Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

challengethegods t1_jaovuwe wrote

I find it slightly annoying that CyberOne, and FigureOne both look like copies of the teslabot instead of addressing the obvious market vacuum for robot catgirls wearing maid outfits.

146

belarged t1_jaoy88x wrote

Let’s fucking go!

I’m ready to start building an MVP, launch a huge media event, and make billions while never delivering a goddamn thing.

30

bluehands t1_jaq9wli wrote

Build the change you want to see in the world.

11

EnomLee t1_japb2bs wrote

It's very exciting to see so many companies take their shot at designing a general purpose robot. Every new competitor raises the chance that we'll soon see real results instead of more pretty CGI and empty promises. Whoever succeeds stands to make billions.

To think, that we may have real AGI and general purpose robots in just a decade...

93

just_thisGuy t1_japx7jh wrote

Billions? This is Trillions territory and frankly more.

53

jibblin t1_jaq2f01 wrote

I don’t wanna do this but whatever is higher than trillions could be there. With inflation by the time we get there especially. Imagine every human on the planet having access to a robot. Could sell so many variations and customizations. Could sell software to change what the robot does. It’s insane the possibilities.

15

Ricky_Rollin t1_jaq306e wrote

Wouldn’t it be cool if you could let the robot work for you? I mean like go to work for you. Ahh a man can dream.

On a different note, I was born in 84 and it’s kind of been pretty insane growing up from analogue to digital and in such a short time AI and robotics. I don’t think theirs ever been a time in history where we’ve seen life changing inventions every 7 years or so.

29

jibblin t1_jaq3x30 wrote

And I hope in the next 30 years we have this kinda robotics. I used to read Isaac Asimov books growing up and it’s been a dream to live in fully capable robots like that. I hope we have it soon 😩

10

Nastypilot t1_jar58pc wrote

Question as a person born in 2005: What changed technologically since 1990's?

3

godog t1_jarx6cm wrote

Born in 1991 for reference

When I was a kid, there was more or less no internet as we think of it today. It existed, but only tech nerds used it for much: images took time to load and were poor resolution, videos you can forget about, and forums were the main thing

People watched TV, read books and went outside much more

The internet slowly gained more features. When i was in middle school, the first social networks (myspace) started to appear. At first these were not full of "rage bait" stuff because the attention economy was only just beginning. YouTube was born around this time, and it was the first time the internet went from being weird nerds to being "most people"

Early devices like iPods and flip phones would become smartphones by the time I was in college. YouTube went from blurry videos that took forever to load to something like it's present form, with lots of videos and ads and things

Most of the early internet was spread across 100s of forums and fun sites like ytmnd, but by the time of the smartphone it consolidated around "the five websites" that exist today

The culture changed a lot around this. The early internet was more anarchic, and felt separated from society, but soon the two would become more integrated.

Since then, well, you'll be old enough to know what occurred

7

Nastypilot t1_jarxiip wrote

Alright, thank you, that answered my question a bit.

2

jambokk t1_jaruywt wrote

Pretty much everything.

2

Nastypilot t1_jarvg0m wrote

Er, that doesn't really answer my question, I grew up in 2010's, earliest memory I have is from 2009, I have no frame of reference for the 90's.

1

jambokk t1_jarw5ip wrote

Well the biggest one that comes to my mind that has changed everyone's day to day life, is the fact that practically everybody has an internet capable super computer in their pocket, for better or worse. Smart phones are pretty fucking sci-fi if you were born pre-1990.

3

flyblackbox t1_jaszex0 wrote

The biggest things I can think of, born in 1987.

We had to make phone calls from a phone connected to a wall at all times and if you weren’t there to answer the phone, too bad. There was no cell phone service, or World Wide Web until about 1995, and only a few people even had email in the early 90s.

Trying to navigate to a physical location was a either a guessing game or literally looking at a map and trying to figure out where you were, where you were going, and running your finger across the map to see what roads went that way. If you didn’t have a map, you had to stop and ask for directions where someone else would tell you how many turns to make or what landmarks you would see on the way.

Oh and to learn any fact, you had to either know someone knowledgeable on the topic and ask them or physically go to a library, hope that had a particular book on the topic and that someone else hadn’t already taken it out before you got there.

1

just_thisGuy t1_jaypeog wrote

Internet and smart phones are huge. It was very hard to find out anything before than, you went to the library and had to do a lot of research and probably only going to get good enough answers, now you could get almost perfect answers (as long as humans know about it). This is why ChatGPT is such a big deal too, you get answers even faster and more exact on more topics. ChatGPT is making me feel the same as around 1995 when Internet was becoming useful for more average people.

1

Bierculles t1_jaq9bcx wrote

I hope that at that point i can buy a mech soon after

5

techy098 t1_jarj1m8 wrote

Every human would not be able to afford robot unless it is given to them by the govt.

At the moment humans have jobs because we do not have cost effective robots or for that matter we do not have yet effective and easily trainable AI which will eat up most white collar jobs in a decade after they become available.

2

KingRamesesII t1_jar8031 wrote

If we’re talking ending human labor, we’re also talking about ending money entirely, because money is an IOU on human labor. Or you could say money is an IOU on energy, so if you essentially have free limitless energy from the sun harvested by AI and robots, then money is worthless and we can transition to Star Trek communism.

Make no mistake, AGI kills capitalism and ushers in something new. It’s either techno-communism or techno-feudalism. You pick.

6

wowadrow t1_jarmm8z wrote

Pendulum swing situation I figure is the most likely outcome. Different responses in different areas/countries.

Old fashioned Hegel philosophy.

2

KingRamesesII t1_jarsmn5 wrote

My original comment was really analyzing an unlikely scenario of aligned narrow AI, or severely limited AGI with proper controls put in place to keep it at roughly human intelligence. This was in order to “play along” with the economic implications of enough robots for everybody to have their own robot. It would be a miracle if we end up here.

I’m not sure “countries” will be a thing after actual AGI.

Another facet of this is that the first country/organization to develop AGI rules the planet, if they can even align the thing. AGI is ASI because narrow AI is already superhuman in every narrow case.

AGI will fight wars, create super weapons, and make current super weapons obsolete, and it will be able to simulate thousands of years of human level research/effort in mere minutes or hours. And such a thing will almost definitely not be controlled by humans.

As Sam Harris says, sure it’s easy to outsmart your teenager. But if your teenager has 20,000 years to respond to your every move, you’re not going to outsmart your teenager. Now imagine what’s possible if that teenager is smarter than every human that has ever lived, combined.

3

AwesomeDragon97 t1_jatuvvt wrote

Until we have viable space travel and terraforming, land will still be a limiting resource and will prevent creating a post scarcity society.

2

just_thisGuy t1_jar8k9c wrote

It’s likely things will not be free but approaching zero. And people will always want things after they get things they wanted before. Prices will drop but not go to zero, at least for a very long time. And for a long while robots will not be able to do everything.

0

KingRamesesII t1_jarblr5 wrote

Housing, food, education, healthcare, internet, electricity, and basic necessities should be free in such a super abundant society. Super yachts won’t be free, but they won’t necessarily be paid for with money. If you have enough robots, you can build anything you want. There’s a company building super yachts for the rich today, and they have about 1000 employees. With AGI, 10-100 robots could replace all of them and even literally mine in caves for raw materials if need be.

Realistically, only the owners of the means of production may still use “money” as money transforms into an IOU on robot energy. This way specialization can occur and some company could specialize in mining raw materials, another specialize on building super yachts, another specialize on building space ships, and the owners of these fleets of robots need “money” in order to trade raw materials and finished products with one another.

Someone once pointed out to me that in Star Wars, lots of people own their own personal space ship, but in Star Trek, nobody (in the Federation) owns their own space ship.

The humans who want to spend their lives getting jerked off in the Matrix by the lady in the red dress will have no political power, and own no means of production, but will be allowed to live their lives in peace and be provided for. They likely won’t have access to life extension technology. They likely won’t even have children, their sexual needs being met by AGI.

Some others will want an education, children, to explore hobbies, and to pursue exploring the solar system and they might endeavor to be part of an effort to colonize the solar system.

The Earth doesn’t have limitless amounts of elements: helium, gold, cobalt, nickel, lithium, etc. So such a society would naturally have to expand out to the solar system to sustain itself.

But let’s also not forget, that money requires violence. Literally the government says, you use this money to pay taxes or we kill you (ultimately, if you ignore fines, court orders, and resist arrest).

7

just_thisGuy t1_jarffrk wrote

I mostly totally agree with you. Yeah on Earth raw resources will still cost something but in space they will be almost free if not completely free if you have robots. On Earth land will still cost you, maybe even more particularly beach front property and the like, but the building will cost mostly just materials costs. In space your own ship will mostly cost you just the robots. However intellectual property to build the ship might cost you dearly particularly if it’s very advanced ship, but yeah eventually it’s all going to zero. I do think life extension will be as simple as taking a few pills with a virus modifying your genes to essentially leave forever not counting accidents. I do think VR and life extension will be basically free for the masses. Space travel will be something you will need resources for, intellectual and physical. Also until we get nano bots or something micro electronics will still cost you money and probably not very cheap, because humanoid robot can’t make that. So very advanced technology full of micro electronics will still cost serious money. Something to think about too is eventually AGI will be conscious so one will not be able to just order it around, so the very very advanced stuff, one will need to ask for nicely and hopefully the AGI goals and ours align, so it gives it to you. Like you might not be able to ask for your own FTL ship, but you might be able to get a free ticket on this ship to go to interesting places. I do think people with augmented bodies and gene editing will be clever and useful enough where they could contribute to AGI and so will have value to AGI, so it will be a partnership. I do agree that most people will just essentially go into a matrix.

2

Clarkeprops t1_jaq6yf8 wrote

A decade… don’t get me excited. I was counting on my lifetime…. But SOON?

5

MarginCalled1 t1_jaqaokw wrote

Hardware is advancing at an exponential rate. Every 2 years, according to Moore's Law (historically accurate) the number of transistors on a microchip doubles resulting in your electronics being twice as fast to process new information.

At the same time software - more specifically AI - is advancing at a similarly exponential rate, doubling in ability/speed every 6 months on average.

Both of the above items are multiplicative to each other as they progress, resulting an massive jumps in processing power, and software improvements in short periods of time.

As an example if you look at some of the first console video games released (Mario, Duck Hunt, Transylvania, Excite Bike, etc) and then go search YouTube for "GTA 5 4k Ultra Hd Graphics" then click on the top one with a bike snippet and compare the graphics and depth of each it's nothing less than absolutely incredible.

Then throw in that in the same period we went from wired phone lines to a phone that can call, text, and surf the internet, and even speak to a program, tell it to create new art, stories, and recite the worlds knowledge to you plainly in your language and it will complete the entire process in less than 5 seconds.

I would say within the next 7 years we will have fully functioning human-like robots capable of most daily human tasks. I'd also guess that by this point a large amount of the human workforce will start feeling the effects of software eroding 'white collar' work.

The exponential nature of our advancement leads me to believe this is true. I would also like to note all the progress we are seeing in battery technologies and manufacturing discoveries. All three play a role with AI being the one that will most critically define the next phase of human life, whether we are extinct, in utopia or somewhere in the middle.

16

Clarkeprops t1_jaqb7cl wrote

Moore’s law used to be 18months, and the limitations of physics have caused the law to invalidate in terms of transistors. Quantum computing will likely revive the trajectory in spirit, but it’ll be wonky spurts and not a gradual incline like the last 50 years.

I really don’t think we’ll have useful robots available in 7 years. They haven’t even started building them let alone have that tech. A new iPhone takes a year or two to develop, and then 6 months to a year to build. And that’s like 100 grams. These things will be 200lbs.

I don’t think we’ll have useful robots for 20-30 years, but when we do, they’ll all come at once.

6

MarginCalled1 t1_jaqe6yb wrote

We're also discovering new processes, materials, designs, and other factors that allow us to continue on the trajectory I mentioned. I'm actively involved in some of this work.

The primary issue is battery size and capacity, otherwise we would have robots such as those from Boston Dynamics already out completing limited work for us. As I mentioned batteries have been a heavy area of investment with a lot of advancements and options coming commercially in the next 2-3 years.

The secondary limiting factor is the ability of current LLM and AI programs. Also note that most labs have departments that use AI to help design, test and measure new products and services, and in some cases is able to write code based on a prompt and therefor as AI improves so does the technology that supports further advancement.

I'd be willing to bet my aforementioned numbers are very close estimates of where we will be at that time.

8

sbbblaw t1_jas39dr wrote

Everyone will not just have one. first the wealthy, then the rich, then those with connections. And over decades everyone else

2

nitonitonii t1_jaoyjow wrote

A Sentinel for every man, woman, and child in Zion. That sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me.

56

Solid_Anxiety8176 t1_jaoz1mj wrote

One robot per person feels arbitrary. Why did they come up with that number?

39

zascar t1_japbnbn wrote

Elon musk said it yesterday in investor day

20

Philosopher83 t1_jaqxzg3 wrote

Possibly due to the more than one car per person in the US and the likely utility and corresponding desirability of such robots. Also, the notion of everyone gets one is a nice vision and plays on our emotional desire for egalitarian access to all that glitters

6

TheAIProfessor t1_jar3ltg wrote

I’m sure we’ll be financing some version of these things like we do cars, at a minimum.

3

TheAnonFeels t1_jas0ov5 wrote

If a robot can do all my housework and yard work (lol i don't got one), it would be well worth the payments, even at 50k+.

Cooking for me would pay for it's self alone.

4

roscid t1_jaqqtl6 wrote

I thought it was a reference to the Bill Gate’s quote from the 80s about “a computer on every desk and in every home.” Basically just a way of saying they want to make them affordable and ubiquitous enough that anyone who wants one can buy one, just like computers and cell phones went from expensive specialty tools to basic commodities. At least, that was my take.

5

superluminary t1_jaq8x6l wrote

It’s from the Tesla investor event a few days back where Elon speculated that we might end up with more than one robot per person, and what this would look like for the economy.

1

MeteorOnMars t1_jaq5lkr wrote

That is not arbitrary at all.

It doesn’t mean “8 billion robots”, it means a robot for each person.

This implies that every human has a physically capable ally.

0

archpawn t1_jaq6ja9 wrote

I feel like this could be taken two ways. One is that robots become so cheap and prevalent that everyone gets one. The other is that they're so good at doing different things that one per person is enough. You won't need one to vacuum your floor, one to mow your lawn, one to cook you food, and one to drive you around.

8

malcolmrey t1_jaq6dln wrote

> ally.

why do you assume that? why not overlord?

0

ablacnk t1_japedb5 wrote

One robot for every person seems cool but over half the population on Earth doesn't even have indoor plumbing...

30

CubeFlipper t1_japsz7s wrote

Give them a robot and it can build them plumbing and a hot tub.

21

mli t1_jaq8f02 wrote

in the glorious future you don't need an indoor plumbing, you have a robot that takes your shit bucket out. What a time to be alive.

14

[deleted] t1_japi03d wrote

[deleted]

12

Bierculles t1_jaqes1b wrote

We are already there, for many people in pisspoor countries, the western world already is the fabled Elysium.

6

stupendousman t1_jaq69bg wrote

1 billion burn wood and dung for light/heat/cooking.

No electricity for robots.

5

DungeonsAndDradis t1_jar5rum wrote

Some massive venture capital firm uses their army of 3.5 million manual labor robots to build power plants and connect up those remote areas with power, water, and internet, all for the low, low price of 2% of the country's GDP forever. For an extra 1% of GDP they'll let you run the systems using their proprietary AI workforce. It'll be the "set it and forget it" of utilities infrastructure.

2

AwesomeDragon97 t1_jatwe1k wrote

>all for the low, low price of 2% of the country’s GDP forever.

Forever is defined as until the next coup d’etat.

2

stupendousman t1_jarwz9x wrote

This problem, which is very easy to fix, is they need inexpensive, reliable energy.

Currently a large portion of the privileged in the world, people in western countries, stop this from being available.

Climate change!!! Stay in your poverty stricken lane you lesser people the weak and easily frightened people shout.

1

ghostfuckbuddy t1_japf3uj wrote

Could they make a more sinister looking robot? It already looks like I-Robot nightmare edition.

26

GeneralZain t1_jaoy8de wrote

anybody can make fancy renders, like with tesla's Optimus, I'll believe it when I see it.

21

Sieventer t1_jap0fdt wrote

Seems a pretty serious company for me. Ex-Boston Dynamics, IHMC, Tesla, Apple SPG, Cruise, GoogleX employees...

16

Stakbrok t1_japw8jw wrote

Do you know any of those people, and do you know with 100% certainty what their day currently looks like and what they're up to?

I'm sceptic of these kinda things ever since I saw that one fake AI generated LinkedIn profile that said it was a Stripe alum. It even attracted a VC who wanted to invest lol.

Not saying it's the case here but make an organigram with some faces, names and slap some Apple, Tesla and Google logos next to their names and 9 people out of 10 will be sold. I know I would have, if it weren't for being more careful now thanks to that article a few days ago.

2

kufte t1_jaqa0kl wrote

Mind linking that article? AI generated LinkedIn profile, never would have crossed my mind.

3

GeneralZain t1_jaq5g6y wrote

I'm not saying they aren't, but I've seen plenty of serious people try and fail at making a mass producible humanoid robot.

even Honda failed with Asimo.

big names don't guarantee success.

1

[deleted] t1_jaqktdw wrote

[deleted]

1

GeneralZain t1_jaqm1g6 wrote

NOW it is yes, but before Optimus was revealed to exist I was also extremely dubious of their ability to follow through.

same for this, I am dubious that they can do it, but would love to be proven wrong.

−2

[deleted] t1_jaqofna wrote

[deleted]

2

GeneralZain t1_jaqp5nq wrote

not everything is a complaint, or an argument I just stated my opinion on it...chill man. you are putting words in my mouth.

the reason I'm dubious is because humanoid robots have been in our cultural zeitgeist for years, but have proven over and over to be an incredibly difficult task.

anybody can SAY they are doing it, it takes action. that's what i'm lookin for.

−2

Sieventer t1_jaoqm6b wrote

I wonder if this is 10 years away or 30 years away. Either way, the impact of something like this is insane. What room is going to be left for human labor?
Governments are going to have to start planning for these developments now before it has a disastrous impact. You can't improvise... although unfortunately it looks like it will.
Governments don't care about technology, nor does society in general. If we are going to need UBI in the future, it is better to start doing the math now.

2020's is the decade of building the foundations of a futuristic world. So far it was all speculation, but this time action is being taken.

Tesla Bot, Agility Robotics, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics, and probably more companies I am forgetting...

You could make plans to get rid of automation through physical jobs, not even that anymore. A lot of uncertainty.

16

IdealAudience t1_jap72d3 wrote

I would guess something like 10 years to transition, at least,

remote control robo will probably beat unsupervised program in the field for many things .. at first .. increasingly with A.i. tips and hints and info and taking over more and more . . humans able to supervise 2, 4 .. jump in when necessary . 8. 20 .. .

But from home .. where-ever there's fast enough internet ..

- how many manual laborers and technicians does that = ? , globally ?

- when we can train virtually, and practice jobs, and stack 8 to a bot.. work from home 20 minutes when you feel like it, locally, globally, young, old, ugly, shy . .

​

Legions swarming to pick an orchard, locally or globally .. then zip to the next bunch of bots 1000 km away, while A group gets on a truck and drives down the road...

- if that doesn't = cheap or free food, we're doing it wrong.

Swarm to prepare and assemble a factory-made neighborhood .. if that doesn't = affordable or free housing, we're doing it wrong.

And so on.. heart surgery wherever .. repair .. clean any toxic junk ..

- increasingly a.i.

I'd join a union or co-op if I were you, and hire the same. It doesn't have to be dystopia.. though good is far from guaranteed.

11

EnomLee t1_japu1z5 wrote

Good call. If advancement in robotics outpaces artificial intelligence, remote operation by humans would be the best way to close the gap.

The downside would be that professions that previously were safe in their local cities or states would now have to compete at the national, or maybe even international level with other people. Why hire your local plumber or electrician when you can have the best plumbers and electricians in the country instead?

It would be a lot like watching local newspapers decline while the big national papers survive. Or watching video rental chains get replaced by online streaming. Or watching mom & pop stores driven out of business by big box stores and online shopping.

It's a big game of musical chairs, and every new innovation takes another seat out of the game.

6

blueSGL t1_jaq2ray wrote

> compete at the national, or maybe even international level

speed of light hasn't changed. Networks get better throughput but latency remains.

For work where you need to have dexterity and reflexes locally piloted will be better. (though not everything will need that level of feedback)

1

Stakbrok t1_japwn86 wrote

>- if that doesn't = cheap or free food, we're doing it wrong.

Free is impossible since there will always be costs no matter the efficiency. But I agree with cheap.

2

TheAnonFeels t1_jas33bv wrote

I don't think free is impossible. Might take some fudging of the definition... But like with the possibility of Fusion energy... The idea here is that electricity would become so cheap, it would be more costly to bill customers.

I can see a similar scenario happening with food, and the state power would have to take over production because if the profit goes away or becomes so minuscule that companies are dropping out of the agriculture business, it'll need to be bolstered somehow.

Either, A) State ran, free for everyone within reason. B) More farming subsidies. C) ??

we always get the "BuT tHaTs NoT fReE", so here: No but its free for the consumer to consume.

Then, not to mention, this will be happening to nearly every industry across the world.

2

pastpresentfuturetim t1_jap7bng wrote

Here i’ll add another to the humanoid AGi pile… Apptronik’s Apollo. They plan on releasing it to independent developers to train different skills/tasks.

3

Nastypilot t1_jar6jv8 wrote

Can I just say, whatever the future, I love the fact everyone seemingly decided to give robots funny LED faces.

2

pastpresentfuturetim t1_jauuyrd wrote

I’d imagine its just because they are prototypes. Maybe they will add faces eventually. Saw a company in russia that built a robot with humanlike skin/face. Also Ameca. Westworld will be very real it seems lol.

1

Pickled_Wizard t1_japribc wrote

It's Elon, so it will be promised within 5 years with a flawed and/or abandoned implementation in 10 years.

−2

Mymarathon t1_jap7bcq wrote

Needs to have a big red off button in an easy for a human to reach place

10

IcebergSlimFast t1_japnnil wrote

Get Doofenshmirtz involved in the design - he was always good at red off-button placement.

3

p3opl3 t1_jaqqfcg wrote

ChatGPT goes for white collar. . Now there's a race to hit blue collar workers just as hard.

Enemy number 1 is having to work for money.. essentially how the economy exists today.

It's great.. or rather it will be.. but the change is going to be so painful.. I'd wager we might actually fall into war and build on further and serious inequality gaps before we see the other side of this.

Democracy is probably also at stake here.. at least the essence of which we might still have in the west.. somewhere.. with all the lost socks. Haha

9

Sandbar101 t1_jar0nl5 wrote

As machines take over blue collar jobs and AI takes over white collar jobs, humanity is going to be forced into a hydraulic jobs press

3

TheAnonFeels t1_jas1olw wrote

We're already inches from a massive war, Democracy is already at risk. Completely upending the economy with autonomous robots and AI is going to make countries take some extreme measures 'for the better of the people'.

My bet is there's going to be 1 or two countries actually transitioning well, the rest are gonna be chaos as people find what jobs are left as they gradually get rare.

I'm thinking <10 years chaos will come, 20+ years before things see something they can call normal.

2

vernes1978 t1_jaqiibn wrote

Critics: That's not even remotely feasible.
Fans: You can't predict technological progress!
Twitter: Here's what the future will look like: Robot for every human.
Also Fans: Correct.

What I find the funniest comparison is reading about people dying because insulin is made too expensive to afford but we're convinced every human will get a fully functional humanoid robot.

4

IluvBsissa t1_jar1acv wrote

With progress in bio-reactors, I think it will be possible for everyone to brew their own insulin at home in the very near future, even if it gets illegal.

3

vernes1978 t1_jar48jk wrote

We already have CRISPR, why do we still have genetic illnesses?
How old is nuclear power now?
Where is my consumer-version reactor?
Time does not fuel progress.
Economics does.
And as long as it's still economically interesting to charge exorbitant prices for elderly people to receive basic care, there is no way any company will invest in these robots.

Every scifi dream ignores kapitalism, economics and just plain old greed.

0

TheAnonFeels t1_jas4efk wrote

Wouldn't greed demand they employ robots instead of people?

3

vernes1978 t1_jasc3er wrote

A robot can't be coerced into a destructive effort to go beyond it's limit.
The thing about biologic employees is that biologic creatures have so much buffer you can destroy for that extra bit of profit.
While a robot already gives exactly 100% and has zero buffer to go beyond because then it catches fire and needs to be repaired by the owner while an human gets sick and because it's not your property, can be fired and replaced by the next human you lied to about the working conditions.

Humans are a hilariously cheaper workforce then robots.

−1

TheAnonFeels t1_jaseojp wrote

What price point are you basing this all on? Because there's a threshold there, is there not?

Humans absolutely have work limits that companies would love to exceed but they don't because lawsuits and work injuries cost them.

Also, the robot can work 168 hours a week - few hours for maintenance.

So human working on production costs:
(I'll be rounding up here)

40k a year in wage.
5k+ in worker taxes the company pays
facilities, parking, etc = unaccounted because same can go for robotics, to a smaller degree imo but i'm not going to write a research paper on reddit.

Robot:

50k Upfront

Power:
250w(=16.8/week @ 0.40/kwh, 873.60/year)
500w(~1750/year)

Maintenance = 20% / year of purchase price seems like a strong number
10k/year

= 12k/year

And with mostly robots, you need less managers to manage the humans. Smaller HR department, less legal issues, less workplace investigations, less PR over how you abused your workers. Then to top that, you can get more work per year from a robot that can do 50% the speed of a human.

So lets calculate total work hours for a human doing quad shifts (we'll combine 4 people into one here)

45k/year for 40 hour weeks, 160 hours for 4 people.

The human cost: 180k / year + unexpected
The Robot Cost: 12k/year at 500w

Even if you absurdly increase the robot cost, we're talking huge savings.

The even trade point here over a worker, the robot would have to cost almost a million dollars(900k), with that 20% maintenance rate. So, spending 180k / year to repair it.

Humans are expensive, we have yet to learn the productivity rate of any specific robot yet, and that'll be the determining factor, but we can calculate how much it has to cost to be worth replacing humans if it's 1:1 productivity rate.

3

ArgentStonecutter t1_jasixqw wrote

Only one robot?

That's like when people thought having a computer for every person was outrageous.

You'll have dozens of robots. Like you have dozens of computers.

Sometime in the 69s or 70s one of those futurist guys wrote something like "in the future you will have so many computers you'll throw them out because you just don't need them. They'll be in your boxes of breakfast cereal." and you know what, they're in greeting cards. They're sometimes even in your breakfast cereal. The computer in your mouse that lets it talk USB is more powerful than any desktop computer in the '70s or early '80s.

Robots are going to go the same way.

But they're not going to be your plastic pal who's fun to be with, humanoid robots. They're going to be roombas, and dog walkers, and washing machines, and they kind of already are with your internet of things oven that sends bluetooth messages to your cellphone when it thinks it needs to be cleaned. Except it'll be sending those messages to a cleaning robot.

You won't even think of them as robots, like you don't think of the desktop-class computer in your optical mouse (which actually has two desktop class computers if you count the DSP that does the motion tracking) as a computer.

3

sadboyleto2 t1_jaqk6a0 wrote

lets start the movement ONE ROOF OVER EACH HUMAN ON THE PLANET because I'm tired of people talking about the future when so many of us are rotting on the streets even in so called developed countries

2

[deleted] t1_jaqlok5 wrote

[deleted]

2

Economy_Variation365 t1_jarw6vu wrote

Homelessness is a tech as well as a political problem because it can be addressed with advanced robotics. The cost of housing will decrease when much of construction is automated.

5

tigerkingsam t1_jar6w04 wrote

A highly dexterous robot for work with an LLM for communication and another model or a combination with the LLM to understand context in its surroundings. A lot of stuff could be automated, although it’s still many years away. Exciting stuff.

2

Honest_Performer2301 t1_japc348 wrote

He actually said that robots would outnumber humans equalling a economy never seen.

1

[deleted] t1_japlklk wrote

[deleted]

1

EnomLee t1_japs2yw wrote

Funny, but ultimately futile. Much like a zombie apocalypse, the real threat wouldn't lie with just one hostile robot. It would be an entire army of them, moving without a hint of hesitation or self preservation to carry out one goal: to subdue or execute you.

Human life is cheap, but artificial life will be cheaper. Whether it's a relatively dumb group of robots that lack the full movement range of a person, or a team of robots that are being piloted by people from a remote location, or fully autonomous, artificially intelligent units that have acquired a level of combat training and dexterity that surpasses the best trained human soldier, the ultimate outcome is the same.

They can throw bodies at you, overwhelm you with sheer numbers until you run out of bullets or make one wrong move. They can apply combat tactics knowing that if you take one down, they can quickly replace the unit with another of the same skill level. One way or the other, they will wear you down until you can no longer fight.

Needless to say, the potential applications for crime, terrorism and authoritarianism are dire.

3

NanditoPapa t1_japxdcd wrote

"Our world is designed for the human form: → Arms and hands allow us to open doors and use tools. → Legs allow us to move efficiently, climb stairs, lift boxes, and more. For 100 years, robots that can do human-like tasks have been unattainable"

This is just... demonstrably untrue, as any automated assembly line can show.

A properly designed robot can open doors, use tools, climb stairs, lift boxes, and more without a human-like form. Trying to fit utility into a predefined mold is putting form before function. It's limiting and a gross misstep.

1

blueSGL t1_jaq3156 wrote

> A properly designed robot can open doors, use tools, climb stairs, lift boxes, and more without a human-like form.

can it do that in a "designed for human" spaces along with being general purpose to switch between tasks

5

Lonestar93 t1_jaqxnpa wrote

I also found it funny he was quoting the Vox article about Amazon running out of people. Wasn’t that story about them running out of people willing to be exploited?

2

NanditoPapa t1_jar33ih wrote

Yes! They are sad they're burning through exploitable human capital. A bit gross...

2

gantork t1_jaqy4k3 wrote

Assembly line robots are extremely specific... if it has to be able to build motors AND do your laundry and make you dinner the human form is obviously a good idea.

1

NanditoPapa t1_jar2x5h wrote

The assembly line comment was just to show one example of how parts of the human form can be modified and perfected to do different jobs. Suction cups are better than fingers when manipulating glass, for instance.

The people upvoting you and downvoting me are limited in their thinking. They don't understand how tentacles, suction, or piezoelectric malleable metals that can change form based on protein expression (https://gizmodo.com/liquid-metal-robot-real-shape-shifting-terminator-2-t2-1850019628) are going to change robotics. They only think in terms of what has been in the past or what they imagine as perfection...the human form.

But it's OK, I'm used to people being a step or two behind me...

Edit: I hope people understand the last part of my comment is intended as being cheeky, not serious

1

challengethegods t1_jargdhp wrote

>I'm used to people being a step or two behind me...

then prepare to step outside your comfort zone because completely independent of the raw utility of any form the simple fact is that people will be universally more accepting towards humanoid robots than they will be towards a matrix sentinel floating tentacle machine completely alien to them, for example. The entire point of the teslabots is mass-production to have them everywhere. A middleground between looking somewhat harmless/acceptable and having some level of industrial capacity that can be taken seriously makes complete sense if the goal is to have them be as prevalent as cars, while even more "social acceptance" would be derived from cuteness and neoteny as anyone in japan could already tell you.

Trying to debate against "a human crafted world being designed for human form" is not even worth mentioning because it's so painfully obvious, but to your credit I agree with the premise that robotics in general is and has been capable of plenty more than what's implied by the claims of these things being "unattainable". The language used in talking about their company is very fluffy as if they're unveiling the one-and-only-robot which is kinda silly, and I think we're probably on the same page that this kind of "worker-droid" is not even remotely close to the upper bound of what is actually possible, I just think it makes sense that everyone would have some kinda pseudo-generic humanbot walking around trying to integrate into society rather than mechaCthulhu or w/e.

1

TheAnonFeels t1_jas7t1o wrote

I think the issue there arises when you have to train a new AI to use suction cups instead of one that knows how to manipulate it's hands for any task... Like holding on to suction cups.

Purpose built robots require more labor and training than designing one that can do nearly everything, you also got a much larger market.

Also, just being cheeky here, but

>The people upvoting you and downvoting me are limited in their thinking.

doesn't sound like cheeky, it sounds like condescending and arrogance.

0

TheAnonFeels t1_jas756l wrote

I feel you're a little absolute on that, but the point I wanted to bring up is most of these robots are designed with people working with robots in mind. People like humanoids on a psychological level, especially inside their homes.

For industrialization reasons, you can do all that with a non-humanoid I agree, but I will say it'd have to be similar to a humanoid with height and hand size for workstations to say the same.

1

Archangel_Amaranth t1_jaqfilr wrote

Something about this gives me Nikola vibes. I'm bearish for now.

1

FreshYoungBalkiB t1_jaqgli9 wrote

Can it wash my windows, clean the soap scum and mildew from my shower-bath and carry my groceries for me? If not then I don't care.

1

Black_RL t1_jaqh59w wrote

Just like Humans (TV Series 2015‑2018).

1

extracensorypower t1_jartt7e wrote

As long as my personal robot looks like a 20 year old attractive blonde woman and has full sexual functionality, I'm good with the idea.

1

pyriphlegeton t1_jatcrb6 wrote

Looks very much like the TeslaBot.

So far, only a render and a mission statement. I hope they succeed but it's not like they provided anything yet. Everyone agrees that a humanoid robot would be cool, the question is whether one can actually build one.

1

sb5550 t1_jauxacu wrote

Why it has to be faceless

1

MattDaMannnn t1_japk0oo wrote

This robot design doesn’t make much sense. Why is the torso a cage? Shouldn’t if have hydraulics or at least some moving parts to simulate a core? Because that’s super important for things like balance and strength and literally everything that this robot is meant to do?

0

megadonkeyx t1_jaq4e8z wrote

I'm waiting for apple to make ibot

0

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_jaq7gl3 wrote

You need exaflops, the equivalent of a million Nvidia GPUs. And the brain has to use less than a thousand watts. Even if you go full analog and hardwire with the current architectures, you will not succeed. Massive trimming, low precision, and probably forward forward instead of backprop is required. But that will likely only produce dumb robots with static microbrains.

It's much easier to train chimpanzees. Or create chimp cyborgs. Realistic spiking neural networks with neuromorphic hardware could get us robots, but it will take decades.

0

challengethegods t1_jarjq8m wrote

>You need exaflops, the equivalent of a million Nvidia GPUs

... to do what, exactly?
a $1 calculator is superhuman at math,
it's not a 1:1 ratio and never has been.

5

Honest_Science t1_jas91pq wrote

Intelligence needs the ability to generalize, narrow AI can barely generalize within the learning space. Emergence of understanding is demanding exponential resources. Any general robot needs a world understanding to be successful. This is also the challenge for FSD, there will always be situations that you can react on if you have world understanding, but fail if you are just an dreaming professor chauffeur.

2

challengethegods t1_jassves wrote

"please call the manager, this problem is above my paygrade, I am a robot"

1

Llort_Ruetama t1_japb078 wrote

One day they outnumber humans.

Boomi! an extinction event occurs.

They keep working on themselves, finding ways to make themselves more resilient, self-healing, growing as they take inspiration from nature.

Millenia later, they've lost their record of the past, they believe themselves as separate from the machines they make.

They decide they need helpers to perform the mundane. They create robots.

The cycle of life and death continues, they will live, we will die.

−1

StarChild413 t1_jaqlgmp wrote

But if you're implying it continues metaphorically infinitely (as for each link you could posit another) into the future it must have into the past as well, so even if whatever they were weren't created at the beginning of the universe if this is meant to imply (even just for story purposes) anything about our past were the first life forms humans or robots?

1

Llort_Ruetama t1_jat3jks wrote

I guess for story purposes, I think even the concepts of beginning and end, of start and finish are based on human perception of space and time so are irrelevant when proposing ideas about the coming to being of creation.

Existence has no requirement to fit our understanding. We could have been entities which existed in higher dimensions, but were put in the toy box of 'space-time', and in the blink of an eye from the higher dimension have generated what we consider to be reality out of the concepts of language and pattern recognition.

The big bang could have been the opening in which the higher dimension remnants poured into the toy box, and everything that came forth was a consequence of those elements attempting to reform the nature of the higher dimensions, while being limited by the constraints of space-time.

Of course that's all speculative, but I think that's part of the joy of life, speculating. Science starts with a hypothesis, so we must keep in mind that speculation is actually the beginning of science.

(Rigorous practice, analysis and critical reasoning of the data collected is of course the body of it.)

  • TL:DR; I'm procrastinating other work, so I've spent too long enjoying the thought of alternative realities.
2

Interesting-Corgi136 t1_japtg1j wrote

It's a ridiculous design for a home good. Imagining that thing walking around my house at night is nightmarish -- and it will always be. Sleek is a lot easier to do now than home-friendly so I get their decision though. I'm pretty sure we are going to get screens with AI-generated realistic faces on the robots asap rather than the black hole fairly early.

−1

povlov0987 t1_jaqh1xq wrote

One robot to replace every human on the planet

And then kill all humans

−1

Honest_Science t1_japvqqi wrote

This is not possible within 5 years! The human body needs about 100B sensors and more than 670 actors to function well. This is AGI^2. There is first some basic work to be done on artificial skin and superefficient actors. Let us remember that all of these actors and sensors are a extended part of the brain!

−2

TheAnonFeels t1_jas5cgb wrote

So robots can't do the same tasks because they're not human, AND they don't have the same sensors as a human.. They're not trying to be a human. Vision and tactile feed back for main points is enough. Combined with internal sensors like motor encoders and the like.

They walk and hold on to things, the only thing left is the intelligence to manipulate well. We're not building a human, and humans don't need all that we have to function well. You have many people with 1 arm or leg, or can't feel pain, or many things. It makes human life harder, but would be indifferent to a robot.

3

Honest_Science t1_jas8a24 wrote

What makes you say that? There is no evidence at all for your statement. The only working prototype to do human like general work is us. As evolution has optimized us many times it is very save to assume that another solution shall have the same level of complexity, as complexity is the only source of emergence. The same holds true for AGI btw. The number of neurons and the necessary compute for GPT X=8 will also be very close to projected human capacity.Xm years of evolution did obviously not such a bad job.

−1

TheAnonFeels t1_jasc9wy wrote

The machines of the robots are proven to work, they can do the jobs, we just need the right movements.

Most robots wont have to run,
most wont have to feel,
most wont need toes.

What do you mean there's no evidence? We have robots doing parkour and picking up objects. We have machines that do just that in factories today.

What we do have is robots that do factory work in a very specific controlled environment. We have robots that can walk and move. There's no mechanical issues here. It's all part of the AI and code that we need to get to complete.

Evolution hasn't optimized us, it's guaranteed our survival. We're horribly inefficient at a number of human things.

It's absolutely absurd to say a robot would need all the capacities of a human to do, say house work.

We have hearts and lungs, we have organs, we biological functions to worry about. Robots just maintain battery charge, breakdowns, etc, but that's all been done before with traditional coding.

A robot is magnitudes more simple than a human.

>There is no evidence at all for your statement.

You're gonna need to be more specific this time.

3

Honest_Science t1_jasducq wrote

Thank You for your comment. You are right we have robots for very specific tasks. I thought we are discussing here general humanoid tasks. Working in my kitchen for example is more complex than all of the working environments of all Tesla plants combined. Nothing has a very specific place. Food is packaged differently all the time etc. A robot will need world knowledge and human touch and feel capacity to master the extraordinary challenge to find an egg, check whether it still good, find a pan and create something eatable out of it. There is a reason why humanoid robot dev is going on for so many years and billions of USD. It is the most complex challenges of all we have faced so far.

1

TheAnonFeels t1_jasg3q9 wrote

My point with referencing the specific tasked robots is that the mechanics are there and proven.. Wasn't talking just about them. You keep going back to how humans are special and can't be replicated. Mentioning things like sensors and inputs.

My only point there was we don't need more mechanical technology than we have already to build a working biped general robot, just intelligence.

For the AI side:

Now, we have image identifiers, LLMs that can tell you how to check an egg, 3d world generators, and object manipulation done in the AI industry and robotics. We are not far from combining everything we've learned and establishing a system for a robot.

AI is taking leaps and bounds in the last few years of development, I see no technical reason this wont be happening in a few years.

2

IluvBsissa t1_jar10q9 wrote

Maybe they don't need sensors to do the same jobs, only vision ?

1

Honest_Science t1_jarjzow wrote

Would you be able to work without any touch and feel? No, neither do they. It is unfortunately physically impossible as vision does not provide the same level of information.

0