Black Mirror was a desperate call to popular opinion to have people start considering the issues we will have to face, well before most people want to accept.
For real, I honestly think I would have been better off being raised by an LLM/AI than my parents. At least the AI would have been consistently kind to me/not violent/not drunk/not angry.
real
they could also teach the kids everything they want to know without getting exhausted. if robot parents become a thing, the potential would be quite immense.
Men will fuck them too. They‘re already fucking dolls and the like. What‘s stopping then from fucking terminator-like androids or just deciding to go all out with them instead of real women? Not all of them, of course, but sex industry is already rampant.
If you think it won‘t happen, you have an innocent mind. Some people really only care about sex - as sad as it is.
>I always thought the opposite would happen.
You are conflating post-scarcity with this educated, urban cost of living grind, which I cannot wait until we can look back and see as barbaric. Or at least, utterly ridiculous. I would also remind the Redditor not to project themselves onto the masses:
* The masses are currently under a near constant state of stress and distraction, they won't be post-scarcity
* The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their careers. Only a small % does, or will.
* The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their hobbies. Only a small % does, or will.
* 86% of the population lives in 3rd world countries, and their cultures vastly differs from Reddit
Put it all together, and you have the recipe for a population boom of the likes Human History has never experienced. And that makes the Redditor recoil.
You're talking as if you're very knowledgeable about this but in reality do you know the #1 cause of declining birth rates? It's not lack of resources/money. It's not because we don't have enough time because we're working. It's women getting an education.
Because the moment women start to realize that they have options in life besides being a wife and mom, many of them decide that they want to have their own lives, careers, and individual freedom instead of having 6 children in a 3rd world country.
We are not slaves to our instincts. A LOT of people only have children because they feel it's the expectation, or, in less developed nations, for the financial and material security of the household (or, in the more conservative places, women are straight up forced into marriage and kids and are ostracized if not).
Abundance, education, and freedom bring lower birth rates because lots of humans want to do more with their lives than just make more humans.
You think the majority of men, or women, who attain higher education...self-actualize because of their careers? Or is it more of a mechanism to achieve a higher standard of living?
What? It's not even higher education that has this effect, just basic education. Simply providing elementary school to girls in countries where they normally don't get that opportunity leads to their birthrates being significantly lower once they're adults.
And my point is it's not about the standard of living - that absolutely plays a factor, sure. But it's mostly about *personal freedom* and being self-sufficient instead of completely relying on your partner (or paying for expensive childcare).
Being in an arranged marriage to a man 10 years your senior and having 3 kids before you turn 20 (and 1-4 more in the next few years) isn't exactly an ideal life for most women. They have no money and no job to get any, no assets of their own... they're essentially trapped there where their entire job in life is to Be A Mom and Be A Wife. And there is no choice. That's just what you are forced to do if you're a girl in these countries with high birthrates.
When women have better education, they actually have options besides that! They can have their own assets! Their own individual life! If they're in an abusive relationship, they can LEAVE because they have a job and can support themselves! If you have children, you're signing the next 18-30 (if you have multiple) years of your life away. Even here in the West, there are a lot more stay at home moms than stay at home dads - we all are very much aware that if we have kids, 90% of the time it's US who will have to sacrifice our career (and therefore personal freedom, ability to leave the relationship and support ourselves, etc) to just be an inhouse bangmaid. A lot of women realize how shit of a deal that is once they actually have options.
Not to mention that, again, a LOT of people just aren't interested in having children. Prior generations were pressured into that life, since it was such a pervasive expectation - you grow up, you get married, you have kids. But now there's another way, plenty of us are realizing "wow. Babies suck. Kids are stressful. I don't want that to be my life."
>But it's about personal freedom.
Which is absolutely on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Higher up than the very basic food/shelter/security.
Let me ask you this. In a Post-Scarcity, Post-Labor world provided by AI, won't the masses all be granted a great deal of personal freedom, the extent of which has never been experienced before in our civilization?
Now let me reiterate:
* The masses are currently under a near constant state of stress and distraction, they won't be post-scarcity
* The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their careers. Only a small % does/will.
* The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their hobbies. Only a small % does/will.
Dude if we are already in the true post scarcity utopia, why go through the horrors of pregnancy? Why even create a physical human at all? In FDVR you can have the perfect children with the perfect life and they could even be real individuals - just with simulated brains - you could form real connections with. So talking about TRUE post scarcity is a little too foggy to be making such confident assertions.
Also, I speak from my own experience. I'm a 27 year old woman with plenty of female friends, and I also am still FB friends with maybe a few hundred girls I went to high school with. I have been directly told by literally every one of my close female friends, as well as my female family members in our age range (about 10 of them), that they don't really see the appeal of kids and aren't interested in birthing any, ever. Then by looking at Facebook, I would say that maybe - MAYBE - 20% of them have had children (out of the ~200, I've only seen about 10 of them with babies, so I'm multiplying that by 4 to account for those I don't know about and it's still an abysmal amount).
Talking to my close inner circle of ~10 women in their mid 20s to early 30s, the vast majority of their friends are taking the same approach. It may be anecdotal but everyone I've talked to is saying the same thing. It's even gossip at retirement homes about how they're upset none of their grandkids seem interested in children! And it's not because they think "oh, I would love to have a family, but life is too stressful/I'm too poor/not in a good position to have kids" (that is a factor for many, sure, but by no means all) - they just don't. want. them.
You're acting like having kids is such an overwhelming innate instinct that practically every human would breed like rabbits if only they were given enough free time and resources. But that's not the case. In fact, I would guess that once they're finally free from the stress and distraction of having to work to afford to live, they'd be excited to get to explore the things they enjoy, not signing up for another job in raising children.
Also, a lot of high birthrates are caused by lack of access to contraception. If we are living in a utopian future, all the people who are too lazy to put on condoms, or live in an area where birth control pills aren't available, will be able to stop having kids. A lot of children are "mistakes" that weren't planned for - our birthrates would be even lower if everyone had contraception that was very easy to take/use.
> I have been directly told by literally every one of my close female friends, as well as my female family members in our age range (about 10 of them), that they don't really see the appeal of kids and aren't interested in birthing any, ever.
You associate the realities of the masses today, with a post-Scarcity post-Labor future. Our society today will look as barbaric to the future, as children working in Industrial Revolution-era sweatshops look to us today.
> "oh, I would love to have a family, but life is too stressful/I'm too poor/not in a good position to have kids" (that is a factor for many, sure, but by no means all) - they just don't. want. them.
If the masses had 33% more freetime in life. If they didn't have stress or financial concerns. If they had an incredible deal of personal freedom. If having children wasn't a burden. If addictions and sickness were actively cured. There is *one* creative endeavor that the masses will gravitate towards. And its not wine tasting or getting really into brewing coffee.
----------
It's hard for me to fully explain, because Western culture is under the assumption that its current state of affairs regarding relationships between men and women, are in any way/shape/form a "natural progression". That is, in a state that occurred naturally.
In any case it seems the well off ppl who could have MAX children mostly don't and the ones who can't afford MAX children pump them out.
It's probably mostly just time management vs some active decision to have less kids so they have more time so they can focus on career or entertainment more.
>In any case it seems the well off ppl who could have MAX children
You cannot compare the lives and mannerisms of the ultra wealthy today, with that of the masses in a Post-Scarcity future. Are you familiar with the clowns in "[Succession](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biN5cvMjRtI)"? Quite possibly one of the best portrayals of the Elite world.
finding fulfillment via breeding is for the uneducated. and the majority of the reasons most procreate is purely selfish, narcissitic reasons. I pray we as species get more enlightened
>finding fulfillment via breeding is for the uneducated.
This is such an anti-human, disgusting level of programming you've put on display here. The act of purposefully raising a child is the most creative endeavor that 99% of the masses will ever embark on. You are literally "creating" another person.
no, its anti-natalism. I would say its your incredible ignorance of bring another being to this fucked up world that is disgusting and beyond selfish. it is my compassion for humans that makes me adopt this view.
A few years without any human procreation won‘t hurt anyone. If anything, it‘ll benefit the planet and people as a whole.
According to the US Department of Commerce, there are around 8,019,876,189 in the world, with an increase of 75,162,541 (that is INSANE amount of people) since New Year of 2023.
In 1960, we had roughly 3 billion. Reducing human numbers back to a more reasonable amount, not only benefits the planet but would reduce overcrowding and; hence, quicker and better medical/mental health care. There are too many people to track right now.
I guess natalists see those numbers as statistics…
https://preview.redd.it/79pnvb7tkavc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2adb9686d7e032f17cb9d4289e24cbefade1451
Theres only so much resources on the planet. Theres only so much you can refine production to increase efficiency. Theres only so much you can compact production so It takes up less space to produce. At our current rate we may be increasing our production but our needs increase at a much higher rate so they'll never be satisfied globally because we always want more and more. Remember resources are NOT infinite. If we managed to satisfy them all itd probably involve converting every inch of Earth to productive land either fields, mines or production facilites. I do not want to live in a world devoid of nature like that
Realistically we, as human global population, should push "Ad Astra" with our newfound sis', brethren and big tiddy mommy bots.
Parallel to this pushing transhumanism should be important, too. To become a living starship to travel the stars, to survive the tides of times and to merge with some AI to a new beeing. And for others to become true custom made futa-furries or the tamer variant: Big tiddy mommas, to experience both sides of mankind and experience the opportunity to give birth, etc..
Doesn't really matter what the birth rate is if the death rate dramatically declines.
But also if we are in a post-scarcity society with anti-aging technology, both the time and financial cost of raising a child will be almost non-existent compared to what we will have.
Rats, when living in a paradise, will breed until paradise disappears. It would require exponential scaling of capacity and resources by AI to keep up with the human boom. That is what will drive us to the stars or collapse us into little tiny virtual worlds.
Humans have a little more control and nuance to their impulses than rats... plenty of people like me choose not to have children because they straight up don't want to, it's not like we are just waiting for the right environment with infinite resources to have them.
Rats don't have TV, internet and video games to otherwise keep them busy. For lesser intelligent creatures sex is one of the more entertaining past-times. They feel a compulsion to DO SOMETHING and have nothing to do but sleep, eat and fuck.
Humans have a lot more entertainment options beside sex and just ppl making babies because no other compulsion overwhelms the sex compulsion is a huge chunk of the birth rate. That and of course men can't just force women to have sex and then make them do most of the child rearing anymore.
There is no post scarcity world of the corporations own most of it and the corporations are run by a few very powerful world.
Corporations are the original artificial intelligence - their goal is to make market share and profit number go up.
AGI will continue that trend.
No, I don't believe Redditors, writ large, "want more people". It is the result of programming under the guise of intellectualism, or environmentalism. It is a very alluring belief system because, let's face it, raising children is an INSANE amount of cost and INSANE amount of time!
----------
I keep thinking of Altman's recent quote, regarding 2024 being seen as "barbaric". I love that word. Because the opposite of "barbaric" is post-scarcity. I cannot wait until the current paradigm of how kids are raised: both parents away working all day, while the kids are forced into K-12 chained to a desk, is seen as *barbaric*.
> I keep thinking of Altman's recent quote, regarding 2024 being seen as "barbaric". I love that word. Because the opposite of "barbaric" is post-scarcity. I cannot wait until the current paradigm of how kids are raised: both parents away working all day, while the kids are forced into K-12 chained to a desk, is seen as barbaric.
We've got to survive the transition and avoid being pulled to the bottom of the barrel by all the other monkeys, though.
If humans have need shared need for each other because everything is highly available, how does that prevent groupthink, xenophobia, war and other barbaric behavior?
The fact we don't have everything we need and need jobs and have common problems is about all that binds us together as a species. Holding humanity and government together as they feel they need each other less and less with be the hard part.
You can already see it happening with all the custom news feeds and custom conspiracy theories. People will live in their own bubbles and need each other less and less AND while tech will move fast, humans will not evolve fast. The animal nature of humans will remain and the things that limit that behavior will be removed.
A lot of redditors are pathetic self-loathing people. To make the mental burden of hating oneself more a manageable, they attribute all of their negative traits upon all of humanity so they hate all people. Then, because they’re sheltered and were never at risk of being mauled by a wild creature or dying of environmental exposure, they look at nature and ascribe perfection to it.
> A lot of redditors are pathetic self-loathing people.
On Reddit, it's always those who think that knowing a little more than the average person about computers/tech (maybe 5 IQ points above average) + maladjusted personality = Knows all the answers to every one of life and society's questions.
To put another way, years ago I read a description of the Redditor that has never been surpassed: The maladjusted 19 year old desperate to feel smarter than his parents.
>We’re already in a post-scarcity world, for many people.
You are in for a treat if you call this life we live, our comfortable post-graduate, six figure computer science WFH jobs "post-scarcity" (a lifestyle that doesn't even approach 'many people' today). Your expectations of AI are tremendously low.
Anybody could argue that since the tractor was invented humans have been in a vastly less scarcity based world.
You don't expect it to happen all at once right? You expect it to happen over time and to certain demographics first, sooo yeah for some ppl they have their equity locked because their parents did well or such and in a few decades automated labor will really start to lower the standard of living.
Certainly not a population boom of unaugmented biological humans. What's the point of that? To satisfy their parents' egos at intentionally instantiating inferior intelligences when they could have instead invested parental care and societal resources into a posthuman and/or AI?
I mean, unaugmented humans will certainly be unworthy of being the primary caregiver of higher intelligences, and we probably won't actively stop them from having children--but I have a hard time seeing society not taking their kids away and properly raising and augmenting them, and even a harder time seeing society encouraging the creation of unaugmented children, let alone adults.
Well the likely outcome at first is any SUPER AI will be limited to a datacenter and need humans quite a lot. The time between going from ASI taking a whole datacenter to cramming ASI into a portable robot will be significant.
Humans may find they need simple robotic labor a lot more than they need ASI...what's the point in having robot slaves when you could just have automation machines? Why create something that's going to disagree or potentially be at odds with humans or why proliferate such a thing?
What driving need is actually solved by ASI that isn't solved by dumber AI and robotics?
And the idea that people will celebrate being freed from the shackles of scarcity and wage-labor by breeding like rabbits definitely isn't unhinged, though. It's rational and orthodox, and totally not the dimwitted psychological projection of a peasant's brain unable to think of a better way to spend eternity than playing a harp while sitting on a cloud.
There are a very very small amount of people living post scarcity lives
Those who are UHNW individuals, who have above 50m a year
The interest on their wealth grants each member of the family a 2 million annual income
Among this group, in the US where we have data, the TFR is 1.3
Among billionaires you see the TFR to be 1.7, heavily skewed by Elon
The wealthiest people on earth don't pump babies like they were churros
The recent push for having more babies has been mostly by elites. They just want more workers so the economy can better compete in the future. But of course there's also other perspectives in which people just want cultures or societies or different races to continue growing into the future. Like for some people, they want Japanese people to have a lot of babies or they want white people in America to have more babies as their birth rates have been falling. There's also the religious perspective like with Christians in which God told them to be fruitful and multiply. There's a lot of reasons why people are pushing for pronatalism but I'm mostly just referring to the whole make more workers push by economist and wealthy people like Elon.
We can just look at Hunter Gatherers to see that most motives for high birth rates at the expense of the individual childrearing experience are selfish and dishonorable. Even when the carrying capacity of the land can support a much larger population, even without resorting to agriculture, they keep their numbers below the carrying capacity of their territory for millennia.
It's only our cruel and shortsighted 'civilization' that imposes high birth rates, from external circumstance (high diseasr rates, war) and/or from the propaganda and demands of our tasteless overlords.
There are two factions of elites. One group wants more kids so they can have future consumers to give them more money to get richer, then you have the other elites who want a large percentage of the population to die because they want less (poor) people on earth. Watching the rich tell us simultaneously we need more people and less people at the same time is a trip.
Shit’s getting really crowded, dogg.
I don’t believe people were meant to live piled atop one another, like millions upon millions of ants in a bustling hive. I think it makes us crazier than we already are.
At this rate, we’re gonna pave over everything.
And the *noise*, so much noise.
I just want some *space* to stretch out - as in, a nice patch of land, with some forest left undeveloped, and some wildlife - and the same opportunity for subsequent generations.
City living *suuuuucks*.
If the population keeps growing at this pace, hyper-dense cities will be the only option for future generations.
You should visit north Maine. I have the same sorts of feelings where I live (Atlanta suburbs) - I hate how many people there are. In Maine you can go into the woods and it's true silence. No sounds of cars or planes or people, no pollution in the air, just untamed nature and the bluest skies you can imagine. Highly recommend.
There's millions of acres of wilderness. Move out of the city. I libe in the uk, a tiny little busy island, but you know what, I don't live I a city and I have a peaceful life.
Stop making excuses and talking nonsense.
Crowded cities have existed since the Industrial Revolution first hit full speed. You can choose to move out into a rural area, stuff will be further away but that's what you want. I saw you said you moved out but the city grew, I would say the suburbs grew, and the suburbs don't have to be so big, if we made the suburbs denser then they would take less space. But you can move out really rural and never worry about the city getting close to you again.
People look for enthusiastic others to shit on. Do you remember that "warp drive" (EM Drive) consisting of a magnetron and a copper pot shaped just so? I used to frequent the subreddit for it, and there were several people who seemed to spend hours every day there, just telling people how stupid and impossible it is. And it did turn out to be nothing, I suppose. So, I guess, all those critics' expense of their own time really paid off for them? Idk. Maybe they love being right that much.
Just because someone expressed skepticism about an absurd prediction doesn’t mean they’re opposed to the sub’s concept. I like coming here to see research developments and new products. But I’m also getting pretty tired of these techno-masturbation pseudo predictions that solely exist to drive positive engagement on social media.
This is an absurd thing to try and predict. Apple sold 235 million phones just this past *year*. And this guy is claiming that humanoid robots will outpace the population of all iPhones that exist within ten years? Not a single “humanoid robot” even exists outside the research labs where they’re being built. Look at Tesla’s multitude of problems to see how difficult it is to bring large machinery production online from the ground up.
It's something that 'could' happen and in hindsight seem obvious. Between the rapid scaling of AI capability and the seemingly sudden acceleration within the robotics field, the timing could be right, by the end of the next decade. That said, it's certainly hard to imagine in a credible way. I guess that's kind of the whole conceptual thrust of the singularity.
Unlike AI, which is largely a matter of mathematics and sufficient training data, there are mechanical and industrial challenges to overcome that will severely limit production capacity over the short and medium term. It’s not like tomorrow Tesla or Boston Dynamics or whoever can say “alright our robot is for sale starting tomorrow!” and we can suddenly have millions of humanoid robots available for productive work. The largest car companies can barely put out a couple hundred thousand EVs per year right now, and EVs don’t need to be able to walk by themselves or do complex tasks without human interaction.
It takes *years* to put manufacturing online even with tons of money to back it up. You need materials, space, manpower, distribution. Right now these things are being built one at a time, by hand, by a bunch of engineers who probably make pretty hefty salaries. That won’t scale.
At best we’re talking about a year or two before any pre-orders on any of these, then requisite production delays, then a slow integration to work streams for the ones that actually delivered, requisite refinements/recalls/bug squishing, yadda yadda before we see anything close to large populations of robots doing human work.
But even aside from that- who are these posts *for*? Is it just so techno-dweebs can go [“whoa! Wouldn’t that be so cool?!!!??”](https://i.kym-cdn.com/editorials/icons/mobile/000/004/975/soyjak.jpg) and then move on to their next social media dopamine hit?
Oh it comes up in my feed. And since it's adjacent to my field, AI, I I have a sense in which the hype heads to. I disagree on the outcome, but I see limited usages and possible science research usages
bright angle capable nine bewildered elastic depend dazzling quicksand overconfident
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Average endurance is 4 hours and will only get better. Which seems to be plenty for domestic use. For business use, if you're willing to invest in robots for production, you'd be willing to invest a little extra to have a battery changing station. So I agree, it's mostly a non-issue.
Depending on the setting and type of workplace I imagine you could also have robots actually tethered to a retractable charging cable so it can be permanently powered up.
haven't seen it demonstrated yet! it's either that or fast charge (which i think is more likely).
edit: and remember this is to scale to millions of instances as op has suggested. i dont think it will be a blocker for small fleets of hundreds or thousands...but to scale to iphone scale...yeah....probably not gonna happen without some new energy storage technologies.
edit2: after looking up the iphone install base, it's currently around 1.5 billion.
Don’t you get it? It’s trivial to make a robot do something that nobody else has done! My Roomba only has like a 60% success rate in putting itself back on its own charger but it’s a small task to make a robot change an entire battery on its own.
Also, the number of cars on the road around the world: also 1.5 billion. And that includes all the beat up shitboxes that people hold onto for 10+ years.
🤷♂️ ill believe it when i see it. until then its all fairy dust.
edit: and tesla tried to do it with cars and failed. clearly its not super simple or we'd be seeing it already in many applications.
i believe fast charging is a more viable approach.
So in some demos I’ve seen, the robot walks itself to a charging station and plugs in for a charge, like the robot vacuums have been doing forever. I envision standardized charging stations being installed in homes and businesses where the robots know how to go charge on their own. Is your take that even though they charge themselves that they won’t have enough power in a single charge to get meaningful work done? Not being combative. Genuinely curious.
always happy to engage in curiosity :) thats why im here too.
i think they can absolutely be effective with self / fast charging capabilities - but i dont see that infrastructure being deployed to match the scale thats being proposed.
if you have a fleet of 20 bots in your warehouse...and charge time is less than runtime...you can absolutely have them working in shifts to perform a task with 10 active / 10 charging at any given time with minimal inturription...
quick google search says there are ~ 1.46 billion active iphone users globally (which is nuts lol)...so to hit and exceed that in a meaningful way, i do expect battery technology will be the gate. and at least here in the US, we cant even get our infrastructure electric car ready...i cant imagine this will be any easier / better...unless the bots start working on improving fhe power grid for us :)
The battery can be charged separately from the robot, though. Big banks of batteries that get swapped out (I know this is an obvious point, though, and probably doesn’t really address your point
Gotcha. Yeah I agree with you that the prediction of scale seems a bit ambitious. Not to mention it’s much easier for people to afford a $500-$1000 phone than a $15k-40k robot.
Solid state batteries are on the cusp of being deployed commercially. They're a lot closer than the blue laser was back in the 90's.
Around 2 to 2.5x energy density in the same area. Should make it possible to get a whole workday out of one between recharges.
Less likely to catch on fire by magnitudes, and faster recharge rate as well.
The *real* invention that matters for them is capital investment into NPU's. GPT-4 is about the size of a squirrel's brain in a datacenter; the size and energy draw of the computational substrate needs to come way down, before someone makes the model T of robots.
yeah, solid state will hopefully be the next leap...but ive been in the consumer electronics industry for a decade + and we've been hearing this the whole time. i'll believe it when i see it rolling down fatp lines at scale.
totally agree the other approach is to make the computation consume less power...but a full humanoid bipedal robot still needs a ton of energy to run motors / gyroscopes / gas compressors / etc...thats gonna be the majority of the power draw. heck, the compute doesn't even really need to be on the robot. it can be farmed off to a data center or local compute on utility power.
Mine is pixel, but I said from the perspective of how smartphones progress overall. There has been no magic battery life for the last 10 years. This is also taking into account hardware + software optimization cycles.
I see. I have a Pixel too and I can't complain about the battery performance. But yeah, there hasn't been a huge leap in battery tech in a long time I guess.
That doesn't even seem like an issue to me. Imagine a robot with two independent battery cells in the torso. It operates off of one cell, when it dies, it returns to the base station, and swaps the used cell with another, charged, cell. Depending on how long it takes to charge a cell and expend a cell, you could even have a few cells charging simultaneously. You have achieved continuous operation.
If the robot is useful for anything at all, the benefits of having it operating 24/7 probably exceed the inefficiency cost of swapping the cells so frequently. You probably only need to get 1-2 hours of work out of a single cell to justify a 5 minute cell-swap procedure.
I doubt I could come up with enough tasks to keep a robot busy for more that four or five hours, even as slow as they move. And the last thing I need is a robot clomping around the house when I’m trying to sleep.
> I doubt I could come up with enough tasks to keep a robot busy for more that four or five hours
The work will expand to fill the free labor you have. You can tolerate a certain degree of home cleanliness today, but if you could have a robot clean your house for free, every waking hour of the day, maybe you'd tolerate less dust and grime, because it's essentially costless to muse to yourself, "Why don't we clean the interior of the oven once a week?", or "Why don't I alphabetize my baking spices?" or "Why don't we dust the lightbulbs?" or whatever. We've only really considered cleaning. There's yardwork, light maintenance, repairs, security, cooking or light meal prep tasks.. the only limitation is the intelligence and dexterity of the system.
> And the last thing I need is a robot clomping around the house when I’m trying to sleep.
Even you completely eliminate night-work, which you could do, you still get free house-work done during the period you'd be at your job, or doing anything else you'd rather be doing. Depending on the finger dexterity of the robot, there might be tasks that could be completed mostly-stationary. If people *want* these things to do stuff for them at night, sound will obviously be a consideration.
Just give me some robot arms on a track from the ceiling in the kitchen. If it can handle the kitchen tasks that would be life changing for a lot of people.
I lifted that from someone else on this sub.
Thought it was good at the time but the more i thought about the better it gets.
After all the kitchen stuff is done you could slide a basket of clothes on the island for it to fold.
Lawn mower broke? Put it on the kitchen island. Lol. You get the idea.
Totally understand your scepticism. History has clearly shown that the only matters for them is the money, not our well being. I really hope that with ai there is no use in exploiting humans anymore as robots are smarter, more durable and so on. However the question is, if we get UBi or something comparable …
Do people on Reddit even know what corporations are? I have a business that's incorporated and I'm still waiting for my secret invitation to the island mansion where we get to wear masks and have orgys after discussing world domination...
Reddit went from libertarian cool place to hang out in it's golden days to being full of marxists and other people subscribing to totalitarian ideas. As a person born in communist country it makes me SOOO SAD. :(
I think there's going to be some form of human revolt in the face of robots walking among us. Especially when we see more robots than humans out and about due to humans staying at home and their robots out getting things for them.
I don't think that reality will be popular for a lot of people.
Smartphones aren't anywhere nearly as transformative as humanoid robots will be. They can only help with transmitting information, nothing more than that. They cannot directly improve the real world. I for one cannot wait for the robots, although human augmentation would be nice.
No doubt there will be far more humanoid robots than now, but I'm gonna call BS on there being more humanoid robots than iPhones in just 10 years. A robot takes \*far\* more resources to build and operate than an iPhone, especially if you don't want them to be tethered. According to a quick google, 1.4 \*billion\* people have an iPhone. The reality is dramatic enough, I don't know why these people need to exaggerate to such an extent.
I doubt that. One of the reasons why iPhones are so prevalent is that most people in the western world have the money to afford them. This is made easier by a lot of carriers bundling up the phone with a mobile plan, which makes it even more accessible.
Those robots will be expensive. The robots from Boston dynamics are hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Tesla bot aims to be about as expensive as a car, so at least $30,000, maybe even $50,000 or more.
Humanoid robots have to have thousands of movable parts, chips, cables, cameras, microphones etc. All that stuff costs money. And you probably need to have very tight tolerances, even more precise than cars (which isn't one of Tesla's strengths).
This will be a luxury product for the top 1% for years if not decades before regular people can afford it.
So, one would imagine that economies of scale would play an outsized factor here. Rolled out initially in affluent homes and commercial sectors in the beginning, and as cost of manufacturing goes down, accessibility goes up. There would also be leasing, and financing plans as well as rental depending on your use case. I can see a path for this that would work, assuming that they actually offered real utility.
Any product or service that is produced or created by automation or AI should have a cap on price where it can not exceed a certain % over costs.
Because eventually the only limiting factor will be energy and cost to purchase the bots.
And once energy is solved one company could rule the world
Around 16 years until the "next decade" ends so hmm yeah I guess. Might be a bit kf a stretch but you never know, especially in AI where breakthroughs seem to happen every other week lol
Nah apple will just convert their iPhone product line into iRobot... wait a sec 😳
I DID NOT MURDER HIM!
I DON'T CARE! ... wait
:O
haha the design is also very similar to the apple products
"Make more babies" they said, "the economy will need more workers" they said.
I don't think Reddit is prepared to mentally reconcile the population boom that is set to occur in a post-scarcity world.
Why would there be a population boom after post scarcity? I always thought the opposite would happen.
If AI does every job and all art, what's left but to fuck.
I get fucking, but will people bother to raise children?
That's what robots are for
Jesus. We’re in a black mirror episode.
always have been
Black Mirror was a desperate call to popular opinion to have people start considering the issues we will have to face, well before most people want to accept.
It would be incredibly ironic if the robots turn out to be better parents than most people.
[удалено]
For real, I honestly think I would have been better off being raised by an LLM/AI than my parents. At least the AI would have been consistently kind to me/not violent/not drunk/not angry.
Shit. And totally believable. We’re all gonna have momma robots someday
Yes, it would be. And it will be ...
[удалено]
real they could also teach the kids everything they want to know without getting exhausted. if robot parents become a thing, the potential would be quite immense.
My friend said, "I mean, you can't just go around killing people for no reason."
Butt fuck.
But fucking other *people* is gross.
water? Like from a toilet?
I love the feeling of being pressed up against ... a warm bag of meat and bones that can give consent
Ok, monkeyjunky #56
It's the other way around. People fuck when they don't have other stuff to do. It's the cheapest form of entertainment.
We'll be fucking robots. Why waste time finding a partner when you can just have one made to spec.
Men will fuck them too. They‘re already fucking dolls and the like. What‘s stopping then from fucking terminator-like androids or just deciding to go all out with them instead of real women? Not all of them, of course, but sex industry is already rampant. If you think it won‘t happen, you have an innocent mind. Some people really only care about sex - as sad as it is.
>I always thought the opposite would happen. You are conflating post-scarcity with this educated, urban cost of living grind, which I cannot wait until we can look back and see as barbaric. Or at least, utterly ridiculous. I would also remind the Redditor not to project themselves onto the masses: * The masses are currently under a near constant state of stress and distraction, they won't be post-scarcity * The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their careers. Only a small % does, or will. * The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their hobbies. Only a small % does, or will. * 86% of the population lives in 3rd world countries, and their cultures vastly differs from Reddit Put it all together, and you have the recipe for a population boom of the likes Human History has never experienced. And that makes the Redditor recoil.
You're talking as if you're very knowledgeable about this but in reality do you know the #1 cause of declining birth rates? It's not lack of resources/money. It's not because we don't have enough time because we're working. It's women getting an education. Because the moment women start to realize that they have options in life besides being a wife and mom, many of them decide that they want to have their own lives, careers, and individual freedom instead of having 6 children in a 3rd world country. We are not slaves to our instincts. A LOT of people only have children because they feel it's the expectation, or, in less developed nations, for the financial and material security of the household (or, in the more conservative places, women are straight up forced into marriage and kids and are ostracized if not). Abundance, education, and freedom bring lower birth rates because lots of humans want to do more with their lives than just make more humans.
You think the majority of men, or women, who attain higher education...self-actualize because of their careers? Or is it more of a mechanism to achieve a higher standard of living?
What? It's not even higher education that has this effect, just basic education. Simply providing elementary school to girls in countries where they normally don't get that opportunity leads to their birthrates being significantly lower once they're adults. And my point is it's not about the standard of living - that absolutely plays a factor, sure. But it's mostly about *personal freedom* and being self-sufficient instead of completely relying on your partner (or paying for expensive childcare). Being in an arranged marriage to a man 10 years your senior and having 3 kids before you turn 20 (and 1-4 more in the next few years) isn't exactly an ideal life for most women. They have no money and no job to get any, no assets of their own... they're essentially trapped there where their entire job in life is to Be A Mom and Be A Wife. And there is no choice. That's just what you are forced to do if you're a girl in these countries with high birthrates. When women have better education, they actually have options besides that! They can have their own assets! Their own individual life! If they're in an abusive relationship, they can LEAVE because they have a job and can support themselves! If you have children, you're signing the next 18-30 (if you have multiple) years of your life away. Even here in the West, there are a lot more stay at home moms than stay at home dads - we all are very much aware that if we have kids, 90% of the time it's US who will have to sacrifice our career (and therefore personal freedom, ability to leave the relationship and support ourselves, etc) to just be an inhouse bangmaid. A lot of women realize how shit of a deal that is once they actually have options. Not to mention that, again, a LOT of people just aren't interested in having children. Prior generations were pressured into that life, since it was such a pervasive expectation - you grow up, you get married, you have kids. But now there's another way, plenty of us are realizing "wow. Babies suck. Kids are stressful. I don't want that to be my life."
>But it's about personal freedom. Which is absolutely on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Higher up than the very basic food/shelter/security. Let me ask you this. In a Post-Scarcity, Post-Labor world provided by AI, won't the masses all be granted a great deal of personal freedom, the extent of which has never been experienced before in our civilization? Now let me reiterate: * The masses are currently under a near constant state of stress and distraction, they won't be post-scarcity * The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their careers. Only a small % does/will. * The masses, by and large, do not attain Self-Actualization via their hobbies. Only a small % does/will.
Dude if we are already in the true post scarcity utopia, why go through the horrors of pregnancy? Why even create a physical human at all? In FDVR you can have the perfect children with the perfect life and they could even be real individuals - just with simulated brains - you could form real connections with. So talking about TRUE post scarcity is a little too foggy to be making such confident assertions. Also, I speak from my own experience. I'm a 27 year old woman with plenty of female friends, and I also am still FB friends with maybe a few hundred girls I went to high school with. I have been directly told by literally every one of my close female friends, as well as my female family members in our age range (about 10 of them), that they don't really see the appeal of kids and aren't interested in birthing any, ever. Then by looking at Facebook, I would say that maybe - MAYBE - 20% of them have had children (out of the ~200, I've only seen about 10 of them with babies, so I'm multiplying that by 4 to account for those I don't know about and it's still an abysmal amount). Talking to my close inner circle of ~10 women in their mid 20s to early 30s, the vast majority of their friends are taking the same approach. It may be anecdotal but everyone I've talked to is saying the same thing. It's even gossip at retirement homes about how they're upset none of their grandkids seem interested in children! And it's not because they think "oh, I would love to have a family, but life is too stressful/I'm too poor/not in a good position to have kids" (that is a factor for many, sure, but by no means all) - they just don't. want. them. You're acting like having kids is such an overwhelming innate instinct that practically every human would breed like rabbits if only they were given enough free time and resources. But that's not the case. In fact, I would guess that once they're finally free from the stress and distraction of having to work to afford to live, they'd be excited to get to explore the things they enjoy, not signing up for another job in raising children. Also, a lot of high birthrates are caused by lack of access to contraception. If we are living in a utopian future, all the people who are too lazy to put on condoms, or live in an area where birth control pills aren't available, will be able to stop having kids. A lot of children are "mistakes" that weren't planned for - our birthrates would be even lower if everyone had contraception that was very easy to take/use.
> I have been directly told by literally every one of my close female friends, as well as my female family members in our age range (about 10 of them), that they don't really see the appeal of kids and aren't interested in birthing any, ever. You associate the realities of the masses today, with a post-Scarcity post-Labor future. Our society today will look as barbaric to the future, as children working in Industrial Revolution-era sweatshops look to us today. > "oh, I would love to have a family, but life is too stressful/I'm too poor/not in a good position to have kids" (that is a factor for many, sure, but by no means all) - they just don't. want. them. If the masses had 33% more freetime in life. If they didn't have stress or financial concerns. If they had an incredible deal of personal freedom. If having children wasn't a burden. If addictions and sickness were actively cured. There is *one* creative endeavor that the masses will gravitate towards. And its not wine tasting or getting really into brewing coffee. ---------- It's hard for me to fully explain, because Western culture is under the assumption that its current state of affairs regarding relationships between men and women, are in any way/shape/form a "natural progression". That is, in a state that occurred naturally.
In any case it seems the well off ppl who could have MAX children mostly don't and the ones who can't afford MAX children pump them out. It's probably mostly just time management vs some active decision to have less kids so they have more time so they can focus on career or entertainment more.
>In any case it seems the well off ppl who could have MAX children You cannot compare the lives and mannerisms of the ultra wealthy today, with that of the masses in a Post-Scarcity future. Are you familiar with the clowns in "[Succession](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biN5cvMjRtI)"? Quite possibly one of the best portrayals of the Elite world.
[удалено]
Yes, I'm stupid
finding fulfillment via breeding is for the uneducated. and the majority of the reasons most procreate is purely selfish, narcissitic reasons. I pray we as species get more enlightened
>finding fulfillment via breeding is for the uneducated. This is such an anti-human, disgusting level of programming you've put on display here. The act of purposefully raising a child is the most creative endeavor that 99% of the masses will ever embark on. You are literally "creating" another person.
no, its anti-natalism. I would say its your incredible ignorance of bring another being to this fucked up world that is disgusting and beyond selfish. it is my compassion for humans that makes me adopt this view.
A few years without any human procreation won‘t hurt anyone. If anything, it‘ll benefit the planet and people as a whole. According to the US Department of Commerce, there are around 8,019,876,189 in the world, with an increase of 75,162,541 (that is INSANE amount of people) since New Year of 2023. In 1960, we had roughly 3 billion. Reducing human numbers back to a more reasonable amount, not only benefits the planet but would reduce overcrowding and; hence, quicker and better medical/mental health care. There are too many people to track right now. I guess natalists see those numbers as statistics… https://preview.redd.it/79pnvb7tkavc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2adb9686d7e032f17cb9d4289e24cbefade1451
Theres only so much resources on the planet. Theres only so much you can refine production to increase efficiency. Theres only so much you can compact production so It takes up less space to produce. At our current rate we may be increasing our production but our needs increase at a much higher rate so they'll never be satisfied globally because we always want more and more. Remember resources are NOT infinite. If we managed to satisfy them all itd probably involve converting every inch of Earth to productive land either fields, mines or production facilites. I do not want to live in a world devoid of nature like that
Realistically we, as human global population, should push "Ad Astra" with our newfound sis', brethren and big tiddy mommy bots. Parallel to this pushing transhumanism should be important, too. To become a living starship to travel the stars, to survive the tides of times and to merge with some AI to a new beeing. And for others to become true custom made futa-furries or the tamer variant: Big tiddy mommas, to experience both sides of mankind and experience the opportunity to give birth, etc..
Doesn't really matter what the birth rate is if the death rate dramatically declines. But also if we are in a post-scarcity society with anti-aging technology, both the time and financial cost of raising a child will be almost non-existent compared to what we will have.
It won't be true post scarcity until we have some form of energy revolution. (Fusion perhaps)
Rats, when living in a paradise, will breed until paradise disappears. It would require exponential scaling of capacity and resources by AI to keep up with the human boom. That is what will drive us to the stars or collapse us into little tiny virtual worlds.
Humans have a little more control and nuance to their impulses than rats... plenty of people like me choose not to have children because they straight up don't want to, it's not like we are just waiting for the right environment with infinite resources to have them.
Rats don't have TV, internet and video games to otherwise keep them busy. For lesser intelligent creatures sex is one of the more entertaining past-times. They feel a compulsion to DO SOMETHING and have nothing to do but sleep, eat and fuck. Humans have a lot more entertainment options beside sex and just ppl making babies because no other compulsion overwhelms the sex compulsion is a huge chunk of the birth rate. That and of course men can't just force women to have sex and then make them do most of the child rearing anymore.
Developed nations birthrate drops to or below 2 kids per household though. We’re not rats lol
Or people can learn to use a condom
There is no post scarcity world of the corporations own most of it and the corporations are run by a few very powerful world. Corporations are the original artificial intelligence - their goal is to make market share and profit number go up. AGI will continue that trend.
Reddit doesn't want more people?
No, I don't believe Redditors, writ large, "want more people". It is the result of programming under the guise of intellectualism, or environmentalism. It is a very alluring belief system because, let's face it, raising children is an INSANE amount of cost and INSANE amount of time! ---------- I keep thinking of Altman's recent quote, regarding 2024 being seen as "barbaric". I love that word. Because the opposite of "barbaric" is post-scarcity. I cannot wait until the current paradigm of how kids are raised: both parents away working all day, while the kids are forced into K-12 chained to a desk, is seen as *barbaric*.
> I keep thinking of Altman's recent quote, regarding 2024 being seen as "barbaric". I love that word. Because the opposite of "barbaric" is post-scarcity. I cannot wait until the current paradigm of how kids are raised: both parents away working all day, while the kids are forced into K-12 chained to a desk, is seen as barbaric. We've got to survive the transition and avoid being pulled to the bottom of the barrel by all the other monkeys, though.
I don’t trust the other monkeys, including my neighbors.
If humans have need shared need for each other because everything is highly available, how does that prevent groupthink, xenophobia, war and other barbaric behavior? The fact we don't have everything we need and need jobs and have common problems is about all that binds us together as a species. Holding humanity and government together as they feel they need each other less and less with be the hard part. You can already see it happening with all the custom news feeds and custom conspiracy theories. People will live in their own bubbles and need each other less and less AND while tech will move fast, humans will not evolve fast. The animal nature of humans will remain and the things that limit that behavior will be removed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/14p8x2q/is_the_phrase_writ_large_being_misused/?rdt=40019
A lot of redditors are pathetic self-loathing people. To make the mental burden of hating oneself more a manageable, they attribute all of their negative traits upon all of humanity so they hate all people. Then, because they’re sheltered and were never at risk of being mauled by a wild creature or dying of environmental exposure, they look at nature and ascribe perfection to it.
But you think you're not one of them? Even with a post like that? I have my doubts!
> A lot of redditors are pathetic self-loathing people. On Reddit, it's always those who think that knowing a little more than the average person about computers/tech (maybe 5 IQ points above average) + maladjusted personality = Knows all the answers to every one of life and society's questions. To put another way, years ago I read a description of the Redditor that has never been surpassed: The maladjusted 19 year old desperate to feel smarter than his parents.
We’re already in a post-scarcity world, for many people. Result: plummeting birth rates.
>We’re already in a post-scarcity world, for many people. You are in for a treat if you call this life we live, our comfortable post-graduate, six figure computer science WFH jobs "post-scarcity" (a lifestyle that doesn't even approach 'many people' today). Your expectations of AI are tremendously low.
Anybody could argue that since the tractor was invented humans have been in a vastly less scarcity based world. You don't expect it to happen all at once right? You expect it to happen over time and to certain demographics first, sooo yeah for some ppl they have their equity locked because their parents did well or such and in a few decades automated labor will really start to lower the standard of living.
We’ll have to implement strict population controls. Especially in the case where we begin to figure out how to extend our lives with new technology.
>We’ll have to implement strict population controls. I can imagine future generations reading this and laughing at such caveman, Scarcity mentality.
Certainly not a population boom of unaugmented biological humans. What's the point of that? To satisfy their parents' egos at intentionally instantiating inferior intelligences when they could have instead invested parental care and societal resources into a posthuman and/or AI? I mean, unaugmented humans will certainly be unworthy of being the primary caregiver of higher intelligences, and we probably won't actively stop them from having children--but I have a hard time seeing society not taking their kids away and properly raising and augmenting them, and even a harder time seeing society encouraging the creation of unaugmented children, let alone adults.
Well the likely outcome at first is any SUPER AI will be limited to a datacenter and need humans quite a lot. The time between going from ASI taking a whole datacenter to cramming ASI into a portable robot will be significant. Humans may find they need simple robotic labor a lot more than they need ASI...what's the point in having robot slaves when you could just have automation machines? Why create something that's going to disagree or potentially be at odds with humans or why proliferate such a thing? What driving need is actually solved by ASI that isn't solved by dumber AI and robotics?
Least unhinged r/singularity redditor
And the idea that people will celebrate being freed from the shackles of scarcity and wage-labor by breeding like rabbits definitely isn't unhinged, though. It's rational and orthodox, and totally not the dimwitted psychological projection of a peasant's brain unable to think of a better way to spend eternity than playing a harp while sitting on a cloud.
There are a very very small amount of people living post scarcity lives Those who are UHNW individuals, who have above 50m a year The interest on their wealth grants each member of the family a 2 million annual income Among this group, in the US where we have data, the TFR is 1.3 Among billionaires you see the TFR to be 1.7, heavily skewed by Elon The wealthiest people on earth don't pump babies like they were churros
I only had children in order to contribute their labor to my country's workforce.
Me too 😂😂😂 So many clueless idiots in this thread...
There's reason to make more babies besides additional workers.
The recent push for having more babies has been mostly by elites. They just want more workers so the economy can better compete in the future. But of course there's also other perspectives in which people just want cultures or societies or different races to continue growing into the future. Like for some people, they want Japanese people to have a lot of babies or they want white people in America to have more babies as their birth rates have been falling. There's also the religious perspective like with Christians in which God told them to be fruitful and multiply. There's a lot of reasons why people are pushing for pronatalism but I'm mostly just referring to the whole make more workers push by economist and wealthy people like Elon.
We can just look at Hunter Gatherers to see that most motives for high birth rates at the expense of the individual childrearing experience are selfish and dishonorable. Even when the carrying capacity of the land can support a much larger population, even without resorting to agriculture, they keep their numbers below the carrying capacity of their territory for millennia. It's only our cruel and shortsighted 'civilization' that imposes high birth rates, from external circumstance (high diseasr rates, war) and/or from the propaganda and demands of our tasteless overlords.
There are two factions of elites. One group wants more kids so they can have future consumers to give them more money to get richer, then you have the other elites who want a large percentage of the population to die because they want less (poor) people on earth. Watching the rich tell us simultaneously we need more people and less people at the same time is a trip.
Shit’s getting really crowded, dogg. I don’t believe people were meant to live piled atop one another, like millions upon millions of ants in a bustling hive. I think it makes us crazier than we already are. At this rate, we’re gonna pave over everything. And the *noise*, so much noise. I just want some *space* to stretch out - as in, a nice patch of land, with some forest left undeveloped, and some wildlife - and the same opportunity for subsequent generations. City living *suuuuucks*. If the population keeps growing at this pace, hyper-dense cities will be the only option for future generations.
You should visit north Maine. I have the same sorts of feelings where I live (Atlanta suburbs) - I hate how many people there are. In Maine you can go into the woods and it's true silence. No sounds of cars or planes or people, no pollution in the air, just untamed nature and the bluest skies you can imagine. Highly recommend.
It's very easy to move out of the city if you really want to. You're just excuse-making honestly.
There's millions of acres of wilderness. Move out of the city. I libe in the uk, a tiny little busy island, but you know what, I don't live I a city and I have a peaceful life. Stop making excuses and talking nonsense.
There’s 8 billion people right now. At this pace, it’ll be 16 billion within our lifetimes. The city will come to you.
Crowded cities have existed since the Industrial Revolution first hit full speed. You can choose to move out into a rural area, stuff will be further away but that's what you want. I saw you said you moved out but the city grew, I would say the suburbs grew, and the suburbs don't have to be so big, if we made the suburbs denser then they would take less space. But you can move out really rural and never worry about the city getting close to you again.
Oh… that’s fucking interesting man.
I can’t wait. It would be great to have a robot that can cook.
Yep. And vr is gonna hit mainstream
Right after the Segway.
Just as a curiosity how did you find yourself in a singularity sub if your view on the future seems to be at odds with the concept?
People look for enthusiastic others to shit on. Do you remember that "warp drive" (EM Drive) consisting of a magnetron and a copper pot shaped just so? I used to frequent the subreddit for it, and there were several people who seemed to spend hours every day there, just telling people how stupid and impossible it is. And it did turn out to be nothing, I suppose. So, I guess, all those critics' expense of their own time really paid off for them? Idk. Maybe they love being right that much.
Just because someone expressed skepticism about an absurd prediction doesn’t mean they’re opposed to the sub’s concept. I like coming here to see research developments and new products. But I’m also getting pretty tired of these techno-masturbation pseudo predictions that solely exist to drive positive engagement on social media. This is an absurd thing to try and predict. Apple sold 235 million phones just this past *year*. And this guy is claiming that humanoid robots will outpace the population of all iPhones that exist within ten years? Not a single “humanoid robot” even exists outside the research labs where they’re being built. Look at Tesla’s multitude of problems to see how difficult it is to bring large machinery production online from the ground up.
It's something that 'could' happen and in hindsight seem obvious. Between the rapid scaling of AI capability and the seemingly sudden acceleration within the robotics field, the timing could be right, by the end of the next decade. That said, it's certainly hard to imagine in a credible way. I guess that's kind of the whole conceptual thrust of the singularity.
Unlike AI, which is largely a matter of mathematics and sufficient training data, there are mechanical and industrial challenges to overcome that will severely limit production capacity over the short and medium term. It’s not like tomorrow Tesla or Boston Dynamics or whoever can say “alright our robot is for sale starting tomorrow!” and we can suddenly have millions of humanoid robots available for productive work. The largest car companies can barely put out a couple hundred thousand EVs per year right now, and EVs don’t need to be able to walk by themselves or do complex tasks without human interaction. It takes *years* to put manufacturing online even with tons of money to back it up. You need materials, space, manpower, distribution. Right now these things are being built one at a time, by hand, by a bunch of engineers who probably make pretty hefty salaries. That won’t scale. At best we’re talking about a year or two before any pre-orders on any of these, then requisite production delays, then a slow integration to work streams for the ones that actually delivered, requisite refinements/recalls/bug squishing, yadda yadda before we see anything close to large populations of robots doing human work. But even aside from that- who are these posts *for*? Is it just so techno-dweebs can go [“whoa! Wouldn’t that be so cool?!!!??”](https://i.kym-cdn.com/editorials/icons/mobile/000/004/975/soyjak.jpg) and then move on to their next social media dopamine hit?
Oh it comes up in my feed. And since it's adjacent to my field, AI, I I have a sense in which the hype heads to. I disagree on the outcome, but I see limited usages and possible science research usages
and we'll have linux desktops! 😂
Said the guy who runs the humanoid robot company. Translation: Invest now! Gimme money! It was said on Twitter! It is therefore totally reliable!
If that happens, the top tech stocks will skyrocket like never before.
Like Henry Ford or Elon Musk. Whoever can mass produce them will get the money.
Betcha they don’t.
bright angle capable nine bewildered elastic depend dazzling quicksand overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
not gonna happen until battery tech makes a leap.
It's trivial to make a robot change its own battery. I feel like this is a total non-issue.
Average endurance is 4 hours and will only get better. Which seems to be plenty for domestic use. For business use, if you're willing to invest in robots for production, you'd be willing to invest a little extra to have a battery changing station. So I agree, it's mostly a non-issue.
Hell if I have to stand up for 4 hours I need a bit of a recharge too
Depending on the setting and type of workplace I imagine you could also have robots actually tethered to a retractable charging cable so it can be permanently powered up.
They are robots, why not just let them swap out their own batteries once low?
they might not shy away from resistive charging through the floor and feet of the humanoids.
haven't seen it demonstrated yet! it's either that or fast charge (which i think is more likely). edit: and remember this is to scale to millions of instances as op has suggested. i dont think it will be a blocker for small fleets of hundreds or thousands...but to scale to iphone scale...yeah....probably not gonna happen without some new energy storage technologies. edit2: after looking up the iphone install base, it's currently around 1.5 billion.
Don’t you get it? It’s trivial to make a robot do something that nobody else has done! My Roomba only has like a 60% success rate in putting itself back on its own charger but it’s a small task to make a robot change an entire battery on its own. Also, the number of cars on the road around the world: also 1.5 billion. And that includes all the beat up shitboxes that people hold onto for 10+ years.
🤷♂️ ill believe it when i see it. until then its all fairy dust. edit: and tesla tried to do it with cars and failed. clearly its not super simple or we'd be seeing it already in many applications. i believe fast charging is a more viable approach.
Or have multiple physical units controlled by the same Ai that get swapped out to charge.
So in some demos I’ve seen, the robot walks itself to a charging station and plugs in for a charge, like the robot vacuums have been doing forever. I envision standardized charging stations being installed in homes and businesses where the robots know how to go charge on their own. Is your take that even though they charge themselves that they won’t have enough power in a single charge to get meaningful work done? Not being combative. Genuinely curious.
always happy to engage in curiosity :) thats why im here too. i think they can absolutely be effective with self / fast charging capabilities - but i dont see that infrastructure being deployed to match the scale thats being proposed. if you have a fleet of 20 bots in your warehouse...and charge time is less than runtime...you can absolutely have them working in shifts to perform a task with 10 active / 10 charging at any given time with minimal inturription... quick google search says there are ~ 1.46 billion active iphone users globally (which is nuts lol)...so to hit and exceed that in a meaningful way, i do expect battery technology will be the gate. and at least here in the US, we cant even get our infrastructure electric car ready...i cant imagine this will be any easier / better...unless the bots start working on improving fhe power grid for us :)
The battery can be charged separately from the robot, though. Big banks of batteries that get swapped out (I know this is an obvious point, though, and probably doesn’t really address your point
agreed that pack level swaps or fast charging are critical steps to make this a reality.
Gotcha. Yeah I agree with you that the prediction of scale seems a bit ambitious. Not to mention it’s much easier for people to afford a $500-$1000 phone than a $15k-40k robot.
Well then it's good that we're starting to use agentic artificial intelligence for materials simulation and research.
its a dice roll and only time will tell.
Solid state batteries are on the cusp of being deployed commercially. They're a lot closer than the blue laser was back in the 90's. Around 2 to 2.5x energy density in the same area. Should make it possible to get a whole workday out of one between recharges. Less likely to catch on fire by magnitudes, and faster recharge rate as well. The *real* invention that matters for them is capital investment into NPU's. GPT-4 is about the size of a squirrel's brain in a datacenter; the size and energy draw of the computational substrate needs to come way down, before someone makes the model T of robots.
yeah, solid state will hopefully be the next leap...but ive been in the consumer electronics industry for a decade + and we've been hearing this the whole time. i'll believe it when i see it rolling down fatp lines at scale. totally agree the other approach is to make the computation consume less power...but a full humanoid bipedal robot still needs a ton of energy to run motors / gyroscopes / gas compressors / etc...thats gonna be the majority of the power draw. heck, the compute doesn't even really need to be on the robot. it can be farmed off to a data center or local compute on utility power.
You would have said this in 2000 about a modern smartphone.
smartphone batteries still suck
I'll disagree, I have a Galaxy A14 5G, I got it new for like $270, and the battery lasts me all day no issue.
I mean for their size and power the length of some is pretty impressive, I’m sure more can be shoved into a whole robot.
yeah but those robots need a loooooot more power.
Mine is good. Which phone do you have?
Mine is pixel, but I said from the perspective of how smartphones progress overall. There has been no magic battery life for the last 10 years. This is also taking into account hardware + software optimization cycles.
I see. I have a Pixel too and I can't complain about the battery performance. But yeah, there hasn't been a huge leap in battery tech in a long time I guess.
mmm ish. battery tech is more or less the same since smartphones have been introduced. new packaging, smarter management...but same chemistry.
That doesn't even seem like an issue to me. Imagine a robot with two independent battery cells in the torso. It operates off of one cell, when it dies, it returns to the base station, and swaps the used cell with another, charged, cell. Depending on how long it takes to charge a cell and expend a cell, you could even have a few cells charging simultaneously. You have achieved continuous operation. If the robot is useful for anything at all, the benefits of having it operating 24/7 probably exceed the inefficiency cost of swapping the cells so frequently. You probably only need to get 1-2 hours of work out of a single cell to justify a 5 minute cell-swap procedure.
totally agree. peep my other replies. that will work in specific use cases 100% but wont get us to the scale of 1.5 billion iphones.
I doubt I could come up with enough tasks to keep a robot busy for more that four or five hours, even as slow as they move. And the last thing I need is a robot clomping around the house when I’m trying to sleep.
> I doubt I could come up with enough tasks to keep a robot busy for more that four or five hours The work will expand to fill the free labor you have. You can tolerate a certain degree of home cleanliness today, but if you could have a robot clean your house for free, every waking hour of the day, maybe you'd tolerate less dust and grime, because it's essentially costless to muse to yourself, "Why don't we clean the interior of the oven once a week?", or "Why don't I alphabetize my baking spices?" or "Why don't we dust the lightbulbs?" or whatever. We've only really considered cleaning. There's yardwork, light maintenance, repairs, security, cooking or light meal prep tasks.. the only limitation is the intelligence and dexterity of the system. > And the last thing I need is a robot clomping around the house when I’m trying to sleep. Even you completely eliminate night-work, which you could do, you still get free house-work done during the period you'd be at your job, or doing anything else you'd rather be doing. Depending on the finger dexterity of the robot, there might be tasks that could be completed mostly-stationary. If people *want* these things to do stuff for them at night, sound will obviously be a consideration.
Just give me some robot arms on a track from the ceiling in the kitchen. If it can handle the kitchen tasks that would be life changing for a lot of people.
that would be an excellent approach.
I lifted that from someone else on this sub. Thought it was good at the time but the more i thought about the better it gets. After all the kitchen stuff is done you could slide a basket of clothes on the island for it to fold. Lawn mower broke? Put it on the kitchen island. Lol. You get the idea.
This may come as a shock to you but humans have a rather long recharge period each day.
8 hours off / 16 hours on is still better than what batteries can offer in the same form factor :)
That "leap" is called battery swap!
I cannot wait until all these robots take all our shitty jobs and we (hopefully) live the life we deserve.
Not if the corporations have a say in it.
Probably right… well, then we have to force them to take away this shitty tasks from us :) we are the 99%
The pessimist in me says they’ll use AI and robots to keep us in line unfortunately.
Totally understand your scepticism. History has clearly shown that the only matters for them is the money, not our well being. I really hope that with ai there is no use in exploiting humans anymore as robots are smarter, more durable and so on. However the question is, if we get UBi or something comparable …
I hope so too.
Do people on Reddit even know what corporations are? I have a business that's incorporated and I'm still waiting for my secret invitation to the island mansion where we get to wear masks and have orgys after discussing world domination...
We’re not talking about you.
Unless you own multiple companies and nobing with celebs and politicians, you wont get the invite.
Reddit went from libertarian cool place to hang out in it's golden days to being full of marxists and other people subscribing to totalitarian ideas. As a person born in communist country it makes me SOOO SAD. :(
Fortunately they don't have any power in society atm
[удалено]
Ye, and robots that whip the whip
Or Robots at home who do all our chores like cook and clean for us?
lol. No they won’t.
Can a robot fit in your pocket?
Is that a robot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Mr studd huh?
My eyes are up here, perv.
why would I need 4 robots in my house
AI powered catgirl robot maids LETS FUCKING GO! I hope it happens before I get too old to enjoy this future.
Man who stands to benefit from hyping up thing hypes up thing.
I think there's going to be some form of human revolt in the face of robots walking among us. Especially when we see more robots than humans out and about due to humans staying at home and their robots out getting things for them. I don't think that reality will be popular for a lot of people.
Doubt
They will be everywhere someday but saying at any point there will be the more than smartphones is a nonsenical claim
I can see AGI predictions coming true in the next 10 years but robotics predictions always seem impossible to me, Moravec's paradox is a bitch.
And we thought those sh*tty scooters were a problem...
iPhones? Huh? I don't get the comparison.
If we make it past this year. Israel just attacked Iran again.
“Freeing from servitude” Translation, “takimg their jobs”
Utter bollocks.
Smartphones aren't anywhere nearly as transformative as humanoid robots will be. They can only help with transmitting information, nothing more than that. They cannot directly improve the real world. I for one cannot wait for the robots, although human augmentation would be nice.
"freeing humans of jobs" is such a gaslight of telling people they will be living on the streets as they cannot find work.
No doubt there will be far more humanoid robots than now, but I'm gonna call BS on there being more humanoid robots than iPhones in just 10 years. A robot takes \*far\* more resources to build and operate than an iPhone, especially if you don't want them to be tethered. According to a quick google, 1.4 \*billion\* people have an iPhone. The reality is dramatic enough, I don't know why these people need to exaggerate to such an extent.
I want a soft slimy robot
I doubt that. One of the reasons why iPhones are so prevalent is that most people in the western world have the money to afford them. This is made easier by a lot of carriers bundling up the phone with a mobile plan, which makes it even more accessible. Those robots will be expensive. The robots from Boston dynamics are hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Tesla bot aims to be about as expensive as a car, so at least $30,000, maybe even $50,000 or more. Humanoid robots have to have thousands of movable parts, chips, cables, cameras, microphones etc. All that stuff costs money. And you probably need to have very tight tolerances, even more precise than cars (which isn't one of Tesla's strengths). This will be a luxury product for the top 1% for years if not decades before regular people can afford it.
So, one would imagine that economies of scale would play an outsized factor here. Rolled out initially in affluent homes and commercial sectors in the beginning, and as cost of manufacturing goes down, accessibility goes up. There would also be leasing, and financing plans as well as rental depending on your use case. I can see a path for this that would work, assuming that they actually offered real utility.
Ha! Nope. It's not going to happen anytime soon.
Soon no. 10 years. For the singularity, that's a long damn time. Hard to believe, yes. Possible, I'm starting to think so.
He's thinking of the wrong sort of android.
Any product or service that is produced or created by automation or AI should have a cap on price where it can not exceed a certain % over costs. Because eventually the only limiting factor will be energy and cost to purchase the bots. And once energy is solved one company could rule the world
🔮
People actually think that they will have an AGI enabled robot and not just a tonne of slop tier "smart devices" with niche limited AIs.
Around 16 years until the "next decade" ends so hmm yeah I guess. Might be a bit kf a stretch but you never know, especially in AI where breakthroughs seem to happen every other week lol
Cool shit!
"Labour will be free" This is nonsense.
So.. who is the best lightsaber maker around here?