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

Gemini Robotics

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 588 posts

Re: Gemini Robotics

#491

Post by devmor »

ithkuil wrote: post #442
devmor wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using AI for image recognition is to visual detection as Orange Juice is to beverages.

Sure. What they will call AI [an unspecified number of years in the future] will be compared similarly the the SOTA AI models. For long time the term "artificial intelligence" has just gone out of favour, but I do remember the days where a good AI research lab had a bunch of symbolics lisp machines

I mean that we have visual recognition systems that do not use any kind of machine learning whatsoever and those are the majority of systems in use at industrial scale.

Laser interferometry and DCT image distance, primarily.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#492

Post by BWStearns »

decimalenough wrote: post #380

I always thought that Asimov's Laws of Robotics ("A robot may not injure a human being" etc) were an interesting prop for science fiction, but wildly disconnected from the way computing & robotics actually work. Turns out he was just writing LLM prompts way ahead of his time.

It was a big miss calling them "prompt engineers" and not robopsychologists.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#493

Post by danans »

hskalin wrote: post #473
dzhiurgis wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is doing house chores for me or remaining 99% of population...

You sure about the 99%? A lot of middle class people in developing countries have part time house help

It's quite telling that these discussions often end up at conclusion that we are becoming a developing (or 3rd world) country again, and not Star Trek society.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#494

Post by danavar »

jansan wrote: post #447
danavar wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or put a few 6 axis arms on a track that goes throughout a home and have an instant home assistants

Those tracks could be at the ceiling. Imagine a robot arm in a kitchen that is dangling from the ceiling. It could be helping when needed and disappear in a cupboard after that.

exactly exactly - I already want to buy one lol.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#495

Post by Philpax »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #453
metayrnc wrote: post #2

I am not sure whether the videos are representative of real life performance or it is a marketing stunt but sure looks impressive. Reminds of the robot arm in Iron Man 1.

> Reminds of the robot arm in Iron Man 1. It's an impressive demo but perhaps you are misremembering Jarvis from Iron Man which is not only far faster but is effectively a full AGI system even at that point. Sorry if this feels pedantic, perhaps it is. But it seems like an analogy that invites pedantry from fans of that movie.

The robot arms in the movie are implied to have their own AIs driving them; Tony speaks to the malfunctioning one directly several times throughout the movie.

Jarvis is AGI, yes, but is not what's being referred to here.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#496

Post by nick111631 »

rglover wrote: post #270
gatinsama wrote: post #100

The problem with Google is that their ad business brings so much revenue that no other product makes sense. They will use whatever they learn with robots to raise their ad revenue, somehow.

My bet is on transparent, contextual ads. Assuming the product from all of this is having a robot in your house, when you're doing something like cooking, it will say things like "have you considered trying an oat milk base? Oatly is a great option. I can Doordash some for you if you'd like..."

It'll be simpler than that. For every 5 minutes of robot work you have to watch 30 seconds of unskippable video ads or else it quits working.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#497

Post by namaria »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #337
05 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It felt extra fake - the cherry picked people lacking rudimentary mechanical skills, using the ~$50K set of Franka Emika arms vs their default 'budget' ALOHA 2 grippers, the sheer luck that helped the robots put the belt on instead of removing it from the pulley. The trick was in that the belt was too tight for an average human to put on with brute force, and disabling the tensioner or using tricks would require bett…

Yeah, they went WAY over the top when they told the human to "make it look hard." A significant distraction from how impressive the robot actually is.

All while the robot video was at 3x speed to even keep up with the human

Re: Gemini Robotics

#498

Post by IX-103 »

riku_iki wrote: post #275
echelon wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google uses their insane ad revenue to subsidize the Xerox Parc / Bell Labs of the current generation. Waymo, DeepMind, Gemini Robotics. They're killing it and leading the entire market. It's not just researchers. Engineers at Google get to spin up products and throw spaghetti at walls, too. Google has more money than God to throw around. Google's ad dominance will probably never go away unless antitrust action by th…

> Google's ad dominance will probably never go away unless antitrust action by the FTC/DOJ/EU force a breakup. chatgpt has good chance to kill google search -> kill google.

If Chatgpt replaces Google search then it will be effectively signing it's own death warrant.

ML models like chatGPT rely on the open web for training data, particularly for information about recent events. But models like chatGPT are horrible about linking to their sources. That means that sources that rely on ad revenue or even donations to exist will effectively disappear as chatGPT steals all of the traffic. With no cash flow, the sites with current data disappear. With no new training data, chatGPT stagnates.

ChatGPT is basically a parasite on the free and open web - taking content but not giving back.

Re: Gemini Robotics

#499

Post by fwipsy »

krapp wrote: post #481
decimalenough wrote: post #380

I always thought that Asimov's Laws of Robotics ("A robot may not injure a human being" etc) were an interesting prop for science fiction, but wildly disconnected from the way computing & robotics actually work. Turns out he was just writing LLM prompts way ahead of his time.

It's funny because Isaac Asimov would have come up with some convoluted logical puzzle to justify why the robot went on a murderous rampage - because in sci-fi robots and AI are all hyperrational and perfectly rational - when in real life you'd just have to explain that your dying grandmother's last wish was to kill all the humans, because a real AI is essentially a dementia-riddled child created from the Lovecraftia…

Worth noting is that the article is from April 2022 and used gpt-3. The "friend" was an imaginary friend, not a dead friend, and so probably more prone to taking actions which would appear in a fictional context. From my research it looks like the base gpt-3 model was just a text predictor without any RLHF or training to be helpful/harmless.

Certainly AI safety isn't perfect, but if you're going to criticize it at least criticize the AIs people actually use today. It's like arguing cars are unsafe and pointing to an old model without seatbelts.

It's not surprising at all that people are willing to use AIs even if they give dangerous answers sometimes, because they are useful. Surely they're less dangerous than cars or power tools or guns, and all of those have legitimate uses which make them worth the risk (depending on your risk tolerance.)

Re: Gemini Robotics

#500

Post by sepositus »

freeopinion wrote: post #463
ggm wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're pointing out you need to be cautious assuming a robot can be economically, sustainably deployed to do jobs in environments which are challenging for electro-mechanical systems. An example: A friend worked on accurate built-in weighing machines for trucks, which could measure axle weight and load balance to meet compliance for bridges and other purposes. He found it almost impossible to make units whic…

It's interesting to think that it is more feasible (including economically) to expose humans to bleaches, acids, catalyst materials, electricity, abrasives, and sharp edges.

You're restating a one-sided view without acknowledging its real problems. The money has to come from somewhere, and depending on the cost, it may be true that no one is willing to pay for their garbage bill doubling, for example. Then maybe people choose to dump their garbage on the street or in protected parks, and we see an impact on local wildlife.

It's necessary to follow things to their logical conclusion.

Post reply on HN