Automating food is different from automating anything else. Food is fundamental to life – it nourishes the body and soul – so how it is sourced, prepared and consumed can fundamentally change societies.
Automated kitchens aren’t a science fiction vision from “The Jetsons” or “Star Trek.” The technology is real and it’s global. Right now, robots are being used to flip burgers, fry chicken, make pizza, make sushi, prepare salads, serve ramen, bake bread, mix cocktails, and more. AI can come up with recipes based on the molecular compatibility of ingredients or whatever a kitchen has in stock. More advanced concepts are being developed to automate the entire kitchen for fine dining.
Because technology is often expensive at first, the early adopters of AI kitchen technologies are restaurants and other businesses. Over time, prices will likely drop enough for the home market, potentially changing both the dynamics of the home and society.
Can food technology really change society? Yes, just think of the seismic impact of the microwave. With that technology, it was suddenly possible to quickly make a meal for just one person, which can be an advantage, but also a social disruptor.
Common concerns about the technology include poorer nutrition and health outcomes from prepackaged meals and microwaved plastic containers. Less obvious is that convenience could also transform eating from a communal, cultural and creative event into a utilitarian act of survival – changing relationships, traditions, how people work, the art of cooking and other facets of life for millions.
For example, think about how different life would be without the microwave. Instead of sitting at your desk working on a reheated lunch, maybe you should go outside and talk to people, and enjoy a break from work. There’s something to be said for living slower in an increasingly hectic and socially isolated society.
Convenience can come at a high price. That’s why it’s important to look ahead to the potential ethical and social disruptions that emerging technologies could bring. This is especially true for a deeply human and cultural domain: food, which is woven into everyday life.
With funding from the US National Science Foundation, my team at California Polytechnic State University is halfway through what we believe is the first study of the effects that AI kitchens and robot chefs could have on diverse societies and cultures around the world. We’ve identified three broad areas of benefits and risks to investigate.
Makers and consumers
The benefits of AI kitchens include allowing chefs to be more creative and eliminating repetitive, tedious tasks like peeling potatoes or standing at a workstation for hours. The technology can free up time. Not having to cook means you can spend more time with your family or focus on more pressing tasks. For personalized dining, AI can cater to a myriad of special diets, allergies, and tastes on demand.
But there are also risks to human well-being. Cooking can be therapeutic and offers opportunities for many things: gratitude, learning, creativity, communication, adventure, self-expression, growth, independence, self-confidence, and more, all of which can be lost when no one has to cook. Family relationships can be affected when parents and children no longer work side by side in the kitchen—a safe space to chat, as opposed to what can feel like an interrogation at the dinner table.
The kitchen is also the science lab of the home, so science education could suffer. The alchemy of cooking involves teaching children and other students about microbiology, physics, chemistry, materials science, mathematics, cooking techniques and tools, food ingredients and their origins, human health, and problem solving. Not having to cook can undermine these skills and knowledge.
Community and cultures
AI can help with experimentation and creativity, such as creating elaborate food presentations and new recipes within the spirit of a culture. Just as AI and robotics help generate new scientific knowledge, they can increase understanding of, for example, the properties of food ingredients, their interactions and cooking techniques, including new methods.
But there are risks to culture. For example, AI could corrupt traditional recipes and methods, as it is prone to stereotyping, for example by flattening or simplifying cultural details and distinctions. This selection bias could lead to less diversity in the types of dishes produced by AI and robot chefs. Tech developers could become gatekeepers for food innovation, if the limitations of their machines lead to homogeneity in kitchens and creativity, similar to the strangely similar feel of AI art images across apps.
Also think about your favorite restaurants and favorite diners. How would the character of those neighborhoods change with automated kitchens? Would it diminish your own taste experience if you knew that the people cooking for you were not your friends and family, but robots?
The hope with technology is that more jobs will be created than lost. Even if there are net new jobs, the numbers hide the impact on real human lives. Many in hospitality – one of the most popular professions in any economy – would not be able to afford to learn new skills for another job. Not everyone can become an AI developer or a robotics engineer, and it is far from clear that supervising a robot is a better job than cooking.
Philosophically, it is still an open question whether AI is capable of true creativity, especially if that implies inspiration and intuition. Assuming so would be the same mistake as thinking that a chatbot understands what it says, rather than just generating words that are statistically consecutive to previous words. This has implications for aesthetics and authenticity in AI food, similar to the ongoing debates about AI art and music.
Safety and responsibility
Because humans are a major vector of disease, robot chefs can improve food safety. Precise cropping and other automation can reduce food waste, along with AI recipes that can make the most of ingredients. Customized meals can provide nutrition and health benefits, for example by helping people avoid allergens and excess salt and sugar.
The technology is still emerging, so it’s unclear whether those benefits will be realized. Foodborne illnesses are unknown. Can AI and robots smell, taste, or otherwise sense an ingredient’s freshness or lack thereof, and perform other safety checks?
Physical safety is another issue. It’s important to make sure a robot chef doesn’t accidentally cut, burn or crush someone due to a computer vision glitch or some other error. AI chatbots have advised people to eat rocks, glue, gasoline and poisonous mushrooms, so it’s not far-fetched to think that AI recipes could be flawed too. While legal regimes are still struggling to determine liability for autonomous vehicles, it could be just as tricky to determine liability for robot chefs, even if they’re hacked.
Given the primacy of food, food technologies help shape society. The kitchen holds a special place in homes, neighborhoods, and cultures, so disrupting that venerable institution requires careful thinking to maximize benefits and mitigate risks.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit organization that brings you facts and analysis to help you understand our complex world.
It is written by: Patrick Lin, University of California Polytechnic State.
Read more:
Patrick Lin receives funding for this work from the US National Science Foundation.