5 ms·

What's different is that the button was being pushed by a human. That human gets paid a salary and earns a living. And that human could presumably choose not

What's different is that the button was being pushed by a human. That human gets paid a salary and earns a living. And that human could presumably choose not to push the button if the expresso machine tries to become sentient (in theory).

greglindahl 9y ago
The vending machine still has many humans involved: building it involved humans, maintaining it involves humans. The difference is that the button is pushed by the customer. That's the same amount of human labor, actually, it's just that the customer isn't paying someone else for the button press.
- petre 9y ago
  I believe the vending machine has greater work overhead and uses more materials than an actual human. Thnik about it: precut veggies stored in refrigerated (probably plastic) containers. Somebody has to supply and prepare the veggies. Some other human has to resupply the machine when it runs out of veggies. Some other human has to fix the vending machine when it stops working. Some other humans have to design the machine and assemble it, at least in part. With an actual human you'd only have to supply the raw veggies and the human worker would do all the preparation (using food processors), serving and processing payments. One could automate some tasks like payment processing or have two humans operate the salad bar: one that prepares and serves the salads and one that processes payments. This would avoid cooks switching between working with (dirty) cash and preparing salads.
  - lemmings19 9y ago
    I disagree and think the machine has less overhead. Yes there is a large cost upfront to develop and manufacture it. But once the machine has been designed and tested, it will never have to be designed again. Design is a one time cost. Once manufacturing is underway, the process is typically made as efficient as possible and made to scale. The work that went into design and testing can now be scaled to thousands or millions of units which is a great return on investment. Each unit has a one time cost for materials used for parts, with some long term maintenence costs. Operation requires only an electric energy draw. If that energy is from a clean source such as solar, this unit isn't having much of any further negative impact. Operation could last years or decades depending on design and whether or not the product is superceded, at which time its parts can be recycled. Even then, the time spent on design will be used to create the next version. Supplying the machines with goods is already a task handled when goods are delivered to the location and stocked, so there isn't going to be much or any overhead added there. Plus, we can automate that too (self-driving vehicles for transportation, robots for the last leg of delivery and stocking). Human workers do not scale in the same way that machines do, and aren't typically as efficient at this type of task. Finding suitable human workers is difficult and can take considerable time and resources every time one is hired. Human workers are expensive, and this is an ongoing neverending cost. This cost will not scale down as you hire more workers or work them for a longer time (unlike machines). Human reliability is hit and miss. Also, you cannot work them 24/7. There is lots of downtime and you would require at least 3 or 4 humans to replace 1 machine if the task requires 24/7 uptime. The enegry that humans consume and their waste is typically not effecient. Three meals a day, often including animal products which are costly in terms of resources and environmental impact. Then there's waste treatment for them. And the energy costs to deliver the food from a farm to their location, and even farm growing and harvesting. None of this is as effecient or "green" as a renewable energy draw such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric delivered over a power line. On many levels, humans are a poor replacement for machines in predictable tasks such as making a coffee or a sandwich for a chain restaurant. Humans are good for social work, and making coffee is not social. In terms of someone needing a job, even if that job is meaningless and unnecessary, basic income should be provided instead. But that's a whole other conversation and we aren't there yet. Point is: Machines are efficient. Social impact is a different conversation.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Lets say the vending machine costs $2,000 a year including maintenance and everything. That means there can't be more than $2,000 worth of human labor involved in it, neither in production or maintenance. That's an order of magnitude less labor involved than hiring a person. If it didn't save labor, there'd be no economic advantage to it after all. On top of that, the jobs it does require are skilled. Engineers to design it, mechanics to repair it. They aren't jobs like a barista that you can get without any experience or education. Even the work of assembling it can be outsourced to some third world country, or automated itself.
  - gm-conspiracy 9y ago
    That means there can't be more than $2,000 worth of human labor involved in it, neither in production or maintenance. That is not necessarily true, as the company could be subsidizing its labor costs in order to gain salad-vending marketshare.
astrodust 9y ago
That human can, if properly trained and motivated, recognize when the coffee being served isn't coming out right. They can interface with customers and resolve complicated human problems, de-escalating when necessary to find a good outcome. A robot has no way of knowing if the coffee will taste good or contains rat poison. It's just going through the motions. If it serves you a dud drink you can't argue with it, you just got scammed. Post an angry Yelp review if it makes you feel better.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  That's an argument for having a higher-value problem-solving employee around, not an argument for having several lower-value button-pushing employees around. Fewer, higher value employees has been the trend in many industries for the past few hundred thousand years.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Or for better sensors on the robot. There's no fundamental reason it can't tell if the drink is correct.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The fundamental reason it can't tell if the drink is correct is that "correct" is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot trivially formalize expectations any random human would have of a drink made by human. You can, however, force people to lower their expectations until they can be trivially formalized. That's what happens with tea/coffee vending machines. The dispensed drink is really bad, but it's uniformly bad, and since people don't expect quality coffee from a vending machine, they don't complain.
      - nasmorn 9y ago
        You can get better espresso out of the lavazza coffee machine on palatine hill in Rome than is served in many cafes in this world. So technologically it sure is possible to do better.
bluedino 9y ago
Real-life George Jetson

greglindahl 9y ago

The vending machine still has many humans involved: building it involved humans, maintaining it involves humans. The difference is that the button is pushed by the customer. That's the same amount of human labor, actually, it's just that the customer isn't paying someone else for the button press.

petre 9y ago
I believe the vending machine has greater work overhead and uses more materials than an actual human. Thnik about it: precut veggies stored in refrigerated (probably plastic) containers. Somebody has to supply and prepare the veggies. Some other human has to resupply the machine when it runs out of veggies. Some other human has to fix the vending machine when it stops working. Some other humans have to design the machine and assemble it, at least in part. With an actual human you'd only have to supply the raw veggies and the human worker would do all the preparation (using food processors), serving and processing payments. One could automate some tasks like payment processing or have two humans operate the salad bar: one that prepares and serves the salads and one that processes payments. This would avoid cooks switching between working with (dirty) cash and preparing salads.
- lemmings19 9y ago
  I disagree and think the machine has less overhead. Yes there is a large cost upfront to develop and manufacture it. But once the machine has been designed and tested, it will never have to be designed again. Design is a one time cost. Once manufacturing is underway, the process is typically made as efficient as possible and made to scale. The work that went into design and testing can now be scaled to thousands or millions of units which is a great return on investment. Each unit has a one time cost for materials used for parts, with some long term maintenence costs. Operation requires only an electric energy draw. If that energy is from a clean source such as solar, this unit isn't having much of any further negative impact. Operation could last years or decades depending on design and whether or not the product is superceded, at which time its parts can be recycled. Even then, the time spent on design will be used to create the next version. Supplying the machines with goods is already a task handled when goods are delivered to the location and stocked, so there isn't going to be much or any overhead added there. Plus, we can automate that too (self-driving vehicles for transportation, robots for the last leg of delivery and stocking). Human workers do not scale in the same way that machines do, and aren't typically as efficient at this type of task. Finding suitable human workers is difficult and can take considerable time and resources every time one is hired. Human workers are expensive, and this is an ongoing neverending cost. This cost will not scale down as you hire more workers or work them for a longer time (unlike machines). Human reliability is hit and miss. Also, you cannot work them 24/7. There is lots of downtime and you would require at least 3 or 4 humans to replace 1 machine if the task requires 24/7 uptime. The enegry that humans consume and their waste is typically not effecient. Three meals a day, often including animal products which are costly in terms of resources and environmental impact. Then there's waste treatment for them. And the energy costs to deliver the food from a farm to their location, and even farm growing and harvesting. None of this is as effecient or "green" as a renewable energy draw such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric delivered over a power line. On many levels, humans are a poor replacement for machines in predictable tasks such as making a coffee or a sandwich for a chain restaurant. Humans are good for social work, and making coffee is not social. In terms of someone needing a job, even if that job is meaningless and unnecessary, basic income should be provided instead. But that's a whole other conversation and we aren't there yet. Point is: Machines are efficient. Social impact is a different conversation.
Houshalter 9y ago
Lets say the vending machine costs $2,000 a year including maintenance and everything. That means there can't be more than $2,000 worth of human labor involved in it, neither in production or maintenance. That's an order of magnitude less labor involved than hiring a person. If it didn't save labor, there'd be no economic advantage to it after all. On top of that, the jobs it does require are skilled. Engineers to design it, mechanics to repair it. They aren't jobs like a barista that you can get without any experience or education. Even the work of assembling it can be outsourced to some third world country, or automated itself.
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  That means there can't be more than $2,000 worth of human labor involved in it, neither in production or maintenance. That is not necessarily true, as the company could be subsidizing its labor costs in order to gain salad-vending marketshare.

astrodust 9y ago

That human can, if properly trained and motivated, recognize when the coffee being served isn't coming out right. They can interface with customers and resolve complicated human problems, de-escalating when necessary to find a good outcome. A robot has no way of knowing if the coffee will taste good or contains rat poison. It's just going through the motions. If it serves you a dud drink you can't argue with it, you just got scammed. Post an angry Yelp review if it makes you feel better.

greglindahl 9y ago
That's an argument for having a higher-value problem-solving employee around, not an argument for having several lower-value button-pushing employees around. Fewer, higher value employees has been the trend in many industries for the past few hundred thousand years.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  Or for better sensors on the robot. There's no fundamental reason it can't tell if the drink is correct.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The fundamental reason it can't tell if the drink is correct is that "correct" is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot trivially formalize expectations any random human would have of a drink made by human. You can, however, force people to lower their expectations until they can be trivially formalized. That's what happens with tea/coffee vending machines. The dispensed drink is really bad, but it's uniformly bad, and since people don't expect quality coffee from a vending machine, they don't complain.
    - nasmorn 9y ago
      You can get better espresso out of the lavazza coffee machine on palatine hill in Rome than is served in many cafes in this world. So technologically it sure is possible to do better.

bluedino 9y ago

Real-life George Jetson