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?
Our First Generalist Policy
61–70 of 249 posts
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#62Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#63I 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?
We could transition to an open access economy, with universal basic services (instead of monetary income), open source products and federated and trade-free coordination of resource flows. We could liberate ourselves from the compulsory race of competition and its manifold symptoms.. no time pressure, no low-quality products and we could become friends with the machines to avoid (ani)matrix-like escalation..
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you just enjoy things you like doing? Not everything needs to be a grind or a side hustle.
I do, but I also enjoy the fact I'm making something, what is the point of making something when I can have something else make it. It's similar to deciding to dig up my front yard by hand to build a new garden rather than use a machine. You can do it, but you know it's pointless. Now imagine when EVERYTHING is like that? It will be strange.
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#65I 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?
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#66Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#67At 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, and I think it will be even longer before people are comfortable with a clothes-folding robot in their home even if the capability is technically there.
As much as I would love to never fold a t-shirt again, I’m also not willing to pay likely thousands of dollars to put a bulky set of robotic arms in my laundry room that moreover pose a non-zero risk of injuring somebody, particularly a child. If it’s skilled enough to turn things inside out with a sudden flick, it’s also skilled enough to poke your eyes out with a flick.
I feel like if the goal is to simplify people’s lives, the entire process of laundry needs to be re-imagined, from the basket to the return to closet. It should essentially be a black box - I toss my dirty clothes in a hole, and behind the scenes the washer and dryer decide what to wash in what loads and when, fold or hang the dry clothes and return them to storage (drawer or closet). The home layout may need to be reimagined to place all of these unit operations in close proximity.
Or, you reimagine washing/drying as more of a clean-in-place process - like the closet doubles as both storage and as washer/dryer and the robotics move the cleaning supplies to the clothes, rather than vice versa. The same could be applied to dishes - the dishwasher is the cabinet.
Another interesting opportunity arises when you automate batch handling - you can spread out the cleaning process to be more continuous. Rather than do huge loads, you can soak each item as they become dirty and take more advantage of residence time, which will use the water and detergents more effectively.
There are so many opportunities for reinvention of cleaning processes in the home, it feels like automating the way humans currently do it is inefficient for many reasons.
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine these kind of robots in the home of of 2 or more kids. Roomba doing vacuuming, this robot doing laundry and folding. Parents would be spending quality time with her kids, helping them with their homework or helping with their practice - sports or music, instead of getting frustrated looking pile of laundry and kids don't have nothing to wear. Kids now have more questions due to quality engagement. So they wou…
I find household chores to be a welcome break from paying constant attention to our children. They are exhausting. We deserve some "me time".
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#69(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…
Re: Our First Generalist Policy
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There's no need for UBI imho. If the technology really advances to that point it will be very cheap to live.
Yes. But the flipside of that is that it's hard to earn money. The cheaper it is to live, the harder it is to make money.
The problem UBI solves is when most humans can no longer compete with machines in the economic system. Once that happens there are only a few options, and the least unpleasant is simply to give them (us) money tokens.