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

Our First Generalist Policy

physicalintelligence.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#151

Post by scooke »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #15

I wonder at the long term vision for humanity. We have AI replacing a lot of art, writing, coding, etc. We have a bunch of robotics companies racing to replace physical human labor. Waymo and Tesla replacing drivers. What role do the majority of people realistically play in this world?

The movie, "The Matrix", actually is a clue. In it humanity is reduced to mere batteries. But in fact it IS the energy we bring which is crucial. No AI, made by no machine, would ever exist without our energy - focused thought, industry to make machines, ideas to put them to use, insight to see problems. The future is still humanity.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#152

Post by haccount »

suprfnk wrote: post #143
TylerE wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could just as easily be turned on it's head too - if you don't need skilled (or any) staff to shop, cook, serve, and then washup, why would you ever NOT eat at home? Especially if it can operate very quietly, one fairly slow robot could do probably all the housework, and could do it at night when it's literally out of sight and out of mind. It would feel like magic . You'd wake up every morning to a clean house…

A tiny bit of this is already here: our robot vacuum & mop vacuums and mops the living room, kitchen, and dining room every night at 01:00. Coming downstairs in the morning to a completely clean floor is definitely a tiny bit of that magic.

Having a mop-capable robotic vacuum myself I have a completely different experience. It is simply too stupid(despite being a smart model with camera and room mapping LiDAR) and get stuck at carpet edges and under chairs.

If I want to use it on schedule I need to perpetually have all areas I want it to clean adapted to robotic vacuuming. Which I don't, meaning I have to manually go over the entire area and pick up objects, move chairs, move the small carpets and then empty the all too small storage bin on the robotic vacuum after it have done its rounds.

And don't even get me started on the mopping function.

The end result being that if I take a regular vacuum in my hand and do the pre-robot screening round, I've managed to already vacuum the entire flat with a much more powerful machine in less time than the robot vacuum process would've required.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#153

Post by usrusr »

closewith wrote: post #133
TylerE wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could just as easily be turned on it's head too - if you don't need skilled (or any) staff to shop, cook, serve, and then washup, why would you ever NOT eat at home? Especially if it can operate very quietly, one fairly slow robot could do probably all the housework, and could do it at night when it's literally out of sight and out of mind. It would feel like magic . You'd wake up every morning to a clean house…

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

It's a dystopia all right, but one that is already very real. WFH is a reality for many, groceries to the door hasn't become mainstream yet but the supermarket might well be on the trajectory taken by book stores two decades earlier and people who don't attend outdoor or team sports can have surprisingly few occasions to leave home unless they go out of their way to find an excuse.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#154

Post by compootr »

closewith wrote: post #133
TylerE wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could just as easily be turned on it's head too - if you don't need skilled (or any) staff to shop, cook, serve, and then washup, why would you ever NOT eat at home? Especially if it can operate very quietly, one fairly slow robot could do probably all the housework, and could do it at night when it's literally out of sight and out of mind. It would feel like magic . You'd wake up every morning to a clean house…

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

I think there's an episode about this in Love+Death+Robots

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#155

Post by usrusr »

infecto wrote: post #149
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

Perhaps that's true in your country, but not in the US. That said, the logic doesn't fully hold up. I can see it making sense if the goal were purely for the restaurant experience, but if I could replicate the food at home using a bot, I'd be inviting all my friends over to eat at my place instead. In the US, I think it would be hard to say that most people go to restaurants for social benefits.

> I'd be inviting all my friends over to eat at my place instead.

Ironically, this reads to me like a rather American thing. Simply based on typical dwelling size. There's a lot of nights at a restaurant (or cheaper: some venue specializing in space + some catering for groups instead of the full restaurant experience) I could buy for the cost of keeping a dining room able to host a non-tiny group of friends around all year. In American sprawl, with those hardly-more-than-cardboard construction standards? Sure, no problem.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#156

Post by mapt »

"We/you need to be more careful" is often a phatic expression, a way of ending the conversation while saving face, rather than an actual directive. Because they don't want you to be more careful. They just want you to make sure you respect their time and their timeline, and check that you're not deliberately being an asshole who's fucking up their job that they don't understand, because of some sort of attitude problem. It's social ritual.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#157

Post by astura »

netruk44 wrote: post #148
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

Well, that feels like a rather extreme jump to conclusions, and was certainly not something I thought the GP comment was even suggesting. I don't see any reason why people couldn't adjust from meeting friends at restaurants to hosting friends at home instead. (Unless, of course, your living space is limited) If you aren't cooking and cleaning up after, what's the difference between that and meeting someone at a resta…

I can think of some differences:

1) You get out of your house.

2) You don't have leftovers from a big meal to deal with.

3) You can duck out early without having to kick everyone out..

4) you can fit a LOT more people at a restaurant.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#158

Post by infecto »

usrusr wrote: post #155
infecto wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's true in your country, but not in the US. That said, the logic doesn't fully hold up. I can see it making sense if the goal were purely for the restaurant experience, but if I could replicate the food at home using a bot, I'd be inviting all my friends over to eat at my place instead. In the US, I think it would be hard to say that most people go to restaurants for social benefits.

> I'd be inviting all my friends over to eat at my place instead. Ironically, this reads to me like a rather American thing. Simply based on typical dwelling size. There's a lot of nights at a restaurant (or cheaper: some venue specializing in space + some catering for groups instead of the full restaurant experience) I could buy for the cost of keeping a dining room able to host a non-tiny group of friends around al…

> "hardly-more-than-cardboard construction standards"

You are a silly person, what does this even have to do with cooking? Sorry America has got you so upset.

Do you even have a counterpoint to what I said beyond your weird hate for America? Most of the places I have traveled and lived in around the world, most people are not going out to eat for socializing but for the elimination of the labor and time it takes to cook the same meal at home. Sure socialization can play a role but thats not the prime value.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#159

Post by haccount »

Nevermark wrote: post #116
int_19h wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There can be a large class of poor, but it still be cheaper for a poor person to get their goods & services (as they can) from the corporations with the automation to provide them for a fraction of the cost, and of higher quality, than someone without capital can. But why would the corporations (or rather, their owners) even bother to do that, once robots are producing everything? And what would the poor buy those…

> And what would the poor buy those robot-made goods and services with? Nothing or very little. My point is that when labor is handled by automation, the poor won’t be able to create their own economy, even though they have nothing to offer and are excluded from the economy of the rich. It sounds like we have the same understanding. Even if a poor person (in this scenario) does get any money somehow, or anything of t…

Exotic dancers and other human commodity products will still be in demand.

Until the Life-skin™ Sensubot™ lineup arrives

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#160

Post by maxerickson »

erulabs wrote: post #99

It almost feels easier to disassemble and resew the shirt from recycled fabric. I’m mostly joking, but my point is that physical AI probably implies a complete rethink of every individual routine from first principles: why fold the shirt at all? Why not just-in-time-ironing? We’re focusing on the hard problems because we’re imitating how a human with limited resources would approach the issue. If you asked a robot to…

If robots are doing everything, people will have bigger kitchens...
Post reply on HN