I was just describing a screenplay I wrote called, “Artificial Rose.” My premise was a question. Is a robotic caregiver more reliable than a human to care for a vulnerable senior? As a caregiver myself, I had witnessed the failure of other caregivers to follow a care plan, be compassionate, and sincerely try to enrich their lives. A robot is consistent and completely available, designed to be attractive and personable. I vote for the robot without an ego.
Why are we creating robots with human movements ? For example, shouldn’t we be creating robots to hover and glide rather than walk? We should be thinking out of the box and not merely imitating humans. I would ask, “What are things robots can do without the limitations of human form and function?” The bar should be much higher than it is currently.
Wonderful. But there may be more folks out there than just I who have no time for anything AI related that isn’t medical or scientific research. IOW, trash the rest before it’s too late. A robot that can run the 100 can and already has replaced a worker somewhere. There’s a bottom line here: people have to work. The data center construction backlash is, apparently, the only way people can fight back against tech and its bros.
Why do people "have to work?" Is that a moral, practical, or economic claim? As automation rapidly replaces labor, especially rote and predictable labor, more human-hours will be free to do other things. Witness mechanization of farming, automation of the car industry, and many more examples: Higher GDP with fewer labor hours. Distribution of wealth, and thereby leisure, is a policy choice; there is no 'have to' about it.
Please visit (rural) India to get a first hand experience of frugal "jugaad" robotics, very useful in pre-sowing and post harvesting - and also while the crop is standing. Is happening quietly, at low costs, and results in food security are on display.
They do well only in tasks that require virtually no degree of response to external stimuli. That isn’t AI then, that’s automation, and we’ve had automation for decades. This ‘humanoid robot revolution’ is virtually all hype.
The boredom he admits to after an hour is the most honest data point in the piece, and it says more than either viral-video camp wants to hear. Robots demolishing the 100-meter record and robots faceplanting into the ropes are both real, and neither one is the story. The actual story is that predictable, low-interaction tasks are basically solved while anything requiring real-time reaction to another unpredictable agent still isn't close. That gap, not the highlight reel either side, is where the next decade will get decided.
I watched some of the games as well and was already worried about carpenters and bricklayers. I did not see goof ups and hilarity, only iterative learning. In our haste to reduce our work so that we have more leisure time, we forget that meaning and purpose are what put substance abusers back on track. We need challenge to advance as a species and civilization. Not meaning to dump on anyone here, but there was an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a prisoner was sent to an uninhabited planet, but had a lady robot as a companion. As I remember, the prisoner gradually realized his companion was a robot and he destroyed "her", only to be cursed with being alone. She might as well have been a basketball.
It is already possible for a robot to pick food from a restaurant and bring it to a hotel, but it doesn’t look like humanoid - more like a box on six wheels. There is robot delivery in Moscow and Tallinn, for example.
Yes, quips won’t save us from the robot “invasion.” The only thing that will save us is continued recognition that they are “aliens,” not humans, and that our humanity does not depend on performing any task or athletic feat, but being a song that the universe wants to sing. We can feel and express joy; robots cannot. Continuing to seek the experiences that make us fully alive will be the safeguard of our humanity.
I was just describing a screenplay I wrote called, “Artificial Rose.” My premise was a question. Is a robotic caregiver more reliable than a human to care for a vulnerable senior? As a caregiver myself, I had witnessed the failure of other caregivers to follow a care plan, be compassionate, and sincerely try to enrich their lives. A robot is consistent and completely available, designed to be attractive and personable. I vote for the robot without an ego.
Why are we creating robots with human movements ? For example, shouldn’t we be creating robots to hover and glide rather than walk? We should be thinking out of the box and not merely imitating humans. I would ask, “What are things robots can do without the limitations of human form and function?” The bar should be much higher than it is currently.
When I read about the boxing robots, I couldn't help thinking "potential Rocky movie"?
Isn't that the premise of Real Steel?
Wonderful. But there may be more folks out there than just I who have no time for anything AI related that isn’t medical or scientific research. IOW, trash the rest before it’s too late. A robot that can run the 100 can and already has replaced a worker somewhere. There’s a bottom line here: people have to work. The data center construction backlash is, apparently, the only way people can fight back against tech and its bros.
Luddites of the world . . . !!
Why do people "have to work?" Is that a moral, practical, or economic claim? As automation rapidly replaces labor, especially rote and predictable labor, more human-hours will be free to do other things. Witness mechanization of farming, automation of the car industry, and many more examples: Higher GDP with fewer labor hours. Distribution of wealth, and thereby leisure, is a policy choice; there is no 'have to' about it.
"By the sweat of thy brow thou shall earn thy bread..."
"People have to work"?
What's so bad if we don't?
Please visit (rural) India to get a first hand experience of frugal "jugaad" robotics, very useful in pre-sowing and post harvesting - and also while the crop is standing. Is happening quietly, at low costs, and results in food security are on display.
They do well only in tasks that require virtually no degree of response to external stimuli. That isn’t AI then, that’s automation, and we’ve had automation for decades. This ‘humanoid robot revolution’ is virtually all hype.
Not sure why it matters to compare robot runners with humans--as though they are the same.
The boredom he admits to after an hour is the most honest data point in the piece, and it says more than either viral-video camp wants to hear. Robots demolishing the 100-meter record and robots faceplanting into the ropes are both real, and neither one is the story. The actual story is that predictable, low-interaction tasks are basically solved while anything requiring real-time reaction to another unpredictable agent still isn't close. That gap, not the highlight reel either side, is where the next decade will get decided.
It seems we have a small window of time to ensure these devices only act for ‘good.’ https://substack.com/@chuckrussell/note/p-211458417?r=1tnnx&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I watched some of the games as well and was already worried about carpenters and bricklayers. I did not see goof ups and hilarity, only iterative learning. In our haste to reduce our work so that we have more leisure time, we forget that meaning and purpose are what put substance abusers back on track. We need challenge to advance as a species and civilization. Not meaning to dump on anyone here, but there was an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a prisoner was sent to an uninhabited planet, but had a lady robot as a companion. As I remember, the prisoner gradually realized his companion was a robot and he destroyed "her", only to be cursed with being alone. She might as well have been a basketball.
It is already possible for a robot to pick food from a restaurant and bring it to a hotel, but it doesn’t look like humanoid - more like a box on six wheels. There is robot delivery in Moscow and Tallinn, for example.
I'd love to grab a beer if you are still in Beijing, I am over in Shunyi.
Yes, quips won’t save us from the robot “invasion.” The only thing that will save us is continued recognition that they are “aliens,” not humans, and that our humanity does not depend on performing any task or athletic feat, but being a song that the universe wants to sing. We can feel and express joy; robots cannot. Continuing to seek the experiences that make us fully alive will be the safeguard of our humanity.