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

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#161

Post by nradov »

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.

Our robot vacuum gets stuck under the bookcase and tangled up with my laptop charging cable.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#162

Post by rqtwteye »

tonygrue wrote: post #17
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?

My thoughts are a few: There is a lot of undone labor in the world. In developing countries the middle class has drivers, cooks, housekeepers. That’s only possible due to inequality. With automation we can all get that. These people with tons of help by and large live fulfilled lives. You find fulfillment in family, friendships, and non necessary creation (art, research, etc); whatever makes you happy. But most of al…

"Finally there are a lot of problems we have (thousands of health conditions, the environment, autocrats) that will prob take centuries to tackle even with ai, robotics, and being freed up from menial labor."

I am very worried that autocrats will use AI and robotics to get rid of the opposition problem. I can't even imagine what Hitler or Stalin would have done with the technology we have now or will have soon.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#163

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #160
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...

[deleted]

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#164

Post by amelius »

tonygrue wrote: post #17
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?

My thoughts are a few: There is a lot of undone labor in the world. In developing countries the middle class has drivers, cooks, housekeepers. That’s only possible due to inequality. With automation we can all get that. These people with tons of help by and large live fulfilled lives. You find fulfillment in family, friendships, and non necessary creation (art, research, etc); whatever makes you happy. But most of al…

I'm curious, do we see a decline in art freshmen in recent years?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#165

Post by haccount »

carapace wrote: post #70
nightski wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no need for UBI imho. If the technology really advances to that point it will be very cheap to live.

> If the technology really advances to that point it will be very cheap to live. Yes. But the flipside of that is that it's hard to earn money. The cheaper it is to live, the harder it is to make money. The problem UBI solves is when most humans can no longer compete with machines in the economic system. Once that happens there are only a few options, and the least unpleasant is simply to give them (us) money tokens.

UBI assumes the entire financial sector doesn't exist. That companies grow like plants without agency. That everyone just accepts UBI as an equal portion and that the future is rosy and fair.

The predatory institutions will still be there in the UBI future and price things accordingly, do a little hostile takeover here and there, bribe some politician and get a totally not monopoly started in as many sectors as they can.

For UBI to actually work it needs to spring out of the goodwill from a monstrous institution that brutalizes all other financial entities or from a financial apocalypse that leaves virtually no one standing.

A much more likely entry point to "free living conditions" is free as in advertisment driven data mining and resale. Think of Google being your landlord, offering free Google fiber with some extra packet inspection clauses. McMeta down the street offering free fastfood adhering to the latest "dietary meta" catchphrase. And Palantir hands out free phones with preloaded internet and bomb homing beacons to streamline military interventions against you when the gov decides you're a terrorist.

That's a more likely "UBI scenario", simplified by a few steps as whatever UBI money you'd get in a cash scenario would end up pocketed by the usual suspects anyway

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#166

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#167

Post by harimau777 »

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…

It likely depends on the quality of the clothing. If we are talking about a fairly standardized and utilitarian outfit like a t-shirt and straight leg jeans then that would make automated sewing easier.

On the other hand, if someone wants to wear clothing that flatters their body type and sense of style, then the robot is going to need to be able to make different patterns. Things like different types of yokes, pleats, princess seams, collar types, etc.

The next step is clothing that is tailored for an individual. In this case the robot would need to be able to add darts and other modifications in order to adjust the fit. Note that this and the previous step may need to take into account the behavior of the fabric; e.g. how does it stretch.

Finally, in the realm of high end tailoring you have features that are used precisely because they must be done by hand.

That being said, there is precedent for what you are suggesting: traditionally kimonos are unsewn when they are washed and then reassembled.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#168

Post by harimau777 »

seventhtiger wrote: post #37
aljgz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As optimistic as your comment is, the fact that there are lots of problems does not mean that we will tackle them. In my opinion, if we don't aim at doing anything about it, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. Both between societies, and within one society. I'm now in Canada, but in my childhood country, most of the recent "smart" (meaning connected) devices and the recent AI models are not available. T…

Is our goal to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, or to improve the lives of the poor? Because the gap itself is actually irrelevant to poor people's lives. Rich people's improvement outpacing poor people's is not necessarily an issue. Second, a financial gap does not necessarily translate to a material gap. Someone with 1,000,000x someone else's net worth still buys the same iPhone and drinks the same coc…

Two great of a gap between rich and poor produces a number of problems:

It produces a two tier society where different rules apply to the rich and the poor.

It insulates the rich from the negative impact their actions have on the poor.

It results in the rich having a much greater say in democracy than the poor.

It produces problems when the rich and the poor are competing for resources (e.g. housing).

It can encourages the market to focus on the desires of the rich at the expense of the desires of the poor.

It damages social cohesion due to the rich and poor having increasingly different life experiences and worldviews.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#169

Post by harimau777 »

sokoloff wrote: post #130
hakfoo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rich people's improvement outpacing poor people's is not necessarily an issue. That's like saying "the fact there's a black hole in the centre of the galaxy is not an issue." Extreme wealth distorts the universe around it. There are people who have no business making nation-state level decisions that are still on the speed dial of the people who are, because of their financial positions. There's also a strong case…

> Parents who can afford it take their kids out of the default public school and take them to a magnet, charter, or private school. I think it’s pointless to try to prevent this. Try to block it and parents who can afford to will just move to where the public schools are good. There’s no level of forced equality (other than everyone living in abject squalor) where there won’t be a spread of resources and some will ch…

You are correct that there will never be perfect equality. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps to get closer to equality. For example, wealthy parents sending their kids to private schools isn't as much of an issue when it doesn't take money away from public schools (e.g. via vouchers).

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#170

Post by nradov »

hakfoo wrote: post #79
seventhtiger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is our goal to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, or to improve the lives of the poor? Because the gap itself is actually irrelevant to poor people's lives. Rich people's improvement outpacing poor people's is not necessarily an issue. Second, a financial gap does not necessarily translate to a material gap. Someone with 1,000,000x someone else's net worth still buys the same iPhone and drinks the same coc…

> Rich people's improvement outpacing poor people's is not necessarily an issue. That's like saying "the fact there's a black hole in the centre of the galaxy is not an issue." Extreme wealth distorts the universe around it. There are people who have no business making nation-state level decisions that are still on the speed dial of the people who are, because of their financial positions. There's also a strong case…

In the US, magnet and charter schools are free and operated by public school districts. When there aren't enough slots, admission is typically handled by lottery so wealthy parents can't pay to get their children in. What they can do is move to a neighborhood with better public schools, and in fact we see a very direct relationship between public school ratings and housing prices in that school's catchment area.

The Chinese ghost cities are a terrible idea in every way. I am mystified as to how anyone would think those are a positive. Most of them will be left to decay without ever getting occupied.

Post reply on HN