Do robots really and seriously take over the world? Would you eat in a restaurant with a robot waiter?
There are certain industries where the human touch is valued much more: the hotels and restaurants are such cases, although we have seen examples in both industries have employed the assistance of these automatic machines.
A Chinese restaurant uses a battery-powered robot to serve food to diners, but experts warn of the ‘inevitable’ job threat.
It can carry up to seven kg of food or beverages simultaneously and, better yet, does not require wages, not even a tip.
The robot waiter is 140 cm tall, and you can find him working at a restaurant in Shenyang, capital of the Chinese province of Liaoning, for up to eight hours, without complaint.
The machine also brings customers their food and drinks and, thanks to a combination of sensors and navigation hardware, can avoid spilling anything.
IS THIS GOOD OR BAD?
This is good for restaurant owners, but not for someone looking for a job in the restaurant industry.
Fortunately, technology experts believe that this type of robot waiter will take a while to replace a human face.
“I think there are still several generations of development before the physical world of humans is replaced by cyber alternatives,” Mark Skilton of the Warwick Business School told Mirror.
“But it’s right to consider the ethical and economic repercussions of this inevitable technological scale of computing,” he said.
Another threat that is increasingly stronger is artificial intelligence (AI), which would handle complex jobs that were once considered untouchable by computers thanks to emerging creative mathematical research and advanced supercomputing.
In the future that we live in and await us, controls should be established to help economies ensure that robots and computers add growth instead of destroying jobs.
A recent research study reported that thanks to a survey: 62% of people preferred to have a human partner. But in the case of losing their own work, 37% preferred to be replaced by a robot instead of a person.