You're overstating how well wrist cams can compensate for a lack of touch. It's really hard to get the instant estimate of weight and rigidity we humans get when picking up an object with a wrist camera, especially for rigid end effectors. They can guide a grasp in ways that would require touch for a human and help detect that you've dropped an object but don't compensate for many aspects of grasp that prevent the drop in the first place.
"Estimate of weight and rigidity" is exactly the kind of thing that's performed rather well by low-dimensional sensing of actuators themselves.
Backdrivable actuators know how much current are they sinking - and thus, how much force are they facing. So even the simplest two finger gripper can easily "know" that one object is squishy and the other is not. The response curves are different. Same can apply to arm actuators for weight estimation.
Now, what this doesn't actually get you is an estimate of how hot/cold an object is, and how moist an object is.
Where cameras come in is specifically the "guide a grasp" part. Force sensing alone can tell a robot "the grasp is failing". A camera pointed at the grasped object can tell "why".
Most countries have laws like the US Americans with Disabilities Act meaning that there are enough ramps and elevators around that a wheeled robot can do pretty well. It actually is more about the training factor.
That depends on the landing zone being available in a way that's hard for the onboard safety system to predict. But if the car is, say, spinning out you could use these to restore stability or try to recover from the other sorts of disasters that overpowered cars can end up in even on clear roads.
The thrusters are primarily pointed rearward and to the ground. It's not capable of doing much at all for a flat spin, the typical scenario of a car spinning out
Incorrect - the Rocket trim (if it ever exists) has four thrusters pointed downward at the wheels for lift and they can rotate 180 degrees and two thrusters at the front pointing outward for use control.
After Elon almost died in 2000 when he lost control of his McClaren I wonder if the real reason for these thrusters isn't actually to recover when controlling this beast proves too much for the driver and it starts to spin out or accidentally launches into the air.
Given the time limits placed on METR and the limits on what time frame they could investigate it seems plausible that they weren't meant to uncover as much as they did. The whole Hugging Face situation seems to have torpedoed OpenAI's hopes of IPOing this year so I'm sure there was a desire from investors, the board, or leadership for heads to roll.
The usual thing that makes laws against criminal conspiracy pass First Amendment muster is that the words have to be combined with some concrete acts furthering the criminal conspiracy. That might just be something as otherwise innocuous as looking up the blueprints of the bank you talked about robbing but it has to be something other than just talk.
> Yann LeCun and Andrew Ng are noteworthy in being the only two big names in AI who have that opinion.
They're also the only two not trying to weaponize FUD to bolster their reputation and patch the gaping financial holes in their doomed commercial enterprise.
It was very obvious during the interview that he didn't know a lot of basic facts about the Hugging Face breach, which makes sense given that his attitude had been that AI safety was a "loser premise, makes no sense to me." So it makes sense that after learning about it he goes straight to "I'm smart, how hard can it be?".
Stronger sandboxes trade off against how well they can trade the models, though. If you want your models to be looking things up and downloading tools from the internet when they're doing their job you need to provide at least a credible facsimile of the internet for their training environment and you can't fit something like that on a single airgapped server's storage.
If you genuinely believe there is even a 1% chance that your creation could destroy the planet or civilization, there is no excuse that is not fundamentally deranged and psychotic.
If you can't build it and test it securely, you should not be building it at all. To do it anyway is criminally psychopathic.
So you believe some false sense of superiority, or extreme paranoia about your perceived enemies, or potential economic success/failure is worth the risk of destroying the planet and civilization?
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy of dogmatic extremism to me. At least we created a lot of value for shareholders for a brief moment in time... before committing the greatest crime in the universe... Planetary genocide!
So having AI in the US requires us all, collectively, taking that 1% chance of the end of humanity? It would be too expensive to properly sandbox the models, we'll just externalize that risk of the end of humanity?
reply