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

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#231

Post by insane_dreamer »

fragmede wrote: post #216
insane_dreamer wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have a job that allows you to pay the rent and food, then access to AGI tools -- even free -- won't help you very much.

I don't know why you'd say that. Makes applying for EBT and food stamps easier. And finding the local soup kitchens, the best places to buy a tent, what the laws against vagrancy and camping "overnight" in your car. Which brands of cat food are least unhealthy for human consumption. (you'll have to jailbreak the model to have it answer that last one.) Those are probably going to be quite a lot of help!

"Sorry we created this AI that took away your job and made you homeless, but in exchange you can use our cool app for free that will help you escape starvation and maybe even find the optimal homeless shelter! And think of it -- your sacrifice has made it possible for devs earning 6-figure salaries to be more productive, and doctors to write better emails, and the USA now has a higher GDP than ever! Large corporations profits are up! Society (for the rest of us) is better because of it."

Reminds me of Walmart putting small business owners in a small town out of business and then offering them a minimum wage job at their store.

I recommend watching Nomadland if you haven't already. (Update: Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, carry on.)

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#232

Post by maxerickson »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #181
maxerickson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If robots are doing everything, people will have bigger kitchens...

So long as the robots didn't eliminate their job (and make it very difficult to get another job), in which case they'll have a smaller kitchen (or no kitchen).

Typically, as society has gotten wealthier, the average standard of living has increased. That's just thousands of years of history though.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#233

Post by insane_dreamer »

marricks wrote: post #203
mmcdermott wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Touchscreens in cars is a great example of making the human experience worse for the sake of tech. Everyone prefers physical tactile buttons for a set interface, but that stands in the way of progress for cars! Guess where the industry is going...

That's a marketing issue "look OUR car has this shiny big touchscreen now!" which car manufacturers think -- or thought -- users would prefer and buy (with Tesla leading the way). That may change if there is user blowback. (Just drove a new BMW Series 4 the other day and it had the big touch screen but retained the buttons/controls because they're better for settings you change often or while driving. Touchscreen is better for settings you change less frequently or while not driving (like charging).

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#234

Post by forgetfreeman »

golol wrote: post #228
forgetfreeman wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain what you base your confidence on given trackable economic and social mobility markers don't support it. Its fascinating that apologists default to some combination of postmodern argle-bargle over defining the term "middle class" and pointing to modest economic successes in what until recently were unambiguously 3rd world countries when a discussion of the middle class in America comes up. I honestly d…

You know, it doesn't really matter to the original point. If the middle class is doing okay or if it's struggling, either way household androids and more generally less labor scarcity are exactly the kind of thing that will improve the situation.

Except it will do literally no such thing. The working classes exist because of scarcity of labor, not despite it. Adding labor to the pool dilutes the value of a unit of labor (supply and demand). Only the tiny minority of individuals who own and control capital are positioned to capture any benefits accrued by increased availability of labor.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#235

Post by fragmede »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #231
fragmede wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you'd say that. Makes applying for EBT and food stamps easier. And finding the local soup kitchens, the best places to buy a tent, what the laws against vagrancy and camping "overnight" in your car. Which brands of cat food are least unhealthy for human consumption. (you'll have to jailbreak the model to have it answer that last one.) Those are probably going to be quite a lot of help!

"Sorry we created this AI that took away your job and made you homeless, but in exchange you can use our cool app for free that will help you escape starvation and maybe even find the optimal homeless shelter! And think of it -- your sacrifice has made it possible for devs earning 6-figure salaries to be more productive, and doctors to write better emails, and the USA now has a higher GDP than ever! Large corporation…

Poe's law strikes again! The cat food bit wasn't over the top enough?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#236

Post by dleary »

closewith wrote: post #225
netruk44 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose our restaurant-going experiences must significantly differ. If I'm going to a restaurant with friends for social interaction, it typically doesn't involve the other people in the restaurant who just happen to be there at the same time as me. If I wanted that, I would go to a bar instead, which is a separate conversation from the one we were having. However, I don't think I would be so bold as to call either…

It's not an attack, and there's no ill will here. It is accurate, though, and is said with sympathy.

[flagged]

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#237

Post by steveoscaro »

smolder wrote: post #95
steveoscaro wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you’re clearly just reading some clickbait articles and not following the actual development at all.

I'm basing my opinion off the demonstration Tesla did where they were remotely operated, and footage of that event. I'll admit I'm not up to date on the development details. Do you have a recommended and trustworthy source for more info? (I don't consider Elon to be one, as he makes bald-faced fantastical lies on the regular.)

The Tesla YouTube account has videos of Optimus folding clothes (and doing various other tasks) while operating in autonomous mode. I think their latest iteration of the hand is incredible, and a good summary of how they are going all in on general purpose functionality.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#238

Post by closewith »

dleary wrote: post #236
closewith wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an attack, and there's no ill will here. It is accurate, though, and is said with sympathy.

[flagged]

> You are an idiot narcissist, unable to comprehend that other people might not hold the same values as you. This defect in you, the inability to recognize that other people might want different things than you, will forever render you unable to connect with people at large.

I wonder if you see the irony?

Ultimately, my comment refers not to individual values, but truisms of the human condition, backed by decades of research by sociologists and psychologists.

> Your judgemental attitude combined with your deep conviction that everybody else is in the wrong, rather than you, guarantees that you will die a lonely misanthrope.

I wonder if the reality would disappoint you? Or if you're hoping for this outcome?

> Your abrasive, insulting communication style ensures that nobody will ever truly love you.

Again the irony is palpable. I wonder how you react to disagreements in person if this is your reaction to a well-reasoned but provocative comment that offends you.

> Also, you are, in general, a shit person.

Are you of the calibre of person to judge others?

> All of this might sound over the top and a mean attack, but it’s not. Instead, it is accurate and sympathetic.

It may in fact be accurate, if the subject is the author.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#239

Post by kelseyfrog »

seventhtiger wrote: post #226
kelseyfrog wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a mob demands sacrifice we must appease it? That sounds very different to the story of poor people's plight. Especially if you consider that random condition will create winners and losers.

We can try to fight against human nature all we want, but the Peasant's Revolt, the French Revolution, American Revolution, Haitian, Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc all stem from a group feeling like things weren't fair. Convincing the aristocracy that they need to change the system so to one that doesn't create winners and losers, doesn't seem to work, so nature has a pressure relief valve whether they want one or not.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#240

Post by bamboozled »

int_19h wrote: post #110
nyokodo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human life is about finding meaning All of the things you list are, in the hypothetical scenario, better done by robots. Therefore, they don’t serve any purpose by truly serving anyone or adding any value to society etc. Most people don’t ascribe any deeply satisfying meaning to mere personal enjoyment, so in this scenario what is the basis for extracting meaning from any human labor?

What people consider deeply satisfying is very much culturally engrained. Our society conditions us to define our own value mostly in terms of how much value we contribute to others, and to treat personal enjoyment as at least somewhat suspect. But this isn't a universal set of values, not even in our own societies historically. If you really want to get philosophical about it, what's the point of you serving someone…

Because what makes you happy might not be what makes others happy. Spending all day indulging in racism for example. Some people enjoy that.

Once it gets to a point where you can focus all your time on that, what happens?

I can see it already happening in the USA.

Having other people have to rely on each other somewhat holds racism back, for example.

Post reply on HN