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

We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

ksagar.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#131

Post by liendolucas »

I didn't understand a single word about this post and what was supposed to be solved and had to stop reading.

Was this actually written by a human being? If so, the author(s) suffer from severe language communication problems. Doesn't seem to be grounded at least with reality and my personal experience with robotics. But here's my real world take:

Robotics is going to be partially solved when ROS/ROS2 becomes effectively exterminated and completely replaced by a sane robotics framework.

I seriously urge the authors to use ROS/ROS2. Show us, implementing your solution with ROS, pushing it to a repository and allow others to verify what you solved, maybe?. Suffer a bit with the framework and then write a real post about real robotics hands-on, and not just wander on fancy uncomprehensible stuff that probably no-one will ever do.

Then we can maybe start talking about robotics.

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#132

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

carlosdp wrote: post #105
dchftcs wrote: post #78

Pure vision will never be enough because it does not contain information about the physical feedback like pressure and touch, or the strength required to perform a task. For example, so that you don't crush a human when doing massage (but still need to press hard), or apply the right amount of force (and finesse?) to skin a fish fillet without cutting the skin itself. Practically in the near term, it's hard to sample…

> Pure vision will never be enough because it does not contain information about the physical feedback like pressure and touch, or the strength required to perform a task. I'm not sure that's necessarily true for a lot of tasks. A good way to measure this in your head is this: "If you were given remote control of two robot arms, and just one camera to look through, how many different tasks do you think you could comp…

counterpoint: think about all the tasks you could do with your hands and arms while your eyes are closed. i think its really a lot of stuff considering blind people can do the vast majority of things sighted people can do, and i suspect anything you could do with your eyes closed would be extremely difficult to do with a camera feed as the literal only sensory input

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#133

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

whatever1 wrote: post #121
suddenlybananas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have innate knowledge that help them interact with the world and can learn from physical interaction for the rest. RGB images aren't enough.

Video games have shown that we can control pretty darn well characters in virtual worlds where we have not experienced their physics. We just look at a 2D monitor and using a joystick/keyboard we manage to figure it out.

a game has very limited physics. like the buttons you press are pre-tuned to perform certain actions and you arent dealing with continuous nearly infinite possibilities with large ranges of motion, pressure, speed etc. like think about how difficult the game QWOP is because you mostly just have visual feedback

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#134

Post by roveo »

rozab wrote: post #52

I just wrote a reply to a comment talking about the AI tells this writing has, but it got flagged so my comment disappeared when I hit post. I'll rephrase out of spite: My first thought upon reading this was that an LLM had been instructed to add a pithy meme joke to each paragraph. They don't make sense in context, and while some terminally online people do speak in memes, those people aren't quoting doge in 2025. T…

I'm using eigenrobot's (X user) prompt for ChatGPT and the style is very recognizable. Everything lowercase, tone, zoomer abbreviations, esotheric style of jokes.

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#136

Post by jojobas »

debugnik wrote: post #123
Thorrez wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>those people aren't quoting doge in 2025 Could you explain what this means? Is this article quoting doge?

There was a clear attempt at the doge meme format, yes: > very scientific. much engineering. Emphasis on attempt because you're supposed to use words with grammatically incorrect modifiers, and the first one doesn't. (Even the second one doesn't seem entirely incorrect to me? I'm not a native speaker though.) "many scientific, so engineering" for example would have worked. I assume they, or most likely their LLM, tri…

You'd think it would be easy to write "very engineering, much scientific". LLMs work in mysterious ways.

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#137

Post by bazhova »

wincy wrote: post #122
rozab wrote: post #52

I just wrote a reply to a comment talking about the AI tells this writing has, but it got flagged so my comment disappeared when I hit post. I'll rephrase out of spite: My first thought upon reading this was that an LLM had been instructed to add a pithy meme joke to each paragraph. They don't make sense in context, and while some terminally online people do speak in memes, those people aren't quoting doge in 2025. T…

I don’t know, 400k people are listening to the White House streaming lo-fi hip hop on X right now with cutesy videos of Trump on one side and his executive orders streaming on the other at 4am. I think there’s plenty of people quoting doge in 2025. If you’re in the US, you likely work with them and they have learned to studiously avoid talking about politics except in vagaries to avoid conflict.

they are referring to doge the dog meme, not the government initiative. The meme is much older and wouldn't be considered "cool" to use by the same people who write in the style of the article. Which indicates it was written by an LLM, because usually only things like ChatGPT throw in such cringe, out of date memes in an otherwise obnoxiously 2025 article

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#138

Post by bazhova »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #81
rozab wrote: post #52

I just wrote a reply to a comment talking about the AI tells this writing has, but it got flagged so my comment disappeared when I hit post. I'll rephrase out of spite: My first thought upon reading this was that an LLM had been instructed to add a pithy meme joke to each paragraph. They don't make sense in context, and while some terminally online people do speak in memes, those people aren't quoting doge in 2025. T…

> some terminally online people do speak in memes, those people aren't quoting doge in 2025. You may be surprised to find out how incorrect this. I can think of two popular conservative sites likely to quote Doge people off hand that do this. I read all news in order not be an insufferable ideologue. So again, off the top of my head, NotTheBee (I think affiliated to BabylonBee (conservative The Onion)) and Twitchy. A…

They are referring to the original doge meme of the dog, not the government initiative today. I guess "quote" isn't really the right word, more like "doing"

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#139

Post by shadowgovt »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #106
shadowgovt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people have dealt with the law, with copyright infringement, even with gross amounts of it, and had the book thrown at them, and survived the experience. Swartz was ill. It is a tragedy he did not survive the experience, and indeed, trial is very stressful. But he was no more hounded than any defendant who comes under federal scrutiny and has to defend themselves in a court of law via the trial system. Kevin Mit…

Many people get (for example) pneumonia and recover. Some people get pneumonia and die. The people who died of pneumonia died because of pneumonia. The fact that other people survived it doesn't mean that they didn't die of it. Saying that we should not work on cures for pneumonia because it's a Chesterton Fence is obviously, blatantly, illogical. Saying that we should change the system so that government officials w…

Pneumonia doesn't have any societal benefit. The process by which we decide if the law was broken and punishment necessary has obvious benefit. If you mean we should seek a cure for dangerous suicidal depression, I agree. But you surely are not suggesting that, for example, has Swartz been accused of embezzlement that the state drop out finish the charges purely because he's a suicide risk; how would that be just to the people who were stolen from?

And it's a point of semantics, but no; we generally don't say people who died by suicide died by the things going on in their life when they ended it. Everybody has stressors. The suicidal also have mental illness. Mr. Swartz had self-documented his past suicidal ideation.

Re: We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

#140

Post by amelius »

abenga wrote: post #126
carlosdp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pure vision will never be enough because it does not contain information about the physical feedback like pressure and touch, or the strength required to perform a task. I'm not sure that's necessarily true for a lot of tasks. A good way to measure this in your head is this: "If you were given remote control of two robot arms, and just one camera to look through, how many different tasks do you think you could comp…

Humans did not accumulate that intuition just using images. In the example you gave, you subconsciously augment the image information with a lifetime of interacting with the world using all the other senses.

Yes, without extra information, manipulating everyday objects is probably as intuitive to robots as manipulating quantum scale molecules is for humans.
Post reply on HN