Another variation on this is to think about tokens and definitions. Numbers don’t have inherent meaning for your use case, so if you use numbers you need to provide an explicit definition of each rating number in the prompt. Similarly, and more effectively is to use labels such as low-quality, medium-quality, high-quality, and again providing an explicit definition of the label; one step further is to use explicit self describing label (along with detailed definition) such as “trivial-observation-on-naming-convention” or “insightful-identification-on-missed-corner-case”.
Effectively you are turning a somewhat arbitrary numeric “rating” task , into a multi label classification problem with well defined labels.
The natural evolution is to then train a BERT based classifier or similar on the set of labels and comments, which will get you a model judge that is super fast and can achieve good accuracy.
It is cherry picking information that is in the public domain, and then drawing spurious conclusions by purposefully excluding or dismissing other publicly available knowledge, and doing so with a tone of exasperated incredulity.
Folding, sorting, and putting away clothes is a time consuming daily task in a house with young kids, that cant be done by any robot that isn’t humanoid.
Clearing the table, scraping dirty plates, putting condiments back in the fridge, packing away uneaten food as left overs, rinsing the dishes, loading the dishwasher efficiently, then unloading the dishes and putting them all away in the arbitrary places the go, are all tasks to that cant be done by any robot that isn’t humanoid in nature in some way.
The amount of pen caps, dropped food, discarded clothes, school bags, shoes, partially assembled legos, couch cushions, books, and other random bulky items that end up on the floor of a house with young kids makes the idea of robotic floor cleaning being a solved problem laughable.
My assumption is that an Optimus home assistant will be an order of magnitude cheaper than manual labour, which means it will be accessible to people who can’t currently afford a cleaner/maid but whose lives would be improved by having help with the daily workload of life.
This brings up two thoughts, I wonder if the advent of robots will lead to more gender equality as women currently bear the a significantly higher percentage of the domestic work load.
Also, autonomous robots are going to make even harder to convince my kids to clean up after themselves :)
> "Folding, sorting, and putting away clothes is a time consuming daily task in a house with young kids, that cant be done by any robot that isn’t humanoid."
I don't understand what about that task needs it to be humanoid?
It obviously needs various abilities that humans have - being able to move around, being able to control multiple "limbs" to manipulate the clothes, etc. But why couldn't it look like R2-D2 rather than C-3PO? Why couldn't it be a flying drone that has 4 clothes-folding arms? Or... whatever non-humanoid design could be conceived that works best?
The only "need" for it being humanoid would be if the kids (or adults, or animals) found it more acceptable to be around.
The human world is generally designed for the human form. You don’t need four arms to do most tasks, but you often need two. You often need fingers to manipulate objects in specific ways. You can’t realistically fly while safely doing mundane tasks. You probably need legs to traverse areas. You generally need your hands at the height level of a typical adult.
The limitations of R2 are pretty obvious if you try to imagine it. there’s probably some optimizations that could be made but it’s a sensible start imo
You've described reasons that a humanoid is a good form factor for creating a general use robot, but still nowhere close to the claim I replied to that sorting/folding/putting away clothes "cant be done by any robot that isn’t humanoid".
But even your reasons for preferring a humanoid are all reasons why humans are better than current-technology non-humanoid robots, not unarguable facts that humans are the ultimate design. As a couple of examples:
> "You probably need legs to traverse areas."
Even if legs are definitely needed, the animal kingdom shows that human legs are far from the only choice. Why only two? Why not legs that are 90% of the height of the robot rather than human proportions? Why not legs with the equivalent of 20 knees rather than 1 knee, or legs that feature wheels that are sometimes used, or...
> "You can’t realistically fly while safely doing mundane tasks."
Not if you were to take any existing consumer drone and add robot arms to it, sure, but there's no scientific reason it can't be made with future improvements to technology. We already have drones that can automatically avoid bumping into things, and that can counter the effects of wind to stay in the same position, and we have drones that would be safe to walk into (ones with covered blades, where the only injury risk is it flying into you hard enough). There's no reason that a future version couldn't be just as stable hovering in the air while doing something as being on the ground - it just needs to extend its stabilisation algos so that it's not just countering the wind, but also pushing in whatever directions required to counteract forces caused by whatever its doing. And it also doesn't even have to be flying while doing the task, it can fly to the clothes, then unwind its leg (or legs) and stand there while doing its work, or...
Humanoid is obviously appealing for the simple fact that, if it's developed to the point that it has the same (or better) physical abilities as a human (including balance etc) then we know it can fit into anything humans do because we already do it, and because we've built a world around us for human-shaped people. But thinking there couldn't be alternative form factors that are just as good if not better is just lacking imagination on the subject of what technology will be able to do in the coming years - especially when not talking about a general purpose "can do anything a human can do" robot but about specific tasks (such as the clothes sorting & folding that we're discussing).
That claim is pointless. People are not going to purchase a dedicated clothes folding robot. The point of a humanoid robot is general problem solving. That is the whole value prop.
Obviously you can design better forms for specific tasks, but people don’t want some zany futuristic world populated by dozens of task specific robots.
Nobody was arguing there should or shouldn't be a robot that only folds clothes. The subject you replied to be about was whether or not a robot for the purpose HAS to be humanoid to work or not. You've just been arguing different points.
But even for general purpose robots, my points above stand that future tech will mean plenty of non-humanoid shaped robots could be just as effective as general purpose robots as humanoid ones.
the worse case scenario is if the eye makes landfall north of Tampa, as the counter clockwise rotation pushes more water in front of the front right quadrant.
Tampa could be spared if it turns more south, but there are other communities that will more be impacted instead. There is no good outcome here…
Latent Space AI Engineering podcast does this with an AI cohost; mostly for intros and segues. A recent episode used it to summarise a Twitter AMA and while it’s usually used to good effect, that one was one of the first episodes the quality of the co host part was lacking, as it mispronounced things, and was a bit muddled in parts.
That said, the podcast has been an incredibly useful and insightful regular listen for me.
These uninformed, reductionist writings are tedious and have the undertones of conspiratorial thinking that places the author as “the only person who sees the truth“.
There are so many inaccuracies, gross simplifications, mischaracterisations, and strawman arguments, that it’s not really worthwhile to use it as a basis for discussion.
I think you’re confusing the technology with a product developed using that technology. The prevalence of poorly implemented products or the lack of fit of some products to a particular target market, do not inherently provide evidence for conclusions about the technology itself.
“Wibbels claims that developing countries are at a disadvantage in the global economy for two main reasons:
1. They rely heavily on foreign investment.
2. They depend on exporting a limited range of raw materials to earn foreign currency.
Because of this weak economic position, developing countries struggle to borrow money when needed. This makes it hard for them to boost their economies during economic downturns, unlike wealthier nations that can more easily borrow and spend to stimulate growth. “
This does illustrate a problem when talking about complex topics or mechanisms is the need for specificity. Using short, simple sentences comes at the risk of making things seem overly vague and hand wavey, or worse, misrepresent the concept.
In continental philosophy or mathematical papers this gets all too apparent, as alot of argument hinge on very fine differences and nuances that need to specified else people get the wrong idea.
“Lastly, OpenAI will become a Reddit advertising partner”
I wonder what this means? Will OpenAI be investing research and engineering into creating models that are optimised to create ads that lead to high engagement? Is this a going to be a new revenu stream model for OpenAI?
Effectively you are turning a somewhat arbitrary numeric “rating” task , into a multi label classification problem with well defined labels.
The natural evolution is to then train a BERT based classifier or similar on the set of labels and comments, which will get you a model judge that is super fast and can achieve good accuracy.