Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots(bloomberg.com) |
Physical Intelligence is building a brain for robots(bloomberg.com) |
Processing visual input is the current bottleneck for robots that want to make sense of the physical world. Glad somebody's looking into it (no pun intended). I just hope their plan is more sophisticated than throwing more computational power at the problem.
Then you realize the limitation isn't the training data but the base model that was trained from hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and you start to see the real potential hurdle we have to clear.
Unfortunate typo. You meant 10^15 bytes at the end.
Thanks to your citation I was able to find a podcast transcript [1] with Yann LeCun's explanation:
> If you talk to developmental psychologists and they tell you a four-year-old has been awake for 16,000 hours in his or her life, and the amount of information that has reached the visual cortex of that child in four years is about 10 to 15 bytes.
The transcript is missing "the" (10 to the 15 bytes). The corresponding timestamp in the podcast on YouTube is 4:48.
So the lack of that sensor will cause the brain to develop poor representations of motion in 3d space.
How lack of those representations would affect other representations is less clear; because seeing the fusion between the LLM (which similarly doesn't have an embodied world model representation) and the robot AI (which presumable does) obviously works really well.
Now, it's possible that the 2 models are just inter-communicating between their own features (apple the concept and apple the image/object) and then being able to connect that together. The point of this meaning that there could be benefits from separate training and then post-training connection to bridge any gaps in learned representations.
However, I'd think that ultimately a model that can train simultaneously on more sensory input vs less will have a better/more efficient world model with more useful & interesting cross-connections between that space and applied uses in non-physical domains.
Regulators need to get ahead of this and establish a federal framework for safe robotic entrepreneurship.
For example…does the second amendment give me the right to have a drone which is capable of autonomously shooting a deer? There will be tens of millions of people who disagree on that point alone.
And then we need international agreements - much like nuclear - governing what is “fair game” for the public to have access to.
We must pursue a robot-enhanced future, carefully.
IANAL but it seems this would fall under running a human controlled robot with a gun, which I believe is illegal
If we could model visual streams accurately, fast, and at low compute cost, I think self-driving cars and autonomous mobile robots would be much more widely available.
"Norwegian humanoid robot startup 1X Technologies recently raised $100 million with backing from OpenAI"
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/29/robot-startup-figure-valued-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-vc-fund-raised-10-mil...
Remember they shut down the thread regarding Sam Altman's sister alleging she was molested by him.
Its just incredibly sad to see how society is quick to overlook one's transgressions if it stands to benefit from that individual. Artists, CEOs, politicians, celebrities.
Just one sick world and this blatant disregard for "non-profit" because bunch of men feel they were chosen.
Even for real world use — I found I could get a lot out of an even smaller resolution for an unrelated (non-AI) real-world task.
My state passed a law last week saying 18-year-old children can open carry a gun without a license. It’s very possible that the 2A people get energized and the Supreme Court is sufficiently out of touch to get this right.
18 years old + white -> child
12 years old + Black -> adult
I don't make the rules. I dont' understand them either
- Using a camera drone to spot game will fall under the purview of both Federal and state level Fish and Game/Wildlife departments, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Fish_... AFAIK this is not federally illegal, so there should be plenty of places where you can do this in the US.
- Drone (I assume you mean some quadcopter UAV) with a gun falls under FAA guidelines. You can't intentionally destroy them in flight or attach weapons to them for the same reason that you can't do that with planes: they are aircraft and the FAA doesn't want to deal with you shooting down aircraft. Since the FAA is federal, you can't do this anywhere in the US.
- Robot with a gun falls under ATF guidelines, specifically ATF letters that indicate certain classes of electronic trigger are effectively a machine gun and fall under the purview of the NFA. Same as point 2, the ATF rules will apply federally. If you have the relevant licensing, which I think would fall under a Class 2 SOT FFL, you can hook a firearm up to a robot since you are legally allowed by the ATF to manufacture machine guns. Most (?) of the Youtubers who have given guns to those offbrand Spots are doing it legally under the supervision of a Class 2 SOT.
- The autonomous robot with a gun would fall under the third point, as I am unaware of any rulings about specifically autonomous stuff, though someone could potentially make the argument that past rulings on booby traps could apply.
None of this directly answers the OP question about whether the 2nd amendment applies, but broadly federal regulation has moved past "shall not be infringed", so what the relevant federal agencies actually de facto allow is more to the point.
> 18-year-old children
just confirmed it. An 18-year-old is an adult with a right to own and bear a firearm by the 2nd amendment. A person is not a drone, and an 18-year-old is not a child.