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

Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 583 posts

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#431

Post by qsera »

nl wrote: post #402
anonymid wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you engaging with the fundamental problems explained in this blog post https://rodneybrooks.com/why-todays-humanoids-wont-learn-dex... - the relatively crude tactile and proprioceptive sensing apparatuses of robots when compared to humans - the limited availability of multisensory, perception-action coupled training data Genuinely curious!

This seems like a post by someone who hasn't really ingested the bitter lesson. Eg, even LeRobot (without proper fingers) can fold clothes now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPe9v4gqbdg The labs are spending huge money collecting "multisensory, perception-action coupled training data" (eg, there is the one in NY that gives you free cleaning in return for video data from the cleaner). Edit: The Gemini Robotics blog…

But how does LLMs help in making chat bots better, help with this "multi-sensory" data. Has this anything to do with the current AI surge with LLMs?

Has it been demonstrated? Or is it just that such things now get a lot of funding now, for no good reason?

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#432

Post by qsera »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #429
jhanschoo wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can point to the bitter lesson to support your claim, but on the other hand I can point to the massive investment in capital and time to get self-driving cars viable to support my more bearish view.

Yesterday evening I rode 12 miles in a Waymo actively dodging pedestrians and obstacles dynamically in an open ended environment. Multiples better experience than the two Ubers I had later that evening. What are you bearish about precisely?

It is amusing to observe that the tech marketing of today are milking the shit out of this trick.

The trick being to tread continuously through some non-obvious happy path. And average people will be convinced that you really have some breakthrough tech.

But hey, this is not something new. Magicians were taking advantage of such things for centuries ..

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#433

Post by MostlyStable »

sciencejerk wrote: post #418
MostlyStable wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding from parents and friends who have a cleaning service...it pretty much depends on a certain baseline level of cleanliness. Most cleaning services don't (and likely wouldn't be able to provide) basic "pick up around the house". They will come into a house that is mostly picked up and sweep, dust, mop, vacuum, etc. but they won't come into a toddler house and put everything away. I'm sure that there are…

Toddlers should learn to pick up their own toys...? Unless we're grooming them for a life of pampered self-absorbed entitlement?

This is one of those "tell me you don't have kids without telling me" situations. The process of teaching a kid to be a responsible human is long and arduous. If you expect a 2 and a half year old to successfully be picking up their toys, well, I don't know what to tell you. Go spend some time in a daycare, I guess.

And of course, that's completely ignoring the fact that I also would like to not have to pick up my shit if I could buy a robot that would do it. Yes, I can. And in fact I currently do...mostly. But I'm not happy about it and if there was an even quasi reasonable amount of money I could pay that would mean I would never have to do it again, I 100% would do so.

And if you can honestly say that you wouldn't...well I hope you are enjoying your life in the monastery.

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#434

Post by qsera »

MostlyStable wrote: post #395
cj wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, you typically share house cleaners with your neighbors or family members. My parents, aunt/uncle, grandparents, and one of my neighbors uses the same house cleaner. If she stole from me, I’d immediately tell my family and she would lose basically all of her clients. That makes it easier for me to trust her. (It works similarly in NYC apartment buildings - a single cleaner often services many people in t…

My understanding from parents and friends who have a cleaning service...it pretty much depends on a certain baseline level of cleanliness. Most cleaning services don't (and likely wouldn't be able to provide) basic "pick up around the house". They will come into a house that is mostly picked up and sweep, dust, mop, vacuum, etc. but they won't come into a toddler house and put everything away. I'm sure that there are…

>but they will get there.

May be they will. But do you think this because of the LLMs? I don't think LLMs will help. Because it can only generate text.

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#435

Post by jhanschoo »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #429
jhanschoo wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can point to the bitter lesson to support your claim, but on the other hand I can point to the massive investment in capital and time to get self-driving cars viable to support my more bearish view.

Yesterday evening I rode 12 miles in a Waymo actively dodging pedestrians and obstacles dynamically in an open ended environment. Multiples better experience than the two Ubers I had later that evening. What are you bearish about precisely?

I'm not talking about the state of today's self-driving cars, I'm talking about how we got to here. Also don't forget the overarching claim regarding lack of sensor and actuator fidelity in the parent comment; self-driving cars in contrast have expensive LIDAR in them and we still don't think camera-based self-driving cars are safe enough.

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#436

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jhanschoo wrote: post #435
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday evening I rode 12 miles in a Waymo actively dodging pedestrians and obstacles dynamically in an open ended environment. Multiples better experience than the two Ubers I had later that evening. What are you bearish about precisely?

I'm not talking about the state of today's self-driving cars, I'm talking about how we got to here. Also don't forget the overarching claim regarding lack of sensor and actuator fidelity in the parent comment; self-driving cars in contrast have expensive LIDAR in them and we still don't think camera-based self-driving cars are safe enough.

Yea we got here through recognizing the bitter lesson is a description of reality and adopting techniques that exploit it

The entire history of this field is precisely that problem and repeatedly demonstrated

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#437

Post by AndrewKemendo »

qsera wrote: post #432
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday evening I rode 12 miles in a Waymo actively dodging pedestrians and obstacles dynamically in an open ended environment. Multiples better experience than the two Ubers I had later that evening. What are you bearish about precisely?

It is amusing to observe that the tech marketing of today are milking the shit out of this trick. The trick being to tread continuously through some non-obvious happy path. And average people will be convinced that you really have some breakthrough tech. But hey, this is not something new. Magicians were taking advantage of such things for centuries ..

Please describe the trick you’re suggesting

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#438

Post by shawabawa3 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #363
adityashankar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in this field, and I wrote my bachelor's thesis here, not with humanoids but with VLAs (think chatgpt connected to a robot arm) It's certainly not there yet for anything practical, there's also certain bits and structures that don't have accurate names during construction, and it is important to keep that in mind - so a robot is unlikely to understand what it means to say "put the left bit of this box onto thi…

This is absolutely not true check out Sunday robotics and their robot that folds clothes. Sunday robotics says it does holding of clothes correctly 99% of the time that is real world usage today. They even have three hour video of the robot folding the clothes.

They didn't mention anything about folding clothes so I suspect this comment is just an ad

Re: Gemini Robotics 2 brings whole body intelligence to robots

#439

Post by jhanschoo »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #436
jhanschoo wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the state of today's self-driving cars, I'm talking about how we got to here. Also don't forget the overarching claim regarding lack of sensor and actuator fidelity in the parent comment; self-driving cars in contrast have expensive LIDAR in them and we still don't think camera-based self-driving cars are safe enough.

Yea we got here through recognizing the bitter lesson is a description of reality and adopting techniques that exploit it The entire history of this field is precisely that problem and repeatedly demonstrated

I don't know how you can read my comment, not respond to my comment saying that today's self-driving cars use LIDAR, and continue to reiterate your point.

I don't think I was clear and explicit, it being tedious to write, and I apologize for that. I also apologize for shifting the goalposts as I had not written out my own position, which is not exactly in the "grandparent commenter"'s position (that I had not previously given enough attention understanding), but it is also not in agreement with yours. I don't mean to say that we are not presently in the "bitter lesson" (your idea of what the bitter lesson says) regime. I definitely think that a lot of progress can be done right now by emphasizing the humanoid robotics platform as a foundation. What I mean to say is that I don't know if that platform with the hardware we have today is sufficient for parity with human housekeeping tasks in the domains that we wish it to have parity. The bitter lesson itself (not your understanding of it) is in fact silent on this as it is in relation to feature engineering, where it is a clear point, but you seem to be adapting it uncritically wholesale to mean something more than what it is written about. My position is that, it is unclear whether today's sensor platform is sufficient for parity. It is less strong than the blog post author's "Why Today’s Humanoids Won’t Learn", it is a "We can't say whether or not today's humanoids will learn", but it is something that also contradicts a "the bitter lesson means today's humanoids will learn" thesis.

The self-driving car supports my claim, because after so much investment in capital and time, we ended up with a car with comparatively expensive LIDAR sensors as our preferred platform.

Post reply on HN