|
Burger-flipping robot has its first day on the job
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Thats neato but I dont see why thats so revolutionary. All it does is flip the patties. It cant even apply toppings. Yeah i know this is just an early version of a robot but it will have to do a lot more to replace humans or even to augment them significantly. Like, i'm imagingin all the steps that go into making a fast food burger or sandwich: getting stuff out of the freezer or cooler, taking things out of boxes, tempering meat and bread, preparing ingredients for the day, and more. This robot only does one step.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Give it 5 years and it will do everything needed to make a burger. Or multiple robots combined will do it all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5x9x5WGtY&t=25s
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Thats neato but I dont see why thats so revolutionary. All it does is flip the patties. It cant even apply toppings. Yeah i know this is just an early version of a robot but it will have to do a lot more to replace humans or even to augment them significantly. You should watch a video on basically any manufacturing line today - something as innocuous as jeans will suffice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Now imagine the restaurant was designed for automation from the get go rather than human cooks and you can understand where they are gonna go with this
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Love how often this thread gets the hurrrr durrrr robots can't X. Only to have someone post a video of a robot doing X or having to explain that the task can be modified to make it automated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
When I worked at a McDonald's back in the 90's, they had "clamshell grills" that cooked both sides at once. And a coworker who had worked at a Burger King said the "flame broil" was done through a machine on a conveyor belt. This sort of poo poo was automated a long time ago. But the point is, the more individual steps you automate, the more you can get out of the workers. The deep fryer was largely automated back then too. Machines raised and lowered the baskets. Fries were such high volume that a massive hopper filled the baskets for you. All the human did was empty cooked fries into a heated bin and put the empty basket back in the queue for the hopper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
Looks like automation will soon reduce the amount of nurse jobs by automating this bit, it frees up nurses todo other things, which means less nurses wll be needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a7mgmbhcJQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Looks like automation will soon reduce the amount of nurse jobs by automating this bit, it frees up nurses todo other things, which means less nurses wll be needed. These are one of the few methods of automation that actually scare me. I'm cool with putting my life in the hands of an automated vehicle, but once needles are involved I get the heebie-jeebies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Amazon is planning on drive-up grocery stores: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/14/amazonfresh-pick-up-retail-store-seattle/ From the user's perspective this isn't fundamentally different from other grocery stores that let you order ahead and then pick up your stuff, but I'm guessing Amazon will be able to make heavier use of automation since it sounds like the store will be set up only for ordering and not for regular shopping (you'll be able to order stuff at the store too, but it sounds like you can't walk around in it like a normal supermarket).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Now imagine the restaurant was designed for automation from the get go rather than human cooks and you can understand where they are gonna go with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7dhJQBaf0 There's currently like three people working behind the scenes at a place like that putting together the orders but it's not too crazy to imagine a future with that same set-up and one part time guy as the dishwasher/prepper/machine watcher. Cicero posted:Amazon is planning on drive-up grocery stores: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/14/amazonfresh-pick-up-retail-store-seattle/ That sounds more like a precursor to get people accustomed to Amazon Go (their real automation idea) while also eating Walmart's lunch by keeping labor costs down (since it isn't a real store) Although I guess it could be some type of two prong attack like AmazonFresh Pickup being the basic general experience and Amazon Go being the premium experience for Prime members. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Amazon is planning on drive-up grocery stores: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/14/amazonfresh-pick-up-retail-store-seattle/ Don't they have these all over the place in southern california?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Do they? I've never heard of a grocery store in the states that was solely for pickup orders before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Soon they'll have the robots even EAT the burgers
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Soon they'll have the robots even EAT the burgers A little late for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFe91XlwYQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:There are humane ways to lower the population, and paradoxically raising the standard of living is the best one. People in distress have more children. Countries with the highest standards of living have the lowest birthrates. If we provide food, security, education and birth control to everyone on earth we'd be at or below replacement within a generation. Bullshit. First off, imposing the stability that is a prerequisite for and significant appeal of a first world standard of living on a worldwide basis would absolutely require inhumane brutality if not a global police state. Source: Every large empire and powerful state in world history. Second, I guess you missed the "sustainably" part of my post. Even if we assume that everyone would drop to sub-replacement birth rates if given greater access to resources (which I don't believe) this poo poo would take time, during which population will continue to grow, and we can't support the number of people living on earth right now to a first world standard of living in a sustainable manner. You're handwaving away the fundamental mathematical and political facts of the situation because you don't want to consider the realities of what is going to be required if we want to manage the disasters of the coming century instead of just running into them face first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even if we assume that everyone would drop to sub-replacement birth rates if given greater access to resources (which I don't believe) Can you name countries this HASN'T happened in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Do they? I've never heard of a grocery store in the states that was solely for pickup orders before. Hmm, maybe not. The place I was thinking of was a drive through dairy in Rancho Cucamonga I always drove past in college. There are drive through liquor stores though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can you name countries this HASN'T happened in? Lower birth rates, or sub replacement birth rates? Because a quick glance at WHO data shows that, with notable exceptions like Germany and Japan, most high income countries are still well above replacement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Isnt that with children of immigrants though, who have generally have more children than non immigrants? Cause i thought the US had sub replacement levels of population growth if it werent for immigration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Isnt that with children of immigrants though, who have generally have more children than non immigrants? Cause i thought the US had sub replacement levels of population growth if it werent for immigration. Use the fertility rates instead, Dead Reckoning is being a little sneak to defend his genocidal ideas. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.110?lang=en Fertility rate in the US is at about 2, which is exactly replacement rate before you consider child and teenage mortality. So just slightly sub-replacement, along with the UK. The average for World Bank high-income countries is 1.8, well below replacement. Upper-middle income countries are at 2.0, exactly replacement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Isnt that with children of immigrants though, who have generally have more children than non immigrants? Cause i thought the US had sub replacement levels of population growth if it werent for immigration. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Bullshit. First off, imposing the stability that is a prerequisite for and significant appeal of a first world standard of living on a worldwide basis would absolutely require inhumane brutality if not a global police state. Source: Every large empire and powerful state in world history. I don't think a global dystopia is necessary to end civil wars and encourage general prosperity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Use the fertility rates instead, Dead Reckoning is being a little sneak to defend his genocidal ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7dhJQBaf0 Yeah dude that's just an automat those were around decades ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Looks like automation will soon reduce the amount of nurse jobs by automating this bit, it frees up nurses todo other things, which means less nurses wll be needed. This is really cool, but phlebotomists took this responsibility largely off the nurses' shoulders. I think the best hope we can have is that Watson replaces the need for doctors (because it can make better diagnosis and create better care plans), which frees up nurses from the bullshit of dealing with doctors, and allows them to provide more palliative care.. Freakazoid_ posted:These are one of the few methods of automation that actually scare me. I'm cool with putting my life in the hands of an automated vehicle, but once needles are involved I get the heebie-jeebies. Dude, this thing is using ultrasound! I don't foresee it putting a needle into an arm, missing a vein, then wiggling the needle around inside the arm trying to find it, and that happens daily under human direction. i am harry fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
i am harry posted:This is really cool, but phlebotomists took this responsibility largely off the nurses' shoulders. I think the best hope we can have is that Watson replaces the need for doctors (because it can make better diagnosis and create better care plans), which frees up nurses from the bullshit of dealing with doctors, and allows them to provide more palliative care.. Seriously, sign me up for the robot. When my wife gave birth the nurse who gave her the IV missed like 6 times between both arms. My wife's bruises from that experience took longer to heal than everything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Seriously, sign me up for the robot. When my wife gave birth the nurse who gave her the IV missed like 6 times between both arms. My wife's bruises from that experience took longer to heal than everything else. And let's not forget cases of nurses accidentally pricking themselves afterwards and getting all manner of diseases. Wherever safety is at stake, that's usually the wrong time to be complaining about robots taking our jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No idea. It doesn't really matter though; even if we assume that the premise of higher development leading to slightly sub replacement population growth will 100% hold into the future across all demographics, if your solution is to have everyone on the planet live the way people in the developed world live now, (with the commensurate increase in life expectancy, ) presumably under the heel of the global regime that would be necessary to make such a thing feasible, hoping that the population will slowly taper off as (to circle back to the point of the thread), the number of people that can meaningfully contribute labor continues to shrink, then brutality and runaway global warming are features of your proposal. So you're saying we should ignore the data and just assume it's going to be bad? Raising the standard of living in the world is the solution to all the problems you seem to think are unsolvable. The data shows that violence, population growth and every other metric that matters becomes better as the standard of living improves(access to healthcare, housing, food etc). Also we have yet to see a first world country collapse due to efficiency increases. In the short term sure some jobs are lost but overall total job growth is still up in every modern county, we didn't all become jobless due to the invention of factories, or with outsourcing, automation won't do it either, we'll figure out some way to force people to work. My preferred solution is less working hours and mincome, but I imagine people will just do more service jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:And let's not forget cases of nurses accidentally pricking themselves afterwards and getting all manner of diseases. I imagine we aren't too far from the point where it will seem crazy for any medical procedure more invasive than pulling a splinter to be done freehand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're saying we should ignore the data and just assume it's going to be bad? Raising the standard of living in the world is the solution to all the problems you seem to think are unsolvable. The data shows that violence, population growth and every other metric that matters becomes better as the standard of living improves(access to healthcare, housing, food etc). The first part of your post is "no to pessimism, yes to data", the second part is "yes to optimism, no to data".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Don't worry guys, it will take AIs 100 years to catch up to us: https://mic.com/articles/172071/how-many-us-jobs-could-be-automated-and-why-robots-threaten-american-workers-most-mnuchin
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Don't worry guys, it will take AIs 100 years to catch up to us: https://mic.com/articles/172071/how-many-us-jobs-could-be-automated-and-why-robots-threaten-american-workers-most-mnuchin I find it incredibly depressing that most of these articles tend to use this as their attempt at a somewhat more upbeat conclusion: quote:Health care jobs are in a relatively safer category: Demand for nurse practitioners, home health care aids, physical therapy aids and more are all expected to grow by more than 30% by 2024. Nurse practitioners are obviously very well paid, but home health care aides and physical therapy aides are absolutely not. This is basically the equivalent of saying "but don't worry, you might be able to get a job at Walmart!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Dont believe the robot hype. Artificial intelligence hasnt advanced since the 1980s. The problem isnt automation, its total ecological collapse and resource loss. Our technological society isnt sustainable and technological progress is slowing down. Whats going to happen is a terrible series of wars and genocides and a huge stagnation in technology, science, and economic growth that lasts for decades. Thats assuming we dont all die anyway before 2100. Seriously y'all sound like Ray Kurzweil. LOL the robots aren't coming, guys. We're not going to get a shiny awesome future or even a cyberpunk dystopian one. Its going to look a lot closer to the first Mad Max movie crossed with Children of Men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Dont believe the robot hype. Artificial intelligence hasnt advanced since the 1980s. Yes, it has, extremely far. We have cars that drive themselves now, we have robots that learn how to perform complex tasks just by watching people. A lot of shifting of goalposts has happened around AI, where several decades ago it was "when they can beat a master at chess, it's true AI", then when that happened the reaction was "well it's just a program". Then it happened again with a variety of increasingly complex tasks, culminating right now with something as complex as a machine that drives a car, and already does it better than most humans. Just because we don't have androids that are behaviorally indistinguishable from humans does not mean that we haven't made progress. The point about a scifi future is a separate one, and meaningless. We don't know what advancements in automation and AI are going to have down the road, but just because we aren't "there" yet doesn't mean the advancements haven't been enormous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Yes, it has, extremely far. We have cars that drive themselves now, we have robots that learn how to perform complex tasks just by watching people. A lot of shifting of goalposts has happened around AI, where several decades ago it was "when they can beat a master at chess, it's true AI", then when that happened the reaction was "well it's just a program". Then it happened again with a variety of increasingly complex tasks, culminating right now with something as complex as a machine that drives a car, and already does it better than most humans. Just because we don't have androids that are behaviorally indistinguishable from humans does not mean that we haven't made progress. I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. You're misinformed as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. Cars can and do drive themselves every day, and there are plenty of robots that don't fall down. You are wrong, technological advancement is only speeding up. In less than a decade we went from having flip phones to having computers less than a quarter of an inch thick with more processing power than a desktop or laptop of the same era. The incandescent bulb took many decades to see any improvements at all. In fact we've basically replaced the incandescent bulb with led bulbs in the last 10-15 years if you haven't noticed. You're taking for granted the massive improvements in technology. In the year 2000 processors had a single core and they used tons of power and produced tons of heat. Now in your phone you probably have 4-8 cores and you produce such little heat that you don't need a large heatsink or a fan. The internet as we know it wasn't a thing until the 80s/early 90s, now it's the primary way that financial transactions happen (and that's just scratching the surface). Technology and the speed of technology growth is so mind bogglingly fast nowadays that it really does feel like the sci-fi future I saw in movies and tv as a child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. There's a lot of behind the scenes automation improvements that people don't seem to see or think about, its not just "robots are going to make sandwiches" or "cars will drive themselves". I've been part of projects to build automated warehouses that need maybe 5 guys running them instead of 30, AGV's are starting to be being used in hospitals and factories where you used to have teams of people ferrying around pallets, laundry bins and food trays. This stuff is popping up everywhere, it might not eliminate the need for people entirely, but the effect is a reduction in the number of people required to operate a facility. This is only physical automation too, automating software and informational services is even easier and will cut into professional middle-class jobs. e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxPTMIyFKa8 A warehouse like this one used to have lots of people running around with pallet trucks and forklifts, record keepers, supervisors, etc. AGV's used in Royal Adelaide Hospital. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGEWWX50CFg A baby ate my dingo fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:12
|
|