2 ms·

Are you seriously going to argue that a robot couldn't make a big mac and frys, even using 1980s technology?) Yes. It's quite hard to operate a robot safely an

• lsc 16y ago
  > It's quite hard to operate a robot safely and reliably in an environment that was designed for humans. right... the roboticized McDonalds, well, I'd envision it looking more like a vending machine than a current McDonalds with androids walking around. This is where Asimov got it wrong... It's easier to build robots into the things they automate than to build general-purpose 'human like' robots that can operate things the way humans do. It''s better to make robots that are decidedly non-human, and even that look decidedly non-robotic, In fact. Having a human-like shape and a human-like brain would be a liability, in most cases. Why do you need a full human-emulation to slap my logo on a hundred T shirts? You don't. I think that most of the work at McDonalds, actually, is done by robots already. I mean, the people on the location mostly just reheat mostly pre-molded and pre-cooked stuff. I bet that the over sized vending machine I describe could do this job cheaper now (especially where land is expensive.) - I bet it's cultural issues that prevent the vending machine approach; people have negative associations with vending machine food, and people like being served by other humans. >I think you forget that the assembly line worker has not really been obsoleted. They have merely been reduced during industrialism and are now being outsourced to india. But many people are still employed at an assembly line. Quite likely the pants or shirt you are wearing were sewed in Bangladesh, on a slave labor assembly line. Hati and Mexico, actually, I just looked, so yeah, you have a strong point. I believe the turning point here, though, will be when wealth is equalized a bit more, meaning workers in india demand a little more money rather than when robots get cheaper. On the other hand, I think that if wages were more equal, we have the technology to automate away most of the human involvement in manufacturing. I also have some shirts made in the USA... do you want to bet that American Apparel uses fewer man hours to complete a T shirt than the Haitian company that made the shirt I'm wearing now? Considering that bulk American Apparel shirts usually aren't even twice as expensive as the shirts manufactured in Haiti, I would imagine that they are using a whole lot more automation. Incidentally, the Haitian made shirt I'm wearing now? my company logo was printed on it by a company running out of the USA. As I chose the cheapest printing I could find without regard to the country the work was being done in, I imagine the American factory doing that screen printing was extremely well-automated. But my point is that the robotic revolution is here. It has been accelerating for some time now, but it's not a new thing. The thing is, this 'robotic revolution' won't be heralded by walking into McDonalds and seeing commander data manning the deep fryer. The human shape and the human brain is a very general purpose tool, so optimized shapes for particular jobs will always be the most efficient way to build robots, outside of social constraints.
  • moe 16y ago
    This is where Asimov got it wrong... It's easier to build robots into the things they automate than to build general-purpose 'human like' robots that can operate things the way humans do. We'll have to disagree on this. I think robots will become pervasive almost "overnight" once we can build them generic enough to replace, for example, those guys in the sweatshops. Or the burger flippers in the backroom at McD. A sweatshop worker can quickly learn to sew a new kind of design, even if that involves using different or new tools. Purpose built sewing machines are probably only flexible within very tight constraints. A McD worker can quickly learn to cook a new meal or operate the new oven. A fully automatic kitchen would likely need a serious overhaul (in all locations where it was deployed) when the food designers come up with something new. When you have a "mechanic intern" tho, who works almost as well as a really dense low-wage guy, can also learn new things, but costs only half in maintenance, and never sleeps... What's not to like? I believe the turning point here, though, will be when wealth is equalized a bit more, meaning workers in india demand a little more money rather than when robots get cheaper. Now we're back at where we started, but that's okay and perhaps a nice way to let go of this thread. :-) As said, I believe the indian sweatshops won't even be competitive against generic bots at their current rates. Much less when they demand more.. (Oh, did I mention that robots never go on strike? ;-) )