Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics Idle

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour 299

Posted by Soulskill
from the om-nom-nom dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour

Comments Filter:
  • Fatter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PlusFiveTroll (754249) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @07:56PM (#42663085) Homepage

    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.

  • by istartedi (132515) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @08:07PM (#42663209) Journal

    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:That's nothing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @08:12PM (#42663257)

    But he left off the pickles

    HE LEFT OFF THE PICKLES!

  • It's truly the end (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OhANameWhatName (2688401) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @08:13PM (#42663269)
    .. of employment in America.
  • Re:Fatter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunkSoulBrother (140893) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @08:16PM (#42663303)

    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.

  • FINALLY!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sackofdonuts (2717491) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @08:32PM (#42663503)
    Although the food at most fast food restaurants isn't that great sometimes one gets the urge to get a greasy burger. But then you go and see who is working the grill or fryer and your appetite goes away. Robot food service....Yes!!!
  • by Eskarel (565631) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:26PM (#42664629)

    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.

  • by Eskarel (565631) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:18PM (#42664969)

    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.

  • Re:Mmm-mm! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @02:26AM (#42666359)

    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.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...