5 ms·
> So take robots: I can promise you that you won't see robotics in every household in the next decade (especially so if we exclude the current market of robot v
by rwz 2mo ago
> So take robots: I can promise you that you won't see robotics in every household in the next decade (especially so if we exclude the current market of robot vacuums).
People in 2016 were adamant that the current frontier LLM capabilities would not be achievable in the next decade.
Modern home robots prototypes look awkward and mostly useless the same way GPT-2 was looking like a curious but mostly useless thing in 2016.
I can totally see a capable and affordable home robots that are worth buying for the majority of the population being a reality by 2036. Maybe not _every_ household, but a good number of them.
- horsawlarway 2mo agoWorth buying? Maybe. Actually bought and distributed? No. Again, hardware just doesn't roll out that fast, and you're talking about trying to distribute expensive hardware to a population with a 47k median yearly wage. I've built robots. Even if the software expense is ~$0... you're not going to escape the fact that a robot that can do anything remotely similar to household work is just going to be expensive. Like, several thousand dollars in actuators and sensors alone, not counting any compute. LLMs are a SaaS - Robots are delivered hardware. The graveyard is littered with software folks who thought they could deliver hardware like it was software.
- djhn 1mo agoI agree. Not to mention safety. To be useful they’re gonna have to be capable and powerful. If they’re good enough to be useful, they will be dangerous. Advanced household robots are closer to fully autonomous cars and airplanes than roombas. The code is safety critical. Imagine something capable of flooding or burning down a building with hundreds of people if left to the vibe coders?
- fuzzythinker 1mo agomajority of population? I'll take that bet I'll even bet < majority of the US