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

Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#21

Post by anon291 »

iambateman wrote: post #13
apienx wrote: post #7

A 4 year old child has 16k wake hours x 3600 s/hour x 1^6 optical nerve fibers x 2 eyes x 10 bytes/s = 1^15 bytes (approximation by Yann LeCun). Processing visual input is the current bottleneck for robots that want to make sense of the physical world. Glad somebody's looking into it (no pun intended). I just hope their plan is more sophisticated than throwing more computational power at the problem.

To keep the analogy going, we should be concerned about unregulated companies creating robots with superhuman capabilities and a four-year-old’s sense of the world. Regulators need to get ahead of this and establish a federal framework for safe robotic entrepreneurship. For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of milli…

> For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone.

IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#22

Post by Invictus0 »

apienx wrote: post #7

A 4 year old child has 16k wake hours x 3600 s/hour x 1^6 optical nerve fibers x 2 eyes x 10 bytes/s = 1^15 bytes (approximation by Yann LeCun). Processing visual input is the current bottleneck for robots that want to make sense of the physical world. Glad somebody's looking into it (no pun intended). I just hope their plan is more sophisticated than throwing more computational power at the problem.

1^15 bytes huh?

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#23

Post by hamoodhabibi »

Jensson wrote: post #2

Why is OpenAI investing in startups? They invest 100 million in another as well. I thought OpenAI was building their own things as a non profit, why are they investing? Is it normal for non profits to invest like this? Do they lack confidence in their own stuff, do OpenAI have too much money they don't know what to do with? "Norwegian humanoid robot startup 1X Technologies recently raised $100 million with backing fr…

Asking this question on a platform pretty much aligned with Sam Altman and expecting real nuanced answer is unrealistic.

Remember they shut down the thread regarding Sam Altman's sister alleging she was molested by him.

Its just incredibly sad to see how society is quick to overlook one's transgressions if it stands to benefit from that individual. Artists, CEOs, politicians, celebrities.

Just one sick world and this blatant disregard for "non-profit" because bunch of men feel they were chosen.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#24

Post by hamoodhabibi »

Palmik wrote: post #6
Jensson wrote: post #2

Why is OpenAI investing in startups? They invest 100 million in another as well. I thought OpenAI was building their own things as a non profit, why are they investing? Is it normal for non profits to invest like this? Do they lack confidence in their own stuff, do OpenAI have too much money they don't know what to do with? "Norwegian humanoid robot startup 1X Technologies recently raised $100 million with backing fr…

Yes, it's quite common, see for example: https://mozilla.vc/ https://www.cff.org/about-us/our-venture-philanthropy-model

this is not even a fair comparison. mozilla isn't using all of our data to build a product that will be metered

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#25

Post by iambateman »

anon291 wrote: post #21
iambateman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To keep the analogy going, we should be concerned about unregulated companies creating robots with superhuman capabilities and a four-year-old’s sense of the world. Regulators need to get ahead of this and establish a federal framework for safe robotic entrepreneurship. For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of milli…

> For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone. IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal

Sure, I’m squarely in the “private killer robots are bad” camp, but my point is that a lot of people will disagree there.

My state passed a law last week saying 18-year-old children can open carry a gun without a license. It’s very possible that the 2A people get energized and the Supreme Court is sufficiently out of touch to get this right.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#26

Post by snuxoll »

iambateman wrote: post #25
anon291 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone. IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal

Sure, I’m squarely in the “private killer robots are bad” camp, but my point is that a lot of people will disagree there. My state passed a law last week saying 18-year-old children can open carry a gun without a license. It’s very possible that the 2A people get energized and the Supreme Court is sufficiently out of touch to get this right.

In my state (Idaho), and many others, simply using a camera drone to spot game is illegal (even using it to locate wounded/downed game, because it provides an easy excuse). Drone with a gun is an entirely different level and to my knowledge is broadly banned across the country.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#27

Post by OkayPhysicist »

iambateman wrote: post #25
anon291 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone. IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal

Sure, I’m squarely in the “private killer robots are bad” camp, but my point is that a lot of people will disagree there. My state passed a law last week saying 18-year-old children can open carry a gun without a license. It’s very possible that the 2A people get energized and the Supreme Court is sufficiently out of touch to get this right.

There are no 18 year old children. Those are adults, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that title.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#28

Post by TeMPOraL »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #9
apienx wrote: post #7

A 4 year old child has 16k wake hours x 3600 s/hour x 1^6 optical nerve fibers x 2 eyes x 10 bytes/s = 1^15 bytes (approximation by Yann LeCun). Processing visual input is the current bottleneck for robots that want to make sense of the physical world. Glad somebody's looking into it (no pun intended). I just hope their plan is more sophisticated than throwing more computational power at the problem.

I would say conceptual awareness is a far bigger bottleneck than visual perception data.

LLMs arguably cracked conceptual awareness already, not to mention demonstrated that you can bootstrap it unsupervised by throwing enough data at it.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#29

Post by uoaei »

apinstein wrote: post #16
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? What if that 4-year-old child were blind? Obviously their concept of the physical world would be different, but is it any less accurate? If we remove the need for visual perception, thereby removing that bottleneck, how much faster would we be able to make progress?

I think it would be significantly less accurate. Their error rates for performing physical tasks would be different b/w they lack the sensors to accurately train decent world models. For instance, I don't think they could catch a ball at the same skill level as a sighted child no matter how hard they tried. So the lack of that sensor will cause the brain to develop poor representations of motion in 3d space. How lack…

Clearly you have never known a blind person.

Re: Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots

#30

Post by anon291 »

iambateman wrote: post #25
anon291 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone. IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal

Sure, I’m squarely in the “private killer robots are bad” camp, but my point is that a lot of people will disagree there. My state passed a law last week saying 18-year-old children can open carry a gun without a license. It’s very possible that the 2A people get energized and the Supreme Court is sufficiently out of touch to get this right.

Well you seemed prone to sensationalism to begin with, but this:

> 18-year-old children

just confirmed it. An 18-year-old is an adult with a right to own and bear a firearm by the 2nd amendment. A person is not a drone, and an 18-year-old is not a child.

Post reply on HN