers. Maybe they'll keep a small batch of second-class citizens - high-level engineers, scientists, entertainers, servants and so on. Everyone else - well, tough luck, there's no more free resources in this world, and you don't have any money to pay for anything, including basics like food and living space. Death camps or even processing plants are going to solve this little problem quite effectively.
I think in the short run we'll have something in between - world elites are still like to show that they care for the "common folk", but in the long run - who knows? What's interesting is that dystopian future has more promise for us as a species - it's easier to move to the new frontiers when you just can't stand home any longer, than when your life is an endless holiday. So in order to eventually colonize other worlds we may have to rely more on people's greed, stupidity and other "bad traits", than on people's rationality and goodwill. Anyway, only time will tell how it will all work out in the end.
Couch Potato (Score:4, Interesting)
High presure water (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How am I supposed to know when I found the reference that you have chosen to believe?
Or to put it another way - if you can't be arsed to find a reference when you know what you are looking for, why would anyone else?
If you provide a reference, or at least a good pointer, I can decide if your citation is decent. If not, I assume it's like this:
1) Plant potatoes
2) Harvest potatoes
3) Have people think you mis-spelled potatoes
4) Peel them as well as you can
5) Slice them with lasers, which gives them the crusty
That's nothing (Score:4, Informative)
I saw SpongeBob SquarePants serve up thousands of Crabby Patties in just a few minutes [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But he left off the pickles
HE LEFT OFF THE PICKLES!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute, there they are - UNDER YOUR TONGUE!
Incidentally, I've apparently wasted my life.
Fatter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.
Re:Fatter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.
Oh sure it will, there is almost certainly some percentage of fatties that are partially kept in check by the shame of ordering multiple day's worth of food from a skinny teenager. Once you're ordering from an nonjudging robot it will be much socially easier to ask for 3 burgers and 2 orders of fries.
It will be like the guys that would never set foot in a physical porn shop, but have no problem purchasing it online.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.
That's the story of the industrial revolution, which started in the late 1800s. Better quality, higher-paying jobs requiring higher skill take the place of unskilled or lightly skilled labor. I don't see this is as screwing the little guy. I see it as creating a better job and eliminating tedious and unpleasant tasks from society.
Of course, with this development, we might start questioning why we need quick-serve restaurants, or quick-serve restaurant managers, or quick-serve cashiers at all. We cou
Re: (Score:3)
Ah the story from late 1800s to now is there were always "Better quality, higher-paying jobs" available. The difference is now those are shrinking too, just as population and demand are exploding.
Frankly, you can't have a stable society where the only jobs available are for the cognitive elite, like the typical /.er. You need to give the lowest 95% or so of society "something" to do, because they're too dumb to lead themselves and they'll probably find something exciting to pass the time, like revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.
No, this was just an opportunity for the author to jump on the American self-hate that's in vogue right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Luddite Fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Read about it [wikipedia.org] and understand it.
Re:The Luddite Fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing about that though is the question of what economic activity arises for people to participate in for employment. We're already living in an age where most of the useful labour is done by a relatively small percentage of the population. Most of the rest works in various types of service job. Robots like this can replace human workers in entire large segments of those service industries. Sure there are other service jobs, but there are a lot of them that really are of the replaceable with a simple shell script variety. With a little more machine intelligence, the majority of them probably are replaceable that way. Eventually, there won't be any low or no-skill jobs left. Even the jobs fixing the machines will be done by machines. The simple fact is that most people aren't high-skilled labour and even those who are highly skilled or are very, very good at their jobs often can't compete with a custom designed machine (shades of John Henry). The truth is that the new economy jobs that gradually replace the old ones are worse and worse and the typical labourer is going to have to sell their labour on what is increasingly a buyers market.
The problem is that farming, mining, manufacturing, food service, retail sales, warehouse jobs, delivery, construction, etc. can all conceivably be replaced almost entirely by machines. The owners of the machines, farms, mines, factories, restaurants, stores, warehouses, delivery companies, construction companies, etc. will then be the only people producing the tangible things that the consumers truly need, while the majority of the consumers will be working in service jobs producing intangibles that people don't really need.
In other words, we are in danger of transitioning to post-scarcity technology without transitioning to a post-scarcity economy. That leaves most people, at best, working themselves to death in completely unproductive, pointless jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds good, but I have heard this argument many times over the years. Supermarket scanners didn't cause the downfall of western civilization. What's different this time?
I would argue there are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done by any machine (barring strong AI). Most entertainment jobs, as an example, and that segment of the market keeps growing. Human desires are practically infinite. I don't see getting to post-scarcity any time soon, but let's hope it happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Supermarket scanners didn't cause the downfall of western civilization. What's different this time?
Actually supermarket scanners and all the related technology is causing the downfall of western civilization. The governments are currently buffering it by borrowing and forcing low interest rates but remove things like food stamps, welfare for all able bodied people and lower unemployment insurance and social security down to the levels that balance with the input, eg only collecting UI for a few months. Also remove the make work that the government heavily borrows for and western civilization will crash.
J
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA a single farmer can feed about 155 people. Maybe that figure can keep going up. But if the supply of other goods go up the farmer may start charging more for his produce. There are just so many Farmville coins a farmer will want in return for his real farm goods. Whereas if you have to eat, you have to eat.
OK perhaps someone makes a robot farmer - in which case the other humans to human
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be work that a human can do more economically than a machine.
On the other hand, you likely can't argue that there will always be more of those jobs than there are humans to fill them.
Those jobs are becoming more scarce. The number of humans who need such jobs are becoming more numerous.
Yes we'll survive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In this case however, there are many running costs skipped by the article. The robot handles food which sponsors the growth of many kinds of bacteria and moulds and would need to be cleaned frequently. Raw meat held in a warm humid environment, even a couple of hours is a problem (think of the supply tubes and streaks left behind). At a minimum the machine would need to be cleaned out and rinsed every four hours. Then of course a worker takes a sicky, you get a replacement, here, well you have to fix the w
Re: (Score:2)
>Lots of the arguments revolve around things like "Technology X didn't end the world so this won't either
Those same people would probably say something like "Nuclear weapons didn't end the world so lets build MOAR NUKES!", even though the terrible danger they put us in. If something doesn't kill us the first time, we will try, try, try again till it does.
I saw some of the alternatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a firm's technological innovation results in a reduction of labor inputs, then the firm's cost of production falls, which shif
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say this, you said it better. 2 more points. The burgers will be more consistent with robots making them. Second, you can have a lot more variety in your menu. Want a fish sandwich with horseradish, bbq sauce, sweet pickles, and hold the tomato? There's an app for that.
Re:The Luddite Fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem which reality is showing us(though no good economist, especially right wing economists ever let pesky things like reality get in the way) is that the automatic relocation of even new workers doesn't work the way that economic theory says it should. People who work in what would be traditionally called Blue Collar roles are not always in those roles because of any lack of education or opportunity. In many cases people who do manual jobs do so because they enjoy them and/or have an affinity for them which they would not have if they were doing some sort of indoor office role, plenty of people seem to feel the same way about the non assembly line areas of food service.
In short, labor is not fungible. Not only is someone who has trained as a machinist for twenty years going to magically transform into someone working in HR overnight, but it appears that a person who if a machinist job was available would have taken that job for twenty years won't successfully become an HR drone simply because that is the job that is available. Everyone has different skills and different personalities, and just because you or I are comfortable working in an office in front of a computer doesn't mean that everyone is, and that's not even taking into account whether someone who would be comfortable doing that kind of job is able to access the education and training necessary to excel in it.
We on Slashdot tend to have a somewhat biased view of the world, we are, for the most part, information workers in a world where information work is expanding and our opportunities are a darned site rosier than many, but imagine for a moment if you were forced to do construction or work in a restaurant(or if you do those things imagine being an IT worker). It's not just about skills it's about what people are good at and can live with doing.
Re: (Score:2)
. In many cases people who do manual jobs do so because they enjoy them and/or have an affinity for them which they would not have if they were doing some sort of indoor office role, plenty of people seem to feel the same way about the non assembly line areas of food service.
Plenty of people work jobs that they hate at every level in every industry, so if people that love to be short order cooks eventually have to find work that they don't like, then should we really get worked up over it?
Anyways, my guess is that most short order cooks don't like it to begin with, and are only doing it because they believe that their other options are worse (a belief that is probably also rarely true.)
Society benefits from a supply of increasingly efficient services and technology, and in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As time goes by we see more and more pressure by the 1 % to make sure that the unemployed do not continue to be able to eat regularly
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what it assumes. First you assume that there is a decrease in the number of consumers, that is not true, and even if there was a price decrease will still lead to a shift in demand from those that still have jobs, which is vastly more then lost them. That extra revenue will lead to expansion and so forth..
You seem to have forgotten what the product is. If cheaper burgers means greater demand, then people become even more obese than they already are, and even more of them become unable to work.
Technology unemployment cannot be solved by ever increasing consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. It might just as well lead to hookers and cocain, or fugly boats made of aluminium.
This assumes decreased costs get passed on as decreased prices, which is also pretty much bullshit.
Sure. People will eat more burgers because they're cheaper... it makes perfect sense! Or ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This increase in aggregate demand leads many economists to believe that technological change, although disruptive of individual careers and particular firms, cannot lead to systemic unemployment, but actually increases employment due to its expansionary effect on the economy
OK just pretend the workers in China, Vietnam, India etc are robots and taking the low end "robotic" jobs from the US workers. How well is that working out for the workers in the USA so far? Things generally getting better?
So if the workers in China themselves are replaced by robots things will get even better for the workers in the USA?
Maybe things might get better for the workers in China[1] but I don't see such a rosy picture for the US low end workers.
[1] As a recent story shows workers in China can do
most jobs do not need degree level and even then (Score:2)
most jobs do not need degree level and even then you have people with the degree level with big skills gaps.
We need more hands on training and need to back of the idea of a 4+ year degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless that manufacture bribes the government to create IP laws allowing this 'Company X' sole distribution rights to widget Y for an ever extending period of time. In which if you want widget Y you either pay company X whatever they want for it or hope you can grey market one of them from a shady Chinese distributor.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless that manufacture bribes the government...
Don't blame the manufacturers for what the politicians are selling. It is the perpetuation of beliefs like yours that prevent us from kicking out the corrupt government and reducing the power and influence of its actors.
That $3.8 trillion dollar federal budget amounts to a spending of $33043 per household, and thats just the federal budget. States spend another $13043 per household, and local governments spend another $13913 per household. Thats a total of $59999 per household being spent right now this
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Luddite Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The theory is the usual "Free Market Fallacy" wherein the cost of entry to every industry is effectively zero so if you don't drop your price to $15 someone will enter the market who will. The issue of course is that the cost of entry into most industries is far from zero and so the $15 guy never enters the market and the price remains at $20. Potentially existing competitors could drive the price down, but race to the bottom doesn't really work for existing players unless they believe they can pick up and maintain a substantial enough increase in market share to make up for the loss in profits over time.
Look at the pictures (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at the pictures (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, the OP doesn't realize that every damn thing that he eats out of a 'box' has traveled through some kind of clanky high speed stainless steel greased chain machine. You'd have thought that ./ readers would have watched How it's made or something similar.
Wow: (Score:3)
That'd even keep Wimpy [wikipedia.org] fed!
A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? (Score:5, Funny)
Step2: Insert Beef Patty
Step3: Wait for red ring of perfection.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite possible considering the temperatures the xbox can get up to.
Yup, that's an Xbox burger, but if you're in the mood for a true flame-broiled burger, you're eatin' at Dell's!
Ok.. but (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The cooks will be recycled in to burgers!
Soylent Green, Now in gourmet flavor at your local dispenser.
It takes EBT right? (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes EBT, right? Otherwise how will the humans that used to flip the burgers eat? Hopefully they don't make a robot that stands in the middle of the street, accosts you on Muni, and begs for change. If they do that, then humans really are sunk... except for those of us who know how to fight the robots. That's it. I'm signing up at robot fighting academy tomorrow. (ZZZZZZZZZzeep!) Wait, it's somebody from the futue. uh-huh, uh-huh, really? No. Yeah? OK. well, I guess.
Hey, Slashdot? Disregard the above. You'll understand later.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are all bound by the Temporal Prime Directive, I'm sure we will. I'm sure we will.
(turns to TARDIS...) "Doctor? Shall we?" (door slams)
Next Time... On Slashdot...
Zombies! OMG Zombies (fade to black...)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that CalFresh (EBT Food, aka food stamps) benefits can't be used to buy prepared hot meals unless you're homeless, right? And any assets you might have, borrow, or earn -- say from a job flipping burgers -- are deducted from your already paltry CAAP (EBT Cash) benefits. But by all means, go ahead with the ignorant poor-bashing. After all, what are they gonna do, mildly annoy you with their temerity of sitting on the sidewalk?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That was all bloody outright serious. The inclusions of robot fighting and time travel were your two biggest clues.
It's truly the end (Score:4, Insightful)
at least we have health Care (Score:2)
at least we have health Care as long as you don't vote gop as under them no work go to er or go on the jailcare plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Because my IT job is going away? The janitors who have to clean up the waste created by the robots, or their consumers? Sanitation crews? Education?
How about the end of the McJob, and the replacement of it by people who go out and make jobs, like they used to before global conglomerates held the keys to being unable to afford your family?
You, and the people who up-modded you, need to read every comment above yours, and most of the ones below, and get back to me on this unemployment thing.
The last time we
Where this is going... (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to reread Manna [marshallbrain.com]. The cooks, the manager, the cleaning staff, and finally you, until nobody has any work or any money.
Re: (Score:3)
The cooks, the manager, the cleaning staff, and finally you, until nobody has any work or any money.
Well, the owners of the robots will presumably have most of the money at that point, as everybody will be buying goods and services from them.
And then it's just a matter of nationalizing the machines (which is doable since the plebians will still represent the vast majority of votes, even if they are out of work), et voila, free food and basic commodities for all (at least until the necessary natural resources are depleted!)
Re: (Score:2)
We need then, of course, is robots that can use hamburgers as fuel.
Done before, several times (Score:5, Interesting)
Automatic burger machines date back to the 1950s. Back then, everybody ate the same thing, so assembly-like type systems were useful. American Machine and Foundry built an automated fast-food outlet in the 1960s, but it wasn't cost-effective. McDonalds tried this out back in 2003. [techdirt.com]
It's not that it's technically difficult. It's that the volume required to make it profitable is higher than most fast food outlets can sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Wallace and Grommit did.
Peewee Herman did too, if I remember right. I think his looked like Abraham Lincoln. (Disclaimer...haven't seen that movie since it originally hit the theaters, so my memory may be faulty.)
Re: (Score:2)
However, while for business these robots may not be efficien
FINALLY!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oxymoron (Score:3)
I would consider "Gourmet" and "Mass produced by Machine" to be mutually exclusive; no matter how good the food is.
It's like a "Limited Time Offer" that's always available, "Exclusive Benefits" for anyone with a pulse, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they will eventually come up with some system to declare robots as gourmet certified, which will justify a higher price per bot vs. uncertified bots, despite them doing the exact same thing.
Now, would you like to try our BIG ASS FRIES?
combine it with lab meat (Score:2)
``premium burgers prepared fresh for you on-demand, from only the finest bio-slurry. our meat is synthesized, interwoven with premium lipids, exercised, and grilled before your eyes without the interference of filthy meatbags. the best burger you've tasted, every time — that's science!"
Obligatory SNL Quote (Score:2)
"No Coke, just Pepsi"
Burgers are never flipped at McD or BK (Score:5, Informative)
Burgers are never flipped at McDonalds or Burger King. McDonalds uses a dual-surface grill, contacting the beef from top and bottom. Burger King uses a broiler with flames on the top and bottom.
No flipping burgers. Note this for future reference.
Come the robot revolution (Score:2)
And you will be the burger.
360? (Score:2)
"640 hamburgers otta be enough for anyone" -bill g
"gourmet" burgers? (Score:2)
Burger Cantina (Score:2)
You Don't Get Served By Their Kind In Here!
You can always go there if you want a burger served up by a human instead of a droid!
Robots : Super Jumbo Jets (Score:2)
Gourmet Burgers : More Comfortable Coach Seats
this is why you do not want amnesty for illegals (Score:2)
360? Is that all? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"How do you make "gourmet" horseburgers?"
You don't. Just catch a police horse. Not only will it be tasty, it belongs to the Crown. How can you get any more gourmet than that?
The moment in V for Vendetta when EV realises she's eating REAL butter... stolen from the Chancellor's supply train, of course...
ps Disclaimer: Do not touch police horses. They are your friends! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
ps riddle I might know a guy who know a guy who can source "long pork" - well if the gourmet horse is a police horse can you imagine what gourmet long pork comes packaged in? 10 points for the 1st person with a userid shown to post the correct (rather morbid) answer...
Re: (Score:2)
pps 10 extra points for low userID AND famous troll username :-D
"slow down cowboy!"
Come on, I've earned my "naughty" posts recently, I'm posting at 2, let me submit please /.!!!
Re: (Score:2)
ppps apk launching distributed crapflood of HOSTS in 5,4,3,2,1...
Re: (Score:2)
pppps longest thread where I talked to myself EVER... I wonder how many posts it gives you and whether it can be used to create a huge variation on the page-widening troll? Don't worry, I won't try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ps riddle I might know a guy who know a guy who can source "long pork" - well if the gourmet horse is a police horse can you imagine what gourmet long pork comes packaged in? 10 points for the 1st person with a userid shown to post the correct (rather morbid) answer...
Would it come packaged in a limousine? You can't get much more gourmet than that, unless you were thinking chefs' whites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just autoclave the whole thing and then use food grade lube on the chains. Easy as.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that just about all the cheap prepared food you can find in a supermarket is already made by machines in a production line? This is not some new experimental technology in any other sense except that they are trying to make a low-cost machine that can be cheaply installed in a large number of establishments.
The OP just goes to show that most people have no idea where their food comes from and what it has been in before it goes to their mouth. Hell a huge portion of it is processed in ways and methods that you would not suspect 'food' was being made till the end product was finished. It also explains why we're getting fat. All the water and fiber is taken out of our food, and all that's left is starch and fat.
Indoor vending? (Score:2)
Basically like fast food, only with CCTV instead of owners.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no joke. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity [nationmaster.com]
And the countries that follow the USA on the Obese-o-meter, mostly got there because of the US export of fast food outlets to any country that can afford them.
Re: (Score:2)
How is an automated factory a robot? The ingredients are fed into a hopper and move along constrained pathways and processed automatically just like in the typical factory. A robot would be some humanoid setup with far less machinery and far more intelligence.
Why must robots be humanoid? Sometimes making a robot less humanoid reduces the needed complexity and speeds up or simplifies the process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-n1lKDI6eQ [youtube.com]
The robotic food 'machinery' out there is pretty crazy.