Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

45 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Mmm-mm! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is a tasty burger.

    1. Re:Mmm-mm! by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      You mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down?

    2. Re:Mmm-mm! by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      And now, enjoy our new Soylent burger. Made from the people, for the people.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Mmm-mm! by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    4. Re: Mmm-mm! by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hamburger corporations are people too.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:Mmm-mm! by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Funny

      SAY WHAT AGAIN.

    6. Re:Mmm-mm! by todrules · · Score: 2

      Probably a lot more accurate than a person, as long as it's entered correctly. If the order-taker can adjust things like light this, extra that, or hold the mayo, then the robot can also adjust how much they put on. Not that difficult.

    7. Re:Mmm-mm! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I'm sure it will have a little touchscreen where you input exactly what you want and it'll come out exactly as ordered, every single time.

      I'd also like to point out I've been calling this one for a couple of years now as there will soon be no point in hiring people to do most of the low end jobs, the machine never gets tired, never calls in sick, doesn't get benefits or days off, in the end we are ALL John Henry working ourselves to death trying to beat the machine but the machine WILL win in the end.

      This is why I truly believe capitalism, like every other ism before it, is doomed. you are playing musical chairs with fewer and fewer ending up with a seat. Even in China where workers are cheap as dirt and there isn't any workers protections to speak of a million workers are gonna be replaced by robots and this is just ONE company.

      At the end of the day capitalism can't work if the only ones able to get any capital are those with enough of a fortune to begin that they can buy their own automated factories, what happens to those millions upon millions who weren't lucky enough to be born into wealth? Are you gonna pay them to sit at home and consume? Create megaprisons to house them all? As the record student loan defaults show you simply can't educate your way out of this, so what now?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Mmm-mm! by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  2. Couch Potato by Jetra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With no more entry level positions, maybe we can finally take over the world by using our free time to build death rays.

  3. That's nothing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

    I saw SpongeBob SquarePants serve up thousands of Crabby Patties in just a few minutes!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But he left off the pickles

      HE LEFT OFF THE PICKLES!

  4. Fatter? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Fatter? by FunkSoulBrother · · 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.

    2. Re:Fatter? by dj245 · · 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.

      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 could probably replace the whole lot with vending machines within 10 years. We could probably replace them all today if we tried.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    3. Re:Fatter? by hermitdev · · Score: 2

      Don't worry - we'll still need someone to clean the bathrooms. Haven't seen a robot for that, yet.

    4. Re:Fatter? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      You need to expand your knowledge-base.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Fatter? by vlm · · Score: 2

      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. Even if you pay them off by taxing the heck out of the remaining 5% with a job, they're gonna get greedy / angry. And the "american dream" WRT education and having a job hasn't been beaten out of them yet, although the opportunities are all gone.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  5. The Luddite Fallacy by mfwitten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Read about it and understand it.

    1. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by thaylin · · 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.. If you had read the wiki it points it out in this paragraph

      If a firm's technological innovation results in a reduction of labor inputs, then the firm's cost of production falls, which shifts the firm's supply curve outward and reduces the price of the good (limited by the price elasticity of demand[7]). The widespread adoption of the innovator's technology could lead to market entry by new firms, partially offsetting the displaced labor, but the main benefit to the innovation is the increase in aggregate demand that results from the price decrease. As long as real prices fall (or real incomes rise), the additional purchasing power gives consumers the ability to purchase more products and services. With technological innovation, these are often products and services new to the consumer, such as better health care or wireless communication devices and services. 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.[8]

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by tragedy · · 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.

    3. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      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 worker and it depends what broke down and how far away your fixer is. Then there is vermin detection and keeping them out of the works, a 'ratburger' might become all to real. Basically when closely looked at, some forms of automation, until far higher technological solutions are available, simply more higher cost labour to implement, than the labour they eliminate.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by Eskarel · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by dryeo · · Score: 2

      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.
      Just because we're living on our credit cards does not mean everything is fine.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by maxwells_deamon · · 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

    7. Re:The Luddite Fallacy by Eskarel · · Score: 4, 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.

  6. Look at the pictures by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing says appetizing like a burger popping out flanked by greased chains...

    1. Re:Look at the pictures by esldude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is that worse than wondering where your food preparers hands have been since they were last washed? And though adjacent to the burger, they didn't come into contact with it. Plus there are food grade greases used in such devices that are safe around food preparation like this.

    2. Re:Look at the pictures by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Wow: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    That'd even keep Wimpy fed!

  8. A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Funny

    That can't be right.... Did I misread the headline?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? by mat8913 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's quite possible considering the temperatures the xbox can get up to.

    2. Re:A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Step1: Eject Disk
      Step2: Insert Beef Patty
      Step3: Wait for red ring of perfection.

      --
      God spoke to me
  9. Ok.. but by houbou · · Score: 2

    Any plans on recycling cooks into their supervisors? gourmet burger? who is the chef? quality control? it's the way of the future, just hope it figures out how to ensure that the human factor/equation isn't on the losing end.

  10. Re:But do they serve horseburgers? by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2

    "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! ;-)

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  11. It takes EBT right? by istartedi · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  12. It's truly the end by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. of employment in America.

  13. Where this is going... by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Time to reread Manna. The cooks, the manager, the cleaning staff, and finally you, until nobody has any work or any money.

    1. Re:Where this is going... by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      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!)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  14. Done before, several times by Animats · · Score: 4, 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.

    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.

  15. Re:I don't see how this would make us fatter. by camperdave · · Score: 2

    It's not about the fast food joints. It's about the burgermaker machine installed in the lobby of my apartment building and late night cravings.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  16. FINALLY!!! by sackofdonuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!!!

  17. Oxymoron by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Burgers are never flipped at McD or BK by kriston · · 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.

    --

    Kriston

  19. Minimum wage. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

    This is why minimum wage is a silly concept, especially when they try to morph it into some ridiculous "living wage". At some point you make it cheaper for McDonald's to pay for more automation, hire one IT/tech guy to manage the robots at 3-4 McDonald's in an area, and fire half the employees instead of being forced to pay $12 an hour for menial labor and also to pay health insurance costs.