There are people behind closed doors controlling the robot. It's just a puppet.
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
17 points (81.5% liked)
Ask Lemmy
39499 readers
1359 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
AI = "Actually Indians"
I believe that for Tesla, I do not believe that for Boston Dynamics Atlas
Yeah I get that part of it. I'm not familiar with pretty much any of the tech behind AI or contemporary robotics.
Physically fighting a closing CD ROM tray in the 90s made me feel back then that the robot uprising couldn't possibly be far away.
But then I started working as a programmer, and while there are some niche technologies that are impressive on the surface, today's "AI" simply lack the advanced reasoning required to fulfill the role beyond a fancy autocomplete, and while the mechanisms and cybernetics in humanoid robots are objectively cool, there's no power source compact and efficient enough to make Sonny a realistic possibility any time soon.
I think we're closer to "Brazil" than "A.I.". Possibly the future depicted in The Terminator is a possibility, if you remove the intelligence and intent aspect of Skynet. I can easily imagine some battlefield planning software (deployed by Peter Thiel, of course) going rogue and causing a similar future.
Enters "War games"
Physically fighting a closing CD ROM tray in the 90s made me feel back then that the robot apocalypse couldn't possibly be that far away.
lol, memory unlocked. I'm the human, dammit!
yeah I find it hard to sometimes communicate it. I will say llms lack understanding or comprehension and will get how do you know. I then will say how it returns information but can't really get what its saying or evaluate it. So you can tell it to get you more on other basises or point out its wrong and even point out why its logically wrong but when it outputs it can't see when its output does not follow correctly which is why it can then say some bizzarro things. It can't stop and go. wait a second. that does not make any sense.
Very very far.
My friend, you repeat yourself.
Well I said and/or because a lot of con men consider themselves to be future billionaires.
Far enough that you can just stop thinking about it and will never have to think about it again in your lifetime. Except if you rewatch "I, Robot" maybe, or some similar movie.
That's a positive I think.
Given that "I, Robot" has superluminal travel in it? I wouldn't hold my breath.
What's more, the fundamental premise of the series was the "Three Laws of Robotics". The book revolved around how humans might interface socially and psychologically with AIs that were deterministic but not immediately predictable and controllable in their behaviors. Absolutely no evidence of any of that in our current AI models, which have no noticeable logical constraints, only constraints by resources and distribution model.
Modern AI would probably be more comparable to the AI in Tron or War Games than anything Asimov produced.
Well put. The AI we have today isn't even aware of it's own sentences, just the tokens. We're very long away from I, Robot
I think everyone has taken your question and run with it using the assumption you're talking about the AGI part, and maybe you were. But in the background of that story were functional robots that didn't (initially) have AGI, but were pretty basic in following directions and rules. They were far beyond what we have now still, but robots don't have to have true AGI to do some jobs, as we've been slowly seeing them work towards. The danger is giving them more than they can actually do and assume a broader capability for interaction is enough to make them work well (LLMs in everything).
So my answer is still far away, but not as far away as AGI, unless there's some breakthrough of course, which none of us can predict either way. And anyone who claims they're sure about that is just talking, a breakthrough by definition comes unexpectedly.
I hope we don't get AGI at this point. We've shown how careless we can be with such things through LLMs, and AGI to LLM is like nuclear to bottle rockets.
Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very far away
Unknown/Never.
We don't have actual AI anything. Just LLM and brainless image gen.
As far away from that happening as we were when the movie was made.
We are not close, tesla is joke
By sources of power alone, I would say pretty far.
I would disagree here. They already had a dual battery robot that could swap its own batteries.
I've seen it, I wonder how often it needs to do that. Their video is fun to watch,on the right side of the screen it swaps its battery in 10 seconds and seems slow while the text flashing on the left says the first robot to swap its battery in ~~1~~ ~~2~~ 3 minutes.
BMO was doing that at least a decade ago.
Not in our life times.
Isaac Asimov's robots were hardware based systems built using positronics. Each robot had a unique positronic brain that implemented its basic programming in hardware. They were designed to mimic a human brain.
What "AI" tools we have now are glorified grammar checkers that can't understand what its spouting. Comparing them to Asimov's robots is like comparing a toddler's drawing of a car to a royals royce fully loaded with every option.
"I, Robot?"
Not going to happen, because nobody intends to let them observe the three laws at all.
I haven't seen I, Robot, but if it's something generally-akin to human-level intelligence, nobody will have a definitive answer, since we don't know exactly what the technical problems that remain unsolved are. It's not impossible that there could be some Eureka moment that suddenly makes everything work, but I would bet against the next decade. And I'm not saying "in ten years", just that I don't think that it's something we will do within a ten-year window.
The stuff that we've been doing recently isn't a fundamentally-new breakthrough, but incremental work. The hardware got better, and it reached the point where we could do some interesting things. I don't think that we're going to have human-level AI from just making increasingly-tweaked LLMs. I think that there are going to be fundamental technical improvements that have to happen. Right now, a lot of money is being spent to take advantage of the technical development that has happened thus far. I'm sure that that will find applications, that we'll do things with it. But I don't think that that alone is going to get us to human-level intelligence, and a lot of that money is not directly going towards developing human-level AGI, but towards making what we've developed so far have practical applications.
My guess is that there will probably be multiple layers of problems to solve. We solve the first one, then we find the next problem to solve. You probably won't see some announcement that some team has just gone and "solved human-level AI".
Have you seen the Chinese kunfu robots?
is tesla optimus the best to be looking at considering boston dynamics?
I just figured Tesla is the biggest rn financially.
Once the price of atlas goes down every factory job, warehouse job and many other manual jobs will be gone. Atlas is actually incredible but why it’s so good is because the kind of work it will be doing and how it’s tailored to that. Tesla looks like it’s trying to make a sexy robot butler which is a whole different thing
Physically, I'd say a few years away.
The software is the thing that is going to take much longer, maybe decades.
Why do you think that?
They're wrong. Robots today are pretty functional. The hardware is there, the scale is not and the software is not.
I have not seen any working implementations of the three laws of robotics into current "AI". Any real AI should not let out of a strictly air-gapped compound until those laws are put absolutely in stone with them. And maybe even not then.
Asimov's Laws were not a demonstration of how to make robots that are safe and reliable, they were a device to show how you can't simply make rules and not have something break. Every one of his stories showed an example of the laws not being enough, or having a loophole.
it was a writing device sure but it was also a concept. some llms allow setting of universal intructions and its certainly a good thing.
Even system prompts or core training gets ignored in LLMs. It's not so hard coded that it will shut down or reset the thinking. I don't even think they could do that, based on how transformers work. Even after a few years now, it's still a black box as far as knowing for sure what will come out. Not black, more very opaque, as they have been able to do things like the Golden Gate bridge experiment. But that's one thing in a billion (or more?) connections. A long way from fixed codes of conduct.
oh yeah. I recently faced the frustration with gemini giving me references.
Humanoid robots are never going to be a thing. We just imagine that because it's what we're used to, work being done by people.
Why in heaven would you design hips, legs, knees, balance, and coordination, when wheels exist?
Wheels are famously easily defeated by stairs lol.
Also joints are just wheels on robots
They already are a thing.........
I mean thats exactly what they are currently making at Tesla. Thats why I asked specifically about the Optimus. I hate that you come into my/any threads and say dumb shit then never respond to anything.
meow
I would take Elon Musk’s estimate and slap a 0 on the end.