Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Force feedback demo Force feedback is when joystick is pushing on your hand when something is pushing on the robot arm. Feeling the force - so much helpful to control the robot, that done well it allows you to do tasks even without visual feed. You can make an...

18,773 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Imagine you go to a store and you want to buy candy. The shopkeeper knows you're a real kid because they can see you standing right there. Now imagine you send a robot to buy candy for you. The shopkeeper looks at the robot and thinks: wait, who sent this? Is this robot allowed to buy candy? What if someone else's robot pretends to be yours and steals your candy money? That's basically what's happening with AI right now. Companies like Visa let people buy things all over the world. But now, smart computer robots (AI agents) want to buy things too. Shop around, compare prices, even pay for stuff. Visa looked at this and said: nope, not yet. Because they have no way to check if the robot is real, who it belongs to, or if it's allowed to spend that money. The problem is that all the rules we have for checking identity - showing your ID, scanning your face, typing your password - only work for humans. Robots can't do any of that. Worse, bad robots can actually copy and fake human identities really well. So Evin McMullen evin, Billions Network co-founder and CEO, says we need a new kind of ID system. One where you can prove something is true without showing all your private stuff. Like proving you're tall enough for a ride without telling anyone your exact height. That's called zero-knowledge proof. And for the robots specifically, we need something called KYA - Know Your Agent. It's like giving every robot its own ID card that says: this is who I am, this is what I'm allowed to do, and this is the human responsible for me. Until we build that, the robot economy can't really get going. Here is Evin’s Thought Leader article at Silicon Valleys Journal

Billions Network

21,775 views • 6 months ago

It's 2030 and you are reviewing humanoid robots. A Tesla. A Google. An Apple. An OpenAI. A Meta. A Figure. And a bunch of Chinese-made ones. Which one is best, and why? I think the Tesla understands the world much better. Why? There were eight Teslas around me on the freeway today. Start there. No other robot company has that data. But my robot is parked at the local high school twice a day. Its cameras see humans in all of our weirdness. How we move. Where we go. Where we walk. Who we talk with. What you are wearing. Whether your hair was combed this morning. That data will lead to robotics breakthroughs. Apple might keep up with its Vision Pro data, but it is too freaked out by the privacy implications of using said data. (On the front are six cameras and a couple of TOF -- Time Of Flight -- sensors that can see everything in your home in great detail). Google has a lot of data, for sure. All my: 1. Email. 2. Calendars. 3. Photos. 4. TV watching behavior. 5. Contacts. 6. Documents and spreadsheets. 7. Files. 8. Location data. So I expect Google's robot will be attractive to many. But how do you see the others shake out over the next five years? Make some guesses. But remember what an AI pioneer told me years ago about AI: it's all about the data. The Chinese ones have huge advantages: the Chinese have more data on their citizens, and many more citizens to boot AND they can make robots cheaper than we can. But now that you know OpenAI is building its own robot you have caught wind of what I've heard from many in San Francisco and Silicon Valley: that humanoid robots are the real prize of AI and will be highly profitable for those that can make them and find customers willing to buy them. Here, too, I learned long ago never to bet against Elon Musk. Will you?

Robert Scoble

33,804 views • 1 year ago

AI has had exactly two scaling axes that worked so far, and the second one is starting to look finite too the first one was pretraining: with scaling parameters and data, we got world knowledge (i.e. ChatGPT had read enough to know things), but it started saturating a while ago the second one was RL, and people had been doing RL the whole time before that: RLHF is RL but it never scaled far because it was trying to control the exact output, which tokens come out, how the text reads, but you can only push that so far before you’re just polishing RLVR dropped that constraint: giving the model a task, then checking whether the final answer is right, and ignoring everything in between -- so the model does whatever it wants in the middle and only the endpoint gets graded, and that’s much closer to actual RL and it’s what bought us planning and reasoning (arguably, tool use sits around 2.5 on this list -- while useful, it's not a different kind of thing) so one axis gave knowledge, the other gave reasoning, and both of them are one model working alone the next axis is how many models you can get working on the same problem, which is a different kind of axis than the previous two we know that multi-agent RL has always been the harder problem: I spent years in that literature and the gap between single-agent and multi-agent is definitely not incremental -- it’s a whole different class of difficulty! which is also why the derivatives are steep at the start, nobody has picked the easy wins yet... and the thing that gates this multi-agent coordination is communication: models can only coordinate as well as they can exchange information, and right now they do that by writing sentences to each other imagine what could we possibly achieve if we properly open that third axis development by letting models to exchange information in their native "language" without loosing any computational data that they produce during inference

Sasha Malysheva

11,393 views • 13 days ago