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

31–40 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#31

Post by modeless »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #13
lachyg wrote: post #5

(I work at π.) Happy to answer any questions on the model, hardware, etc

Nearly 2 years ago I bet a roboticist $10 that we’d have “sci-fi” robots in 2 years. Now, we didn’t set good criteria for the bet (it was late at night). However, my personal criteria for “scifi” are twofold: 1. Robots that are able to make peanut butter sandwiches without explicit training 2. Robots able to walk on sand (eg Tatooine) Based on your current understanding, who won the bet? Also, what kind of physical b…

Coincidentally just saw robots walking on sand today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRVR0E7AN0A

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#32

Post by krisoft »

bamboozled wrote: post #18
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?

I was down voted before for asking a similar question, I have no idea what the plan is but I struggle to understand what the future looks like when we literally have nothing to do. Why would I even bother with a hobby when a robot can do everything 10x better? Maybe just "enjoy nature" would be the best bet if we survive the robot wars.

> Why would I even bother with a hobby when a robot can do everything 10x better?

Because you enjoy doing it. It is about the journey, not the destination. It always was and will be.

> what the future looks like when we literally have nothing to do

Human life is about finding meaning. Go to a book club, learn sailing, dance at a beach, practice blacksmithing, learn to draw the best circle you can freehand, give a trully world class massage. Just ideas from the top of my head. I’m sure you can come up with even better ones.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#33

Post by modeless »

jiggawatts wrote: post #27
owenpalmer wrote: post #11

At 2:54, it struggles to pick up the cloth for 10 seconds (100 seconds real-time). This may just be a software fix, but I wonder about the idea of exchanging tools for different tasks. In this case some kind of pincher-vacuum or roller-grip might have done the job better.

Picking up cloth with a robot remains firmly in the “unsolved hard problems” bucket. Use that to gauge the believability of industry heads predicting the timeline of “robots in every home”. I’m not even particular skilled at laundry but I can easily manipulate clothes in complex ways at speed. I can use a sudden flick to turn things inside out, or flat-fold a mattress cover. I suspect we’re at least five years away f…

I agree, five years is a decent estimate. But think how crazy that is! We're talking about capabilities that were firmly in the realm of far-off sci-fi three years ago. Capabilities that could revolutionize the market for all physical labor. Only five years away?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#34

Post by ho23i43242324 »

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?

Nothing.

I'm 99% sure that old ideas of eugenics will crop up massively (together with a new strain of pro-colonial history-denialism in the "truth-spouting" right), and a new age of genocidal wars with robots will take place for taking over material resources.

We under estimate how much of "Western morality" has nothing to do with the "goodness of our hearts" (just see the propaganda for wars over the years). Very dark times ahead.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#35

Post by marsten »

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?

There are many jobs where people prefer other people to fill those roles, irrespective of the ability of machines. Most people don't want to watch computers play chess, or spend money on computer-generated art, or go to a robot therapist.

Ah, you say: But such jobs don't employ many people! Most people do things that nobody cares if they're automated away. Surely we can't all be chess players or artists?

To which I say: The job market will adapt, and people will move into those jobs where customers prefer to have a human. We have no real idea what those jobs are today, but some of them might be the things you wish you had more of, but are too expensive for most of us to hire someone for. (Interior decorator? Personal chef? ...)

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#37

Post by seventhtiger »

aljgz wrote: post #28
tonygrue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 coca cola. Many important wellbeing factors are not actually blocked by finance, like healthcare and education. Even if you take all the rich people's money and repurpose to education not much will change. Maybe an iPad for every kid, but what good does that do?

Housing is actually a great example. Real estate has a way of sucking up entire GDPs worth of money. As a country you can't pay your way out of housing problems. Look at something like China which has been consistently overbuilding housing for decades now. They still have housing issues.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#38

Post by emmanueloga_ »

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 our current society :-).

If everybody had their basic needs covered, that should actually lead to more prosperity and reduced crime, leading to more people being able to produce superior knowledge, art and enterprises of all sorts. To make science or art or whatnot, you first need to be able eat!

The question of whether Silicon Valley's "AI luminaries" are genuinely pursuing this utopia or have a more selfish hidden agenda is another matter entirely.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#39

Post by torlok »

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?

Hopefully we transition into a post-work society. Socialist countries will stick the landing, while the bottom of the American society plunges more into poverty. It's never too late to stop voting for people who despise you, and think that "temporary hardships" are necessary as they plan to cut government spending.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#40

Post by emmanueloga_ »

bamboozled wrote: post #18
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?

I was down voted before for asking a similar question, I have no idea what the plan is but I struggle to understand what the future looks like when we literally have nothing to do. Why would I even bother with a hobby when a robot can do everything 10x better? Maybe just "enjoy nature" would be the best bet if we survive the robot wars.

I don't get this feeling... wouldn't you want to play soccer like Messi? Or play guitar like Hendrix? (etc..).

There can be pleasure in being a spectator, but being a performer, at least to me, is 1000 times more fulfilling. I don't care if someone else can do it, even a robot... I want to do that myself! A society with more space for personal ambitions and less need to hustle for food sounds great to me.

Post reply on HN