I would say he isn't what he once was, age will get us all. However 'has no taste anymore' is too far the other way AND 'tasteless boomer' is in itself a tasteless comment.
There are just a few reasons - humanoid make sense, mostly for multi purpose tasks - where if you want a robot to be multi-job, do almost everything a human can do at work --
If you want a weld you need a 1 arm robot, if a robot to weld, then stack, then push parts on a cart across the factory - then sweep up, then etc.. etc.. perhaps a humanoid is alright.
There will definitely be too many people comfortable with ownership / master relationship with a humanoid robot that will do their bidding.
For multi-purpose tasks, human hands and arms are excellent, but only 2 are too few for many tasks. Humans very frequently need to have specialized gripping tools in order to accomplish tasks that cannot be done with only 2 arms, or they must work in pairs.
A good mobile multi-purpose robot should have 3 arms, or 4 arms for symmetry.
Human legs are normally not necessary. A mobile robot would just need some means to raise and lower its wheels, so that it could step when ascending or descending stairs.
A human head is not useful. The place for the "brain" of a robot is in its "chest", because robots do not have the limitations of living beings, where the very slow propagation speed of the nervous signals forces the nervous systems to be concentrated in the proximity of the main sense organs.
Instead of a head, one should have a couple of mobile arms with video cameras at their end, somewhat like the mobile stalks of crab eyes.
Of the components of a human, only the hands and arms are models useful to imitate. Cephalopod-like arms would be even more versatile than human-like arms, but it is likely that they would be much more expensive at similar performances.
Having the size of a human and human-like hands and arms is good for working in environments designed for humans, but having the shape of a human has no purpose.
I understand the argument but its honestly ridiculous in my eyes. How about a set of arms that can reach into dishwasher and stack dishes and a washer/dryer to fold laundry... Except even without solving the bipedal movement, that doesn't exist at a consumer price point.
Why are we pretending the hardest version of this is close to existing?
It doesn't need to be at a consumer price point first, it needs to replace a human at an existing warehouse or manufacturing role first, and that's achievable in the next two years at this point.
When you have arms that can reach into the dishwasher, you're also going to want them to put away your dishes. And so suddenly they need to get up high. And you're not going to have a SECOND set of arms at your washer/dryer to fold laundry, you're just going to buy a second DLC for your existing robot. And it needs to get between those places, so if you have stairs, wheels don't cut it. You need a bipedal robot very quickly.
Ok, so your idea is to sell a machine without software and then hand wave the software part away by saying it will be released at a later date? Sounds like a scam to me. You'll just end up with another AMD situation where the company is only interested in selling the hardware and has zero interest in developing the software, because it costs money and can only ever generate revenue by selling more hardware, which will make the hardware focused company feel vindicated in deciding to not put effort into the software.
My idea? No. I'm pointing out that if you release something capable of loading a dishwasher and putting away dishes, it could be as little as a future software improvement to make it do something else.
I am familiar, I'm a big fan of Dean Kamen's work. So far, we haven't seen a single wheeled stair climbing vacuum cleaner, even though the original iBOT is 23 years old.
That solves the horizontal mobility problem. And then you have cabinets - and wheels don't solve the vertical mobility problem. So then you need a scissor lift on those wheels, or a hydraulic lift.
The robotics nerds always end up back at bipedal because it's vastly simpler once you're already solving arms.
A scissor lift or some other thing seems a lot simpler than trying to allow for a bipedal robot to knee to reach things close to the ground. Or if legs are the best option, why not a quadruped? Much more stability with a lot of the same advantages.
Use wheels and buy two if you have to...the Roomba solution. Besides, why do you need to solve stairs the hardest way possible, a fully bipedal robot, before it moves past vapor?
I think the key is that none of our actual home use cases can be done with just arms. You don't need your folded clothes sitting in front of your washer and dryer, and a set of arms can't handle folding sheets.
Why not? I would love to have a set of arms that could flip the laundry from the washer to the dryer and then take it out of the dryer and fold it and put it in the basket.
I understand that particular use case sounds cool! I really do.
And then you want them to put away your dishes, and they can't, even though it's just a software update, because they're across the house. And they're BIG, so you don't have room to store two anyway.
Back around the turn of the (20th) century, electric motors were expensive. It was not uncommon to buy one motor that could do multiple things, like this vacuum/grinder/buffer/blower/pulley:
If we start making robot arms at scale, they're going to get cheap.
I'm also not sure people are really going to want bipedal robots walking around their home, blocking the hallways, recording you in your underwear, etc.
Sure, an electric motor is like 10cm on a side. A set of robot arms that can fold laundry are like a 100cm cube. Most people aren't going to have space for two of them.
A washer+dryer is pretty huge already. Seems like it could get some robot arms without changing the form factor dramatically.
That said, I think this is way farther off than anyone thinks. I want to know what the maintenance schedule looks like for robot arms. Looks like a lot of small moving parts. Probably a lot of plastic gears.
In an industrial setting, sure, maintenance is just an expense. But wheels require less maintenance and factories can be designed around the robots.
As I said, maybe earlier in this thread, I've now seen a laundry folding robot work, but I think loading a dishwasher and then putting away dishes is going to come first.
I use Cursor, but funny enough it's 98% just using the codex plugin - I kept cursor around on the grand fathered $20 / 500 requests plan, if they un-grandfather me or things change too much I'll zip over to vscode.
The fact senators have been able to stay in the senate for 20+ years, means they are probably making plenty of money. We need another round of FBI bribe stings to clean things up
I was going the other way, it wasn't obvious enough that it was going to be a horizontal scroll or how to do it. Vertical spacing felt off and the 'defining game' card at the bottom of the video card is nice information but displayed in a distracting manner.
Citing AI software as the only examples of how AI benefits developing software, has a bit of a touch of self-help books describing how to attain success and fulfillment by taking the example of writing self-help books.
I don’t disagree that these are useful tools, by the way. I just haven’t seen any discernible uptick in general software quality and utility either, nor any economic uptick that should presumably follow from being able to develop software more efficiently.
I agree with everyone else, where is the Microsoft Office competitor created by 2 geeks in a garage with Claude Code? Where is the Exchange replacement created by a company of 20 people?
There are many really lucrative markets that need a fresh approach, and AI doesn't seem to have caused a huge explosion of new software created by upstarts.
Or am I missing something? Where are the consumer facing software apps developed primarily with AI by smaller companies? I'm excluding big companies because in their case it's impossible to prove the productivity, the could be throwing more bodies at the problem and we'd never know.
The challenge in competing with these products is not code. The challenge competing in lucrative markets that need a fresh approach is also generally not code. So I’m not sure that is a good metric to evaluate LLMs for code generation.
I think the point remains, if someone armed with Claude Code could whip out a feature complete clone of Microsoft Office over the weekend (and by all accounts, even a novice programmer could do this, because of the magnificent greatness of Claude), then why don't they just go ahead and do it? Maybe do a bunch of them: release one under GPL, one under MIT, one under BSD, and a few more sold as proprietary software. Wow, I mean, this should be trivial.
It makes development faster, but not infinitely fast. Faithfully reproducing complex 42-year-old software in one weekend is a stretch no matter how you slice it. Also, AI is cheap, but not free.
I could see it being doable by forking LibreOffice or Calligra Suite as a starting point, although even with AI assistance I'd imagine that it might take anyone not intimately familiar with both LibreOffice (or Calligra) and MS Office longer than a weekend to determine the full scope of the delta between them, much less implement that delta.
But you'd still need someone with sufficient skill (not a novice), maybe several hundred or thousand dollars to burn, and nothing better to do for some amount of time that's probably longer than a weekend. And then that person would need some sort of motivation or incentive to go through with the project. It's plausible, but not a given that this will happen just because useful agentic coding tools exist.
Pick a smaller but impactful project and have 2-3 people working full-time on it for 1 year. Either this tech is truly revolutionary and these 2-3 people are getting at least 50% more done, or it's marginal and what are we even talking about?
There could be many such cases, or maybe only a few. I'm easily a multiple more productive as a result of integrating AI into my workflows; but whether that's broadly the case across the industry, or will become the case as we collectively adapt in coming years, is essentially unfalsifiable.
Cool. So we established that it's not code alone that's needed, it's something else. This means that the people who already had that something else can now bootstrap the coding part much faster than ever before, spend less time looking for capable people, and truly focus on that other part.
So where are they?
We're not asking to evaluate LLM's for code. We're asking to evaluate them as product generators or improvers.
Ok lets ignore competing with them. When will AI just spit out a "home cooked" version of Office for me so I can toss the real thing in the trash where it belongs? One without the stuff I don't want? When will it be able to give me Word 95 running on my M4 Chip by just asking? If im going to lose my career I might as well get something that can give me any software that I could possibly want by just asking.
I can go to Wendys or I can make my own version of Wendys at home pretty easily with just a bit more time expended.
The cliff is still too high for software. I could go and write office from scratch or customize the shivers FOSS software out there but its not worth the time effort.
We had upstarts in the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s and the 2010s. Some game, some website, some social network, some mobile app that blew up. We had many. Not funded by billions.
So, where is that in the 2020s?
Yes, code is a detail (ideas too). It's a platform. It positions itself as the new thing. Does that platform allow upstarts? Or does it consolidate power?
We have superhuman coding (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45977992), where are the superhuman coded major apps from small companies that would benefit most from these superhumans?
Heck, we have superhuman requirements gathering, superhuman marketing, superhuman almost all white collar work, so it should be even faster!
Fine, where's the slop then? I expected hundreds of scammy apps to show up imitating larger competitors to get a few bucks, but those aren't happening either. At least not any more than before AI.
ChatGPT is... a chat with some "augmentation" feature aka outputting rich html responses, nothing new except the generative side. Cursor is a VSCode fork with a custom model and a very good autocomplete integration. Again where are the products? Where the heck is Windows without the bloat that works reliably before becoming totally agentic? And therefore idiotic since it doesn't work reliably
reply