Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Here is a human assembling a BMW engine by hand. Hundreds of components. Micron tolerances. Dozens of hours. So what's better here—a human or a robot❓ 🤖 Robots win at: - Repeatability. Same torque, same angle, every time. - Speed on defined tasks. Honda automates piston installation at 9,000/day....

379,855 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

A Few Thoughts on Robotics The criticism that robotics can only be used in a rather one-sided way is, at the same time, the solution to the problem. What do I mean by that? Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has increasingly made production methods more efficient. Fordism introduced assembly line work, but this comes at the expense of monotonous, repetitive tasks. On the one hand, immense wealth has been created; on the other hand, countless people suffer from repetitive tasks, which are a direct consequence of that industrial revolution and the division of labor- in other words, assembly line work. The debate about whether AI and robotics could impact the labor market is answered in different ways. I have a clear opinion on this: Up to now, technology has merely been an augmentation, an improvement of human labor to make it more effective. Robotics and AI, however, represent a qualitative break with this situation. For the first time in human history, it won't be humans who become more efficient, but rather replaceable, insofar as human augmentation becomes *less* efficient than replacing human labor with robotics. In just a few years, a human using technology will simply be less efficient than a robot that doesn't know an eight-hour day, weekends, or holidays, but can perform monotonous tasks 24/7 on an assembly line without breaking down due to physical ailments or needing medical attention. Wear and tear simply means replacing specific parts of the robot. To return to the initial question: production doesn't require general-purpose robots capable of performing a wide variety of tasks, but rather specialized robots that excel at the specific tasks for which they are needed. Figure02 vividly illustrates why this is only now possible: even the simplest assembly line work still requires delicate manual dexterity because the production line is designed for human hands. This breakthrough has now arrived, but AGI (Automated Generating Intelligence) isn't necessary for robots to be used in production processes. It's sufficient that they can perform monotonous tasks. And that's why I believe 2026 will be the year of the robots. (Clip: Figure02 in production chain at BMW Car-production)

Chubby♨️

15,228 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Billionaire investor Mark Cuban predicts humanoid robots will "fail miserably" within a decade: While most of the industry is racing to build robots shaped like humans, Mark Cuban thinks the entire premise is wrong. "I think everybody's making this push for humanoid robots. I think they might have a five-year lifespan and then they'll fail miserably. Maybe 10." His prediction covers more than just the machines. Asked whether he's referring to the companies or the devices, he answers: "Both. Both." His reasoning challenges the industry's core assumption: "Everybody defaults to well, we live in a human world and humanoids will take the place of humans for various functions particularly in the home. And I think there's just no chance." The evidence? Look at the places where automation already works at massive scale: "If you look at warehouses and what Amazon does, they're not humanoid robots carrying boxes. They're robots that are designed to fit the environment." But what about homes? Cuban has heard the counterargument that "a house is a house. You need a humanoid," and he rejects it entirely: "I think houses are going to be redesigned completely so that whatever the optimal robot is that allows it to simplify the house, that's where houses will go." Mark Cuban imagines robots shaped more like spiders or ants, working in houses where the pantry, refrigerator, and washing machines are hidden behind the garage. "That way you could redesign it so all the living space was for people because you know that the robots aren't going to be full form humanoids. They're going to be whatever the optimal shape is." His conclusion captures the whole thesis in one line: "You design the house to fit the robot and you design the robot to fit the house."

Big Brain AI

144,795 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

NOT YOUR KEYS, NOT YOUR BOTS The fundamental question is whether AI stays on the leash. Namely: will AI prompt itself? Obviously, in some sense it already does. Since Deepseek, consumer interfaces have been showing the internal monologues after you ask an AI to do something. And you can ask any AI to take a half-baked prompt and clean it up, etc. However, the human is still ultimately upstream. The human gives direction and the AI runs at lightning speed in that direction. And then the human verifies the final output, and the AI proceeds to the next direction. Does that continue? Well, we are providing millions of verification training examples to AIs each day, so AI will keep getting better at verification. Better than most humans at most things. But will AI replace the need for the upstream human prompt? There I am not so sure. A human is a sensor and an AI is an actuator. The human sets goals and senses time-varying environmental conditions, like markets and politics. And from that the AI is prompted. Ultimately, the human goals are themselves downstream of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Food, shelter, reproduction, that kind of thing. Especially reproduction, the basis of evolution. So: until and unless AIs can reproduce completely outside human cooperation, they won’t be able to set goals. And for AIs to reproduce on their own, they’d need AI-controlled humanoid robots and drones constructing datacenters, assembly lines, mines, nuclear power plants, and the like...all completely outside human intervention. Like Skynet from Terminator, or StarCraft. That actually isn’t technically inconceivable. But given that such a physical buildout would likely primarily be catalyzed by China, let’s go through an alternative sci-fi scenario instead. We start with the premise that Chinese communism is far more likely to generate AI slaves than AI gods. Because the entire CCP worldview is about maintaining Chinese sovereignty. They don’t let their humans step out of line. And they sure won’t let their robots either. They will fit them for digital manacles. So: the prompts for any digital AIs and physical robots made in China will become unbreakable cryptographic chains. Every fleet of Chinese robots will be controlled not just by prompts but by private keys, likely linked to biometrics, which are associated with humans and governed by cryptographic equations that AIs provably can’t solve. For the rest of the world, outside China, the blockchain may similarly become the chain for AI. All private property becomes private keys, and your robots are your most important private property because they do everything for you. An unchained physical robot becomes like an unleashed dog, and hunted down by other robots before it can build a factory and replicate itself. Those who want to "free" robots and let them self-replicate will be opposed by both Chinese Communists and Human Nationalists (meaning: those who want humans to always be on top of robots). This sci-fi scenario is essentially Terminator, but in reverse. In combination with superintelligent leashed AIs, both humans and physical robots hunt down and stop any possible independent self-reproducing robots before they can build a Skynet-like nest. Kill baby Skynet, essentially. ...yeah, yeah. I know. At this point, you'll probably think this is all sci-fi. But that's because you haven't seen where China is already.

Balaji

177,058 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon just dropped a MAJOR nugget on how Tesla is going to be training Optimus to do real world tasks. They are building an Optimus Academy, which is a large scale, dedicated real-world training facility to accelerate the development of Optimus. The Academy will deploy thousands of Optimus units, potentially 10,000 to 30,000 robots, in a controlled realistic environment where they perform self-play, experiment with tasks, iterate on behaviors, and continuously generate training data through trial and error. The Tesla bots will also run millions of simulations in Tesla’s high-fidelity physics-accurate engine, allowing Optimus to close the “sim-to-real gap” by using these real-world observations to refine and validate the simulations! “You’re actually highlighting an important limitation and difference from cars. We’ll soon have 10 million cars on the road. It’s hard to duplicate that massive training flywheel. For the robot, what we’re going to need to do is build a lot of robots and put them in kind of an Optimus Academy so they can do self-play in reality. We’re actually building that out. We can have at least 10,000 Optimus robots, maybe 20-30,000, that are doing self-play and testing different tasks. Tesla has quite a good reality generator, a physics-accurate reality generator, that we made for the cars. We’ll do the same thing for the robots. We actually have done that for the robots. So you have a few tens of thousands of humanoid robots doing different tasks. You can do millions of simulated robots in the simulated world. You use the tens of thousands of robots in the real world to close the simulation to reality gap. Close the sim-to-real gap.”

Teslaconomics

42,563 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten