General Discussion

paleotn

(22,209 posts)

75. We already have near humanoid robots...

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 03:55 PM

Sunday

I've seen them from their early stages in industry. Mostly alleviating dangerous tasks, especially those prone to repetitive motion injuries. They're more consistent than humans generally, but not necessarily faster. The problem is, they're stuck in place, tethered to a PLC. And that's for relatively simple, programmable tasks. Cramming the digital "horsepower" into them that's necessary to break that tether and do what humans do naturally has proven elusive, though great strides have been made. Reproducing what a billion years of evolution has given every human isn't as easy as it seems.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

mike_c GrapesOfWrath

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, I'm gonna stir the pot a bit... don't be too harsh... [View all] Joinfortmill Sunday OP

Its a loaded gun, given to a child. Swede Sunday #1

AI is simply a change accelerant to make the wealthy wealthier more quickly Tim S Sunday #2

Best explanation of it I've heard so far Walleye Sunday #3

Except this time genxlib Sunday #10

Elon Musk promises an age of abundance thought crime Sunday #23

Elitist billionaires... Safe as Milk Sunday #53

I believe he said that is one possible path genxlib Sunday #57

Even Elmo doesn't know what he has in mind. paleotn Sunday #70

Oh dear lord. Not this shit again. paleotn Sunday #64

I hope you are right genxlib Sunday #73

We already have near humanoid robots... paleotn Sunday #75

Thanks for the interesting links - bookmarking. jmbar2 Sunday #88

Well, that describes the market. thought crime Sunday #37

Yup. orangecrush Sunday #46

Ha! I think I could do better stirring, but I'll pass. BootinUp Sunday #4

I'd take one of these leftstreet Sunday #5

Of course, that video was made with AI thought crime Sunday #26

How about AI is like fire, and has to be controlled FullySupportDems Sunday #6

Exactly. anciano Sunday #7

I agree. But it has to have some (considerable regulatory) constraints hlthe2b Sunday #8

A LOT of constraints! n/t Safe as Milk Sunday #56

Seems like a... 2naSalit Sunday #9

It's much better and safer than Google gulliver Sunday #11

I have yet to find a single AI summary which is accurate. Ms. Toad Sunday #15

It's better for the AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google gulliver Sunday #16

It is absolutely NOT better for AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google Ms. Toad Sunday #76

The trouble with Wiki isn't that it spouts false information on a regular basis. Igel Sunday #18

Agreed - but it took me until the last paragraph to get the AI connection. Ms. Toad Sunday #79

I've found many accurate responses from AI summary thought crime Sunday #28

Those AI overviews are stealing traffic from the websites they stole the information from, and the highplainsdem Sunday #35

And you've fact checked every bit of its response? Ms. Toad Sunday #78

A Substantial Majority Of The Time... ProfessorGAC Sunday #89

A coworker used AI to get a second opinion from his doctor's. Shermann Sunday #41

I have a long history of correcting doctors with independent research. Ms. Toad Sunday #81

Anthropic Claude is very accurate. milestogo Sunday #42

It still hallucinates. All genAI models do. It can hallucinate at any time, and for that reason its highplainsdem Sunday #47

Define accurate. paleotn Sunday #65

I haven't specifically checked it myself - Ms. Toad Sunday #77

And current LLMs do exactly the same thing as Google search or YouTube algorithms. You just don't realize it. paleotn Sunday #66

While I agree, in principle as to the possibilities for it's use, Ms. Toad Sunday #12

"AI relies on the stolen works of humans (art and writing)..." mike_c Sunday #86

Without planning and guardrails... Happy Hoosier Sunday #13

AI doesn't concern me as much... biocube Sunday #14

You aren't wrong ... BUT KentuckyWoman Sunday #17

Of course it is, Disaffected Sunday #19

If you mean generative AI, the kind most hyped now, it's badly flawed tech based on stolen intellectual property, highplainsdem Sunday #20

Very true statement mgardener Sunday #21

Absolutely. It's a key tool of production. David__77 Sunday #22

It works - to the extent it works when it's mindless and will always hallucinate - only because of IP theft. highplainsdem Sunday #29

I guess that depends on one's view of "intellectual property". David__77 Sunday #32

The AI companies who felt they had a right to take everyone else's IP have been quick to scream if highplainsdem Sunday #40

That's absolutely true and on a certain level funny to see. David__77 Sunday #82

I'm in favor of creatives owning their intellectual property, and that right being protected. It's as highplainsdem Sunday #84

That can certainly be adjudicated as with any other property issue. David__77 Sunday #85

Legal judgments aren't always ethical, as everyone here is aware. Creatives and those who support highplainsdem Sunday #87

A.I. got us Donald Trump in 2024. Nuff said. Botany Sunday #24

Wish AI meant actual (human) intelligence. BattleRow Sunday #49

AI is the devil. We think we can control it, but we can't. Scrivener7 Sunday #25

Devil with the Blue Dress? She's the Devil in disguise? thought crime Sunday #31

The problem is not a fork or a knife, the problem is who has it in their hand...An assassin with a knife is very Escurumbele Sunday #27

"Guns aren't the problem..." ? thought crime Sunday #33

An accurate analogy, however dlk Sunday #30

I agree. I've been saying this about computers for decades. However, I think most of us agree that IA should be Martin68 Sunday #34

I think it sound like a scream.AAAAA.IIIIII... MiHale Sunday #36

The problem is not how we use it, Mblaze Sunday #38

The most critical word is "you" -- meaning WHO? Martin Eden Sunday #39

If it were only looked as a fork Javaman Sunday #43

We are about to FAFO on AI. LudwigPastorius Sunday #44

True, AI by itself is benign. The companies controlling it, however, are not. tinrobot Sunday #45

hmmm...almost 50 replies and no interaction... ret5hd Sunday #48

I sometimes stir a pot in the kitchen and then walk away until dinner is served Soul_of_Wit Sunday #60

Don't see how that's "stirring the pot" ABC123Easy Sunday #50

I do agree with you there. One of my smartest friends, a tech professional, thinks like Joinformill. Scrivener7 Sunday #55

It's a tool for the billionaire overlords, not for us FakeNoose Sunday #51

Where was our blue ribbon commission prior to its release. Prairie_Seagull Sunday #52

AI can be rejected - and should be, by ethical, smart people who have any choice in the matter. highplainsdem Sunday #59

Granted that using genAI is optional and can be rejected..... anciano Sunday #62

It's genAI being hyped and used most widely. Which is why people need to know about how harmful highplainsdem Sunday #63

The sole cat I ever had agreed with you. Prairie_Seagull Sunday #83

Not like a fork: like a cruise missle with a spork instead of a warhead. JustABozoOnThisBus Sunday #54

Two huge negatives, both related to human nature Soul_of_Wit Sunday #58

In addition, we need... cornball 24 Sunday #61

And using AI harms human intelligence. See this thread on yet another article about that: highplainsdem Sunday #67

That's very simple Renew Deal Sunday #68

Sadly, few people are fully able to tell when AI provides facts or fallacies. MineralMan Sunday #69

This is absolutely true! Oneironaut Sunday #71

AI differs from a fork in that a fork does not PufPuf23 Sunday #72

americans can't be trusted with sharp objects bigtree Sunday #74

AI cannot replace humans Progressive dog Sunday #80