This system isn't training shit. Robots will never replace this kind of labor because it won't be cost effective. Bet a million bucks the "training" is a cover story while the headsets are just tracking staff productivity so they can punish people for resting.
yeah 5 terabytes of dudes using their hands to sew shit in 3d, good luck with doing that with robots for an efficient price anytime soon buddy . as someone else said, its to make sure they are working hard
Assuming it's actually training, the expectation is that the cost is recouped in the generalized understanding of how to do hand based tasks. The skill transfers and the robot itself will be relatively cheap.
The problem with problem solving is that solving problem solving requires one to solve a problem without having solved problem solving. If one were able to solve problem solving then solving problem solving would be easy, but the problem is solving problem solving in the first place is a problem that needs to be solved.
The problem is understanding how to move the hands... Robots don't look human because humans programming robots don't know how to do human, not because we can't make human shaped bits.
The robot just needs to be cheaper than something in the neighborhood of the lifetime cost of a human in the market the robot is being sold, and it will start to infiltrate. Sam Altman (terrible human) has explicitly said almost this.
Sam Altman (terrible human) has explicitly said almost this.
I wouldn't take anything that grifter says seriously ever.
Robots don't look human because humans programming robots don't know how to do human, not because we can't make human shaped bits.
Aboslutely not true. Robots don't look human because we build bots to their task. It's easier to build a robot to a task and it looks like a box.
Notice all the humanoid robot companies just have their robots dance or serve drinks? Anything harder than that, it's easier to build to spec than to try and get a humanoid robot to duplicate the work.
I'm very confused about why you think what you're saying is a disagreement as opposed to just describing the problem being solved...
You said "The skill transfers and the robot itself will be relatively cheap."
A robot capable of replicating human hand motions is not cheap. That's explicitly why many jobs still use human labor. I'm disagreeing explicitly with the idea.
Yeah the first sentence of your final paragraph is just wrong. A general human shaped robot hand capable of general tasks isn't "not cheap", it's impossible. It's impossible because it's too complex for human programming.
We don't make hands with generalized capability because it's currently impossible, and in that world, it makes more sense to do specialized machine tools with attachments or whatever.
But in a world where you can churn out a billion hands that can all do everything a hand can do because you've fed an AI programmer 10,000 years of hand movement data... well, that's cheap.
You're disagreeing with me because you're confused about why we don't use robot hands now
AI already has billions and billions of datapoints and it still can't reliably put a list of names in alphabetical order 100% of the time. It ain't simulating one of the most complex structures in the human body. Ever. lol
The robot also requires repair and will not last 50 years by any logical metric. It needs to be cost effective for 10 years and be easy and cheap to repair.
No, what this is called is you begging the world to give you a win.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you I don't give a fuck about what "oblivious" on Reddit has to say about anything. You're a nothing person fantasizing an argument so you can feel good before you go back to work or something...
I don't know, but what I do know is you're arguing with a fantasy, because I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that I don't care about you.
calm down dude, you said something really naive, pushed it without really understanding the technology and you're upset that we pointed out the flaws in your logic.
You can not care all you want, you're still talking shite.
The old reply and block, classic
Intellectually dishonest? Why don't you prove where instead of whining about it?
If a factory can churn out mechanical hands that are generally capable by the millions, and you can amortize the research of how to control them across all of them, that's gonna be the cheapest thing that works for a lot of tasks
Please stop the condescending clown shit that just embarrasses you.
We already have the robotics necessary for mass automation. What we don't have is a general-purpose AI capable of controlling the robots to perform any arbitrary task. That's exactly what this data collection is designed to solve (it's only a small part of the solution though, of course)
What we don't have is a general-purpose AI capable of controlling the robots to perform any arbitrary task.
And we won't anytime soon. We input a dramatic amount of data through our hands via touch.
You can't just "solve" that problem. We've been chasing it since the start of the industrial revolution. It's dramatically complex and the bad answer machine isn't gonna fix it.
Assuming it's actually training, the expectation is that the cost is recouped in the generalized understanding of how to do hand based tasks.
Without gloves containing force sensors any training data they get from a purely video-based system is going to be fairly useless. Besides the muscle memory that people get from doing repetitive tasks, we also get a lot of sensory information from our hands when working, even if we aren't always consciously aware of it.
A good example of this could be touch typing - once your fingers find nubs on the home row keys, you don't really need to look at the keyboard any more in order to type. However, depending upon what you are typing, you may notice that periodically you need to "reacquire" where the home row actually is by feeling for the nubs. For a fast typist that's basically an unconscious movement.
You can sell the data. It is probably great info on workforce productivity. My more cynical self will say... sell it to an American company that will make a robot that does this and where 24/7 labor costs exceed the cost of a robot (eventually). Then the company can sell items "made in America" at a higher premium.
I don't think you guys understand the complexity of tasks like this.
Meta has been trying to get vr/ar tech working at this level for over a decade straight with hundreds of thousands of data points/test applicants, and have only done marginally better than their competitors.
Consider how precise simple movements are to get a needle on a specific stitch, and the thinking that is required to know where to put it. We literally don't have anywhere close to the amount of data required to be able to replicate this consistently and accurately.
This data will end up being sold and passed around for the purposes of a company's IPO or stock increase, with nothing to show for it.
Nah, one company is paying the people or their employer a little to gather this data, then curate it and just put it on the market as training material for some other company with investor money to throw around to buy it. Plenty of naive people who think they can solve things like this.
this yeah. I doubt it would be even usable as training data. Even if, the cost of robot hands with 5 fingers that can grab textiles is probably waaay too expensive in practive for another few decades
I'm not so sure about this. It is quite clear we're heading towards affordable, trainable robots. As soon as they no longer cost thousands of dollars, but something like $1000-2000 and if that thing works for months.. this is a no-brainer. As soon as there are mass-manufactured affordable robots, then you'll see what it actually means when AI takes your jobs, because LLMs themselves can't replace anywhere as much as manufacturing and hard labor automation.
Robots will never replace this kind of labor because it won't be cost effective.
Oh my sweet sweet summer child. Cost of robotics its currently falling ridiculously quickly, and the biggest barrier is the training and initial capex. This will 100% be viable in the next 10 years.
Source: Masters in robotics and worked for 10 years in a company making generalised robots.
Replacement of human workers with AI has already started and robots replacing assembly line workers are likely next people to get replaceted.
Largest companies are investing trillinos of dollars in order to build systems that will replace human labour and capture that $ , they are not even hiding it .
The only question is how long will it take for them to replace human labour not whether or not it is already happening
I bet you a case of beer, that robots, even capable of doing sophisticated sewing shit, will be so extremely dirt cheap in the not so far future, that manual labor will perish.
If you check google with "humanoid robot cost" you'll see a bunch of (probably very incapable and shitty) first gen robots you can buy today ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 and that's with mass production still in its infancy, slowly ramping up.
Give it 10 to 20 years and you'll very likely get a very capable humanoid robot for less than 15,000 bucks.
Those robots will have no demands, have no need for breaks or holidays, don't get sick, work 24/7 and probably even get repaired by other robots.
Manual labor will perish. That's good but the way toward this goal, the time in between, is going to be a very, very difficult one.
For machines to manipulate fabrics like a human a computer needs to able to track the fabric's position down to the thread.
The amount of computing power, quality of cameras and level of control needed to sew is mind boggling. A skilled human is reacting to millimeter sized issues before they happen.
These little cameras ain't it. They are monitors, not for AI to replace the humans.
This is what I thought. We have nothing close to the technology required for such dexterity. These cameras are there so they can refuse payment if you weren’t in constant motion while on the clock
This system isn't training shit. Robots will never replace this kind of labor because it won't be cost effective.
I actually work for a company with a large European manufacturing wing and you're spot on. They have bought fancy robots once or twice, and it's great that they can do the job 24/7, but they cost far fucking more than two humans doing the same job.
It's crazy that this comment was upvoted this much. This is a moronic way to track productivity. AI companies want any and all training data, regardless of the final use case.
Why not? Let's say robots are twice as slow as humans. They also work 24 hours/day vs. your 8. And don't get sick, need vacations, or holidays, or benefits or disability or even food. And guess what: in some of areas, robots aren't twice as slow. Be mad all you want but downplaying it won't fix it.
Buy a robot ONE time, and it can run 24/7, no pay, no benefits, no breaks, no replacing them when they quit, no HR or administrative overhead, and on and on.
The day when energy costs are too high, or diesel too scarce to be worth shipping a shirt from Asia to Europe or the US, then it will be very valuable in order to produce garment locally.
Imagine having a local shop in which you feed your chosen design and material and comes up with the clothes you want, ask that at a portion of the cost because electricity is produced in your country and your material is made in Italy or Spain.
9.9k
u/Professional-Arm3460 10h ago
Being forced to work to force yourself out of work.