Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do You Love Me? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 478 posts

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#371

Post by dsabanin »

dmkolobov wrote: post #302
bozzcl wrote: post #87

I love how there were people in the upper floor just walking by without even looking. "Oh, the robots are dancing again." In between the advances in "holographic" displays (not quite as sci-fi as we would want, but they are progressing), commercial space flight, cybernetic prosthetics, CRISPR and this... we are living in the future. It's amazing. It makes me a little sad more people are not aware of the ridiculously…

I used to read pop-sci mags and get excited about the latest advancements in X, but nowadays I feel one of two things about X: 1. Neither I, nor my friends will ever be able to afford X 2. X is going to make my life worse Usually I feel both.

I’m sure at some point people said similar things about stuff like hot shower and telephone.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#372

Post by chevill »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #327
colordrops wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about 30 years? 50? 100? Is that too far out to worry about?

In my view the biggest issue with the whole "robots unite to violently overthrow humanity" trope isn't its technological infeasibility (though it _is_ technologically infeasible for the forseeable future), but rather the fact that it presupposes an AI that is essentially human; with all the same emotions, goals, and vices that a human would have. There's no reason to think a hypothetical future AGI would care in the…

>In my view the biggest issue with the whole "robots unite to violently overthrow humanity" trope ... but rather the fact that it presupposes an AI that is essentially human; with all the same emotions, goals, and vices that a human would have.

Most of the tropes I remember revolve around AI being sentient, logical, but lacking human emotion. The trope is that without their judgement being clouded by human emotions and desires, that they come to the logical conclusion that humanity is the most negative and destructive force on the planet and that we must be removed or regulated.

I guess you could still argue we're forcing human values onto such an AI by assuming it even cares what happens to the planet though.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#373

Post by neuromanser »

viraptor wrote: post #214
mabbo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what's the main barrier to using these industrially? In an industrial setting, a purpose-built robot will outdo these robots, or a human, at nearly all tasks. And whatever these things are doing, likely a human can do it better with a little bit of training- that's low capital cost compared to these robots. Carrying things around? Conveyor belts. Picking things up? Robot arms. Going up and down stairs? Elevators…

And a new edition of robot wars. We deserve to see the human-like robots doing realistic sword fights.

Game of Drones?

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#374

Post by henrikschroder »

dvirsky wrote: post #52
CommieBobDole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further than that and say that it's obviously CGI, though I don't know if that actually means it is CGI - it could be, as you mentioned, some sort of post-processing. Or maybe it's greenscreened and composited together? More than the smoothness, there just seems to be something off about the weight and momentum that you tend to see in high-end, big-budget-movie CGI, but it's hard to put a definite finger o…

You can see the vibrations of the plexiglass walls and the camera crew reflected in them vibrating in amazing detail. You can also see people walking around in the background in normal speed. It doesn't look like it's accelerated, or I would say no more than 10%. Also given the visible but subtle marks the robots leave on the mat, this is either next level CGI and compositing or next level robotics, and BD are not a…

I think it's absolutely fascinating that so many people, here and especially in the YouTube comments, are thinking this is CGI, when doing this with CGI would be much harder than doing it for real.

Also, if you've followed Boston Dynamics for a while, what this video is showcasing isn't that much of a leap forward, they're just iterating away on their robots, adding capabilities and movement patterns.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#375

Post by henrikschroder »

tiagod wrote: post #251
espadrine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The animations look so fake. Let’s talk about why it looks fake. I think it comes from the use of hydraulics. Biological muscle is way less linear (it works more like a second-order control system, where things often overshoot their target before dampening). But one part of it may also be algorithmic: the robot’s Kalman filter (?) may correct for errors from sensor fusion much faster than a human would. I would lov…

I think it looks fake because the movements are so smooth and fluid. On a dancing person you see all the slight adjustments to keep balance that make it feel natural, I believe these robots do it too fast for us to notice and so it seems like CGI where keeping balance isn't a thing.

I'm looking at the jump at 2:09, and all I'm seeing is a super wobbly robot trying very hard to keep its balance?

Look at the pelvis movements at 1:15 to 1:25! You can clearly see it jerking around so the robot keeps its balance.

None of those movements are smooth or fluid, it's all jerky jittery and unnatural, which is exactly what you'd expect from actual robots. If it was motion-capture, you wouldn't get those movements, you'd get smooth human movements instead?

I'm so fascinated by how this video triggers people's "it's fake!" senses, when it's clearly real.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#377

Post by kristopolous »

fermienrico wrote: post #314
kristopolous wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah the " If not us, it will be someone else " argument. Let's replace that with other things to show how incorrect this logic is. "If we don't enslave these people, someone else will" "If we don't bomb these schools, by golly, someone else will!" The potential hypothetical existence of others acting immorally simply isn't a valid ethical argument to act immorally. In the same way the response is "how about if instead…

That’s not even a remotely close analogy, no offense meant. Robots can be used for many good purposes. Intel makes processors, they can be riding on a missile or used on a CT Scan. Bombing schools is only horrific, how do you come up with this? I kind of wish we would just enjoy this stupid video of robots dancing. It’s getting tiring to fend off AI-doomsday crowd.

The statement I responded to specifically focused on military application

"Technological progress will gaurantee this scenario of >> military use > If not the US, it will be someone else This argument is

"Technological progress will (always) lead to military use. If not us, it will be someone else"

or:

"The future is guaranteed to be full of war because of decisions made by humans that they somehow have no agency over. Because of this false premise, we need to be eagerly building weapons as fast as possible"

It's a classic argument and it stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

So instead the standard response is to generalize it through a deflection: "this is just general forward motion progress" which is exactly what happened.

That's not the point. It's the idea that the fundamental inescapable nature of humans is to be as violent and brutal as possible - which is not true - it's a choice, an act of agency, a matter of policy, it's a decision that is freely made.

Just getting to that simple realization, that barbaric brutal self-destruction takes choices, planning and intentional action that we can simply just choose not to do, would be a groundbreaking epiphany to most.

I'm pretty confident I'm going to die without murdering anyone, just like almost every human ever. It's not natural in the slightest.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#378

Post by Zanni »

dsabanin wrote: post #371
dmkolobov wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to read pop-sci mags and get excited about the latest advancements in X, but nowadays I feel one of two things about X: 1. Neither I, nor my friends will ever be able to afford X 2. X is going to make my life worse Usually I feel both.

I’m sure at some point people said similar things about stuff like hot shower and telephone.

There's a chapter in one of the Great Brain books where their family is the first in town to get an indoor flush toilet. Everyone else is agog--why would you want a filthy, stinky outhouse inside your house?

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#379

Post by bduerst »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #327
colordrops wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about 30 years? 50? 100? Is that too far out to worry about?

In my view the biggest issue with the whole "robots unite to violently overthrow humanity" trope isn't its technological infeasibility (though it _is_ technologically infeasible for the forseeable future), but rather the fact that it presupposes an AI that is essentially human; with all the same emotions, goals, and vices that a human would have. There's no reason to think a hypothetical future AGI would care in the…

>but rather the fact that it presupposes an AI that is essentially human; with all the same emotions, goals, and vices that a human would have.

Which is just further anthropomorphization in sci-fi. Same reason the aliens are little green men, or at least bipedal.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#380

Post by dash2 »

Retric wrote: post #319
mattmcknight wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even prior to the pandemic, real wages were stagnant for decades. This is not true from a global perspective. In addition, there has been significant immigration, where people are are entering the economy at the bottom (increasing inequality in a country, while they are making more than they would where they came from). This is not to say things couldn't be better, but the economy is global, and nationalistic perspe…

Any data on this? It’s true for many individual countries, but global population growth has been dominated by poor countries for a while which should dramatically drag down wage percentiles. In the last 30 years UK’s population for example is up 19% where India’s is up 58%.

Google “elephant graph” or go to ourworldindata and you should find it. Population growth has been dominated by income increases. The average person in China in particular got much richer.
Post reply on HN