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

191–200 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#191

Post by imp0cat »

haccount wrote: post #152
suprfnk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obj…

Yeah, I demand more info about the mop from the OP. What model do you have and are you completely satisfied? I was under the impressionthat most of wet mop models just smear dirt everywhere instead of really cleaning a dirty floor.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#192

Post by mmcdermott »

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’s time to find out what value our values really have.

Which is exciting, as long as the net results are better for human beings. I really don't want to see us make human experience worse to ensure that AI is able to be more successful. That defeats the purpose of any technological invention.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#193

Post by nradov »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #38
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?

Basic universal income makes sense to me. I imagine a society where everyone is free to create art or relax in hammocks all day. A basic universal income would not be enough to fund world travel, your fav consumer items, or ambitious projects, so I don't foresee it causing an intellectual meltdown in society as some fear-monger (As an aside: I speculate people afraid of this may likely be the actual lazy members of o…

Basic universal income only makes sense to you because you haven't done the math. There is no conceivable way to tax productive people enough to enable a bunch of lazy people to relax all day. We are at least centuries away from fully automating the production of even basic commodities.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#194

Post by kelseyfrog »

harimau777 wrote: post #168
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…

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 encourag…

Humans have an innate sense of fairness that isn't satisfied by "everyone played by the same rules, so wildly different outcomes are ok." Eventually resentment builds up and an extra-legal solution transpires.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#195

Post by kelseyfrog »

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…

It's fairly easy to prevent. Accreditation is a legitimization mechanism eminently modulatable by law. When only state schools are accredited and truancy is enforced, there is no other option.

The funding issue is also trivial, local property taxes should be transferred to the state rather than being used directly. The idea that somehow poor neighborhoods should have poor schools is asinine and re-enforces existing class structure.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#197

Post by a_c_s »

closewith wrote: post #187
netruk44 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you aren't cooking and cleaning up after, what's the difference between that and meeting someone at a restaurant? I wonder if you realise how dystopian your life already is to consider this question reasonable. There is a difference between a co-located set of siloed people and a community. The inability to recognise this means your community is already broken.

I don't understand the distinction you are making: two couples (4 people) meeting at a restaurant is, to me, equally social as one couple going to another couple's house to eat dinner.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#198

Post by sokoloff »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #195
sokoloff wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's fairly easy to prevent. Accreditation is a legitimization mechanism eminently modulatable by law. When only state schools are accredited and truancy is enforced, there is no other option. The funding issue is also trivial, local property taxes should be transferred to the state rather than being used directly. The idea that somehow poor neighborhoods should have poor schools is asinine and re-enforces existing c…

It’s not a funding issue, or at least not just a funding issue. In many states, the lower performing districts have more per-pupil funding than higher performing schools.

Parents and community are a massive influence, and parents will move as needed to attend better school districts, even if private schools are outlawed.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#199

Post by ConspiracyFact »

p1esk wrote: post #96
bitmasher9 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bifurcation of society with fewer and fewer people moving upward in social status. The poor have nothing. The bar of assets required to not become poor continues to raise. For example, let’s say you have 5M NW, and 75% of it is in an uninsurable residential real estate. Your house is at high risk of being destroyed, and if it does you barely have the assets required to rebuild. If this happens twice you are have noth…

Let’s say I have 10M in stocks. What is the optimal strategy to not end up as “have nothing poor” in an automated economy?

If you have 10M in stocks you should be able to figure this out on your own, assuming you’re self-made.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#200

Post by ConspiracyFact »

abraxas wrote: post #71
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?

Wall-E in the best case, Manna ( https://marshallbrain.com/manna ) in the most likely scenario. But I'm a pessimist.

Manna is such a cool story. It’s too bad the author copped out at the end instead of fully exploring a world with AGI but no robots.
Post reply on HN