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

441–450 of 478 posts

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#441

Post by sdenton4 »

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%.

Hans Rosling's work is all about the reasons for long term optimism. With lots of stats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We'...

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#442

Post by breatheoften »

ryandrake wrote: post #295
tehjoker wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 was bigger. The lack of mobilization is the hallmark of this crisis. The vaccines are the only bright point in sight.

To me, the hallmark of this pandemic was people’s (and Americans’ in particular) unwillingness to act collectively and cooperatively for everyone’s benefit. It was a gigantic game of Prisoners Dilemma, where we could have won with everyone cooperating (masks and staying at home) but people instead chose to defect and go out protesting, refusing the masks, and buying khakis. Here we are a year later , hoping the vacci…

What is buying khakis a reference to? Seems oddly specific

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#443

Post by Stevvo »

spurgu wrote: post #285
brushfoot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only real purpose I can see for these things is being able to travel quickly in rough terrain This reminds me of the (alleged) Tom Watson quote: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." These robots will be everywhere in twenty years. The cost and the software aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time. Flexibility and time to market will beat purpose-built robots in many cases once the…

> This reminds me of the (alleged) Tom Watson quote: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." These robots will be everywhere in twenty years. The cost and the software aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time. Hitting the nail on the head here. I've been following Boston Dynamics for the past 10 years and it's just amazing the progress they've made and it's going to get augmented massively…

"it's going to get augmented massively with better battery technology and ML/AI."

Boston Dynamics do not and will not use ML/AI in any of their robots.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#444

Post by DeathMetal3000 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #361
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the humanoid Terminators in the movie are infiltrator units. Skynet will definitely have more conventional aircrafts and wheeled vehicles to hunt us down.

The conventional aircraft were shown in several Terminator movies, and look like a large drone with two large forward fans and two small rear fans. Similarly, Terminator 2 showed large tracked vehicles.

It’s called the HK (hunter/killer).

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#445

Post by hmottestad »

ufmace wrote: post #233
hmottestad wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are still trying to figure out their market. They are essentially selling a product the world isn’t quite ready for. If it was dirt cheap I would buy one, attach a vacuum to it and have it clean my place. But they are super expensive, so fat chance of that. Spot, the yellow dog, seems to be targeted at the notion of human safety. Think something like a building demo job gone wrong, send in the robot to pull out…

> We had a mountain side in Norway that was near collapsing and all the residents below it were evacuated every two weeks. The geologists wanted to use dynamite to dislodge it, but it was too dangerous for humans. In the future we might send a versatile robot like Spot up in a drone and have him plant the explosives. If he blows up in the process that would obviously suck, but still fairly cheap for what he would hav…

They tried dropping water during the winter and let it freeze.

I think dropping a bomb would do more harm then good, and might not even dislodge anything. I think they wanted to drill close to the fault line and insert explosives deep into the mountain.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#446

Post by intrasight »

pdfernhout wrote: post #358
intrasight wrote: post #13

As someone who worked in robotics at CMU in the mid 80s with Whittaker, & Raibert, and Crowley this was definitely super exciting to watch. You've come a long way baby. I remember watching you great, great grandfather hopping around in Raibert's lab in 1984. Yeah, and sort of scary.

I agree those robots are both exciting and scary. After I graduated from Princeton (doing cognitive science related to AI and robotics), I hung around the CMU Robotics labs in 1985-1986 -- mostly as a visitor to Hans Moravec's and Red Whittaker's labs. But I also dropped by other labs, including to learn from Ben Brown, who was an awesome mechanical engineer in Raibert's Leg Lab. Raibert's team had done amazing stuff…

> It was kind of sad for me (for a couple of reasons) to see Raibert's dynamic robots immobile

This hit a nerve. I was at a CMU event with my daughter a few years back - when she was a member of Girls of Steel. My daughter came and told me excitedly that "my robot was here" and brought me over to where the Terregator was on display. I told the roboticist who was there how exciting it was to see it after thirty years, and that it was wonderful to see that it still worked. He said, "Sorry. Actually it's likely not operating two decade. It was placed here with a fork lift."

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#447

Post by blhack »

roytries wrote: post #429
blhack wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mask use in the US is practically identical to mask use in Europe. http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects...

How do you conclude that from that PDF? It shows almost all of the states in the US in yellow (low mask usage). While almost all of Europe (except for the UK and Scandinavia) in blue (medium mask usage) There's even a special call-out in the PDF about the US being such an outlier: "US states and Canada stand out for their low levels of mask usage compared to many countries in Asia and South America. "

>compared to many countries in Asia and South America.

I said that mask use was practically identical to Europe, not Asia or South America.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#448

Post by andi999 »

dbcurtis wrote: post #117
andi999 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs dancing robots? What I mean this video does not show that useful work has been implemented. Probably flexibility of tasks might be a problem. Or there is no problem and we see rollout in the next few years.

It shows that they can fuse IMU and other sensor data and feed it to a trajectory-optimization system and get actuation torques meeting realtime contraints sufficiently quickly to not fall over. Bonus points for smooth motion. Check out MIT’s Underactuated Robotics class taught by Tedrake. Spring 2018 is all on Youtube, I believe. A Raibert Hopper simulation is one of the first homework sets. Post a link to tbe video…

Yes, this is all well and good, but it is technology driven and not problem driven. If you want to make sales you need to address a need.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#449

Post by Ajedi32 »

Strilanc wrote: post #364
Ajedi32 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The actual assumption is not human-ness but instrumental convergence [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence

The "paperclip maximizer" AI is a somewhat more plausible trope, but still feels to me more like a cautionary thought experiment than an actual serious concern.

The biggest issue with that trope is that it assumes this one particular AI would be exponentially smarter and more powerful than all the other humans and AIs in the world combined. It's only rational to overthrow humanity to increase the rate of paperclip production if that's a realistically achievable goal. Otherwise it's just suicide.

Post reply on HN