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

91–100 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#91

Post by mch82 »

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?

Your question is great. It’s easy to forget that people are the point, not the tech.

When I was in college, automation was envisioned to reduce injuries to people, increase access to goods, and to create more discretionary time. Somehow we’ve lost the focus on human outcomes.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#93

Post by Nevermark »

_yb2s wrote: post #88
ryandrake wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If robotics and AI are doing all the work, what are the former workers going to do for money? Nothing. They won’t have money. It’s not like the rich will have 1e6 x the poor. The poor will have nothing at all. The future is a tiny elite leisure class with all the wealth and property and access to robotics and automation that does all the work for them and a huge underclass with nothing, nothing to do, and no access t…

If only the ultra rich can afford and use these technologies, and they no longer employ or involve the poor- isn’t that the same as the rich simply not existing for most practical purposes? What stops “the poor” from continuing to have a thriving economy on their own, offering their own non-robotic and non-AI goods and services to one another like they already do now? Essentially if AI and robotics are so expensive t…

> What stops “the poor” from continuing to have a thriving economy on their own

There can be a large class of poor, but it still be cheaper for a poor person to get their goods & services (as they can) from the corporations with the automation to provide them for a fraction of the cost, and of higher quality, than someone without capital can.

When poor people get money, they want whatever technology and services the middle class or above have. They want to move up.

They don’t want to buy handmade arts & crafts from each other.

The Industrial Revolution took resources. You can’t recreate that while poor.

They are not going to recreate farming either. They won’t have the land, water rights, etc

And hunting & gathering isn’t a fallback.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#94

Post by torlok »

bamboozled wrote: post #82
torlok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the case already? As most people, I don't have the best opinion on contractors, but you can always hire somebody better than you for the job, if you have the money.

I'm into woodworking and carpentry, I don't usually don't hire carpenters because they'll do a better job than me I hire them because I don't have the time to do the job myself.

Fair, but how will robots change that?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#95

Post by smolder »

steveoscaro wrote: post #85
smolder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla Optimus is so far a special effect, not a real thing. Currently you're better off hiring the person piloting the awkward robot to fold your clothes than having them pilot an unnecessary robot.

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.)

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#96

Post by p1esk »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #89
p1esk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen to those of us who are not rich but also not poor? Upper middle class with net worth between 1 and 10 million?

Bifurcation of society with fewer and fewer people moving upward in social status. The poor have nothing. The bar of assets required to not become poor continues to raise. For example, let’s say you have 5M NW, and 75% of it is in an uninsurable residential real estate. Your house is at high risk of being destroyed, and if it does you barely have the assets required to rebuild. If this happens twice you are have noth…

Let’s say I have 10M in stocks. What is the optimal strategy to not end up as “have nothing poor” in an automated economy?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#97

Post by nyokodo »

krisoft wrote: post #32
bamboozled wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tru…

> 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?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#98

Post by derektank »

CaptainFever wrote: post #78
torlok wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you mean social-capitalist (welfare state) countries? There's almost no socialist countries nowadays, perhaps maybe North Korea and Cuba. But yes, I share your vision for a post-scarcity society.

I would argue Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to a post-scarcity / socialist society we have to compare to. Something like 70% or citizens are employed by the state of Saudi Arabia (which obviously is funded by oil sales). All you have to do is swap out the migrants that do all the real labor for robots and you basically have a sneak peak at the future

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#99

Post by erulabs »

It almost feels easier to disassemble and resew the shirt from recycled fabric. I’m mostly joking, but my point is that physical AI probably implies a complete rethink of every individual routine from first principles: why fold the shirt at all? Why not just-in-time-ironing? We’re focusing on the hard problems because we’re imitating how a human with limited resources would approach the issue.

If you asked a robot to provide you with a fresh and clean shirt every morning - would a home washing machine come into the equation? My best answer is “maybe”, which implies some huge portion of our normal routines will disappear instead of being automated.

If restaurants require no staff, why even have a home kitchen? We’re heading towards a cultural revolution as much as a technology one.

It’s time to find out what value our values really have.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#100

Post by p1esk »

Uehreka wrote: post #87
p1esk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen to those of us who are not rich but also not poor? Upper middle class with net worth between 1 and 10 million?

Net worth of over $1 million is rich. An extremely small number of people have that much money. Those people will probably be fine, though if you’re in that $1-10million zone you could be at risk of running out of money eventually if you don’t end up being one of the people owning the automation.

1% of world population have more than $1M. That will be almost 100M people globally. I don’t see how you can own anything substantial (eg datacenter, power plant, factory, etc) if you have less than 100M net worth, hence my original question.
Post reply on HN