|
WhatEvil posted:Something I don't think I've seen in this thread is stuff about automated building. Some cool stuff going on: But if you really want to put up a wall quickly at scale, you can pour concrete or even use metal-frame construction of prefab parts and panels. The automated bricklayer robot is more about fulfilling gimmicky aesthetic choices - indeed look at how its demonstration there is cosmetic brick for a building that doesn't need brick to stay up. The building customer interesting in eliminating as much cost as possible is simply going to use far simpler methods like paint or stucco. No job for the bricklayer at all, but of course there's been a lot less jobs for them for many years.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The fact that they’ve continued work on this robot design for as long as they have is weird. Everyone that sees that thing is unsettled. The way it sounds and moves is just disturbing to people, how do the creators not see this? No, nothing close to everyone who sees it is "unsettled" or "disturbed". That's some weird personal hangup of you and a few others.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Good point, I should make sure to run a poll before using hyperbole. A lot of people think there robots look and sound disturbing and unsettling, otherwise you wouldn’t be annoyed by all of us pointing it out whenever these videos are posted. Man wait til you see a large metropolitan zoo sometime, you might be driven mad by the way regular animals look and sound!
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What’s your problem? There are plenty of articles out there that use the same terms I did, just being a dick for no reason? I sincerely doubt there's a bunch of articles out there saying "EVERYONE IS TERRIFIED OF ROBOT JOINTS" etc. Again, try going to a zoo and look at the way animals move, you'll find that not everything looks just like a common domestic creature.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:A simple google search reveals you're just an rear end in a top hat. Again, you're not producing any evidence that everyone is as psychologically traumatized as you seem to be by "this robot doesn't walk exactly like a human, dog, or cat". For example, most of your articles make no mention of the motions being intrinsically unsettling, but rather that the tasks the devices might be put to are - they are again mostly designed for military purposes. It's not about being manly, it's about your assertion that everyone shares your apparent phobia, and how that's totally false. The point is that you're wrong when you go around saying everyone is terrified by their motion like you seem to be.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Are you done creating a straw man? I just said people thought it was "disturbing" and "unsettling", I just grabbed the first few results from google that used the words I used. I don't have a phobia, I never said I was scared of these robots, you put that on me because you're acting like what I'm saying is totally out of left field. Here, you appear to be suffering from amnesia. This is your post: ElCondemn posted:The fact that they’ve continued work on this robot design for as long as they have is weird. Everyone that sees that thing is unsettled. The way it sounds and moves is just disturbing to people, how do the creators not see this? Fact: your weird hangups about how they move aren't universal. They are not disturbing to most people based on how they move and sound, but rather because they're being made primarily for war. Maybe stop posting things you don't mean if you don't want to be taken at your word.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Have you ever been to a zoo? Yes, sorry about your phobias. Surprise Giraffe posted:The way these robots move is cool as gently caress to me. Been watching their vids for like 9 years and its only gotten better Impossible! Everyone finds them horrifying and malign, ElCondemn said so!!
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:He didn't mean literally everyone, he meant a lot of people. And that's certainly true if you look at reactions on social media. Whether "a lot" is 20% or 40% or 60% is irrelevant. Robodog will continue to be developed because it's not meant to be a companion. Attempting to backpedal someone else's "everyone" to "maybe 20%" to make a false assertion work is absolutely hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:It's hilarious only to you. To the rest of us it's a tedious derail that makes one remember self driving cars flame wars fondly. You're the one who attempted to defend the argument for no reason. You are the one who derailed. ElCondemn posted:I'll edit the post if you guys want, I meant to say "a lot". I didn't think I was saying anything controversial, I was just commenting that they haven't changed the design enough to prevent people/articles from calling it creepy and unsettling, that's all. Again, it ain't a lot. The whole assertion you made and are trying to make is just plain wrong. And no design could make it so that no people or articles at all would call it creepy or unsettling, that's not how media and talking heads work.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It would be nice if you looked into it, you'd find that there is a lot of research in the field that shows it is possible to build robots that people/the media don't call creepy or unsettling. There is no such research that is accurate, because this is a world where people will say a kid's TV show is haunted and creepy forever because of a badly compressed screenshot of some frame of the video where it kinda looks like a background character has spooky eyes. Additionally some youtuber who got bored of photographing corpses will claim that FuckBot 5000 is secretly creepy to get clicks before he moves onto torching cars and calling it "just a prank". Also a bunch of people are hosed in the head and read normal things as creepy and unsettling all the time. No amount of product design is going to fix that.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Please look into Cynthia Breazeal's work, you're just making poo poo up. You haven't done any research and are blatantly just dismissing the work in the field, as if you just inherently know better. You really don't know what you're talking about. I really don't care about whatever researcher you're talking about, who you claim says it's possible to make something no one will say is creepy or unsettling. Because that is a false claim, and as such you're grossly oversimplifying or misrepresenting their work. No sensible researcher would ever claim you can make a perfectly inoffensive product. Again, just try looking at media sometime, and how quick people will spin up things like the SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE panic of the 80s over literally nothing at all real.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:You're right, nothing is absolute, good job adding nothing to the conversation and learning absolutely nothing. There's nothing to learn here dude. You made a bullshit claim, tried to back up with something that doesn't even approach backing it up. Perhaps you should learn to not lie?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Perhaps you should learn to read and understand that hyperbole is different than lying. The fact is that yes there are tons of articles calling the robot creepy and unsettling, you've done nothing but say that isn't true despite all the articles I linked. And then you made up some bullshit argument about how every robot will have articles like these (equating random youtubers to the articles I linked), despite the fact that there are robots in the consumer space today that don't have articles talking about how creepy they are (like roombas for example). So go gently caress off with your bullshit, you're not adding anything to the discussion, my goal was to talk about social acceptance of robots and design choices, your goal is to say "nuh uh", so gently caress right off. But you, are lying. You are making things up and then trying to attach someone else's authority behind that when they're not making a claim remotely similar to what you were trying to defend. Here's an idea: Just stop claiming "everyone" when what you mean is "tiny minorities". And stop making false claims to authority. Your personal hang ups about how the robot sent to kill you is weird because the legs are 0.35% off are not universal. Far more people are concerned about the fact that it's a robot designed for killing. BrandorKP posted:Ahem...  Taffer posted:Things for the military often branch out. But even if it ends up doing warehouse work or other corporate busy-work, the same thing applies. It doesn't need to be "socially accepted" any more than a forklift does. It's especially funny because real dogs have legs that bend "backwards". Or is it humans whose legs bend backwards compared to dogs? Makes you think. No matter which way the leg bends, it's a way you'll see among many animal species.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Taffer posted:We're not far from really sophisticated AI that can mimic a lot of human behavior and understanding. But we are very far from an AI that's actually self-aware. Like it's not even on the horizon, it's so complex that no one even knows what the prerequisites to it are. Our understanding of the human mind and our technological capabilities are still super far from that. It would be better to describe it as, we have no idea how close we are to having a "really self-aware" AI. And because we don't have an idea of how close we are, it's almost certainly a) much farther than it might seem and b) likely to have little connection with various little things on the way.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Grammar-Bolshevik posted:I don't recall where, but iirc there were a series of publications predicting heavier than air flight was decades away months before the wright brothers flew their prototype. "Deep learning" is likely to be one of these guys, who was also around just before the Wright Brothers flew:  Also uh, by the time the Wright Brothers were approaching success people knew we could make heavier than air craft that would maintain lift for extended times, knew ways to control them, and just hadn't cracked the proper power-to-weight ratio. It's a terrible comparison to building consciousness machines.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Grammar-Bolshevik posted:I'm not going to tell you when something is going to be invented, but you have a nice list of people smarter than you saying poo poo that didn't pan out. Cool list of quotes but they prove absolutely nothing. Additionally many were true, or were only meant for a limited horizon or the immediate situation during which they were true. Consider that the Bill Gates quote is outright false - he never said it, and the best available sources on if it was said at all indicate that it was someone referring to the year it was being released, 1981. Incidentally in 1981, most personal computers being sold had well less than the 640 KB of potential contiguous memory the IBM PC would have. Consider: it was still impressive in 1982 that the Commodore 64 released with a whole 64 KB of RAM installed (~39k available to the user by default), and the then-current Apple II Plus models did not ship from Apple with more than 64 KB (and it was quite difficult to meaningfully use more than 64 KB on the architecture anyway, though later Apple II models could be expanded to several megabytes). The high end IBM PC models with 256 KB up to 512 KB installed in them were very advanced machines for the time, and indeed little was developed that had a problem with the 640 KB limit, largely due to few people and businesses having the full megabyte plus of RAM to have 640 KB contiguous conventional memory accessible. Edit: And you should also consider that Edison was well aware alternating current was viable, but he had the patents on vital direct current poo poo so of course he's going to bag on the competition. So that one might as well be a quote of Pepsi saying Coke doesn't taste good or whatever. The DEC guy was not talking about personal computers, but rather the archetypal "smart home" computer that would control everything from the HVAC to cooking dinner etc. That poo poo still doesn't work right without very careful setup and attention despite another 40 years behind it. fishmech fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Not arguing that the system isn't flawed, but I'm pretty sure the driver is supposed to be aware and ready to brake. They aren't supposed to wait for the computer to stop driving, they're supposed to act immediately during an emergency just as they would if they were driving normally. The operator is supposed to be checking the self driving report console thing in the middle of the dash. That requires them to take their eyes off the road.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't know what you are eating if you consider five minutes an extremely long time to wait for food? hot pockets and mcdonalds? If you think it's unfair to compare to McDonald's time when describing fast food, I'm not sure you understand what fast food is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Internet says the average wait time at mcdonalds is 3:30 so it doesn't even seem like five minutes is incomparably longer. It's over 40% slower. Major throughput killer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess this current machine would be unsuitable for mcdonalds then? It's unsuitable for fast food. They're trying to say it would be useful for fast food. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Six dollars and five minutes is far cheaper and faster than nearly anywhere. have you never eaten anywhere but mcdonalds? Ain't cheaper and faster than Checkers/Rally's, Wendy's, Burger King, In N Out, Hardee's/Carl's Jr, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Jack In The Box, generic diners and local restaraunts... Part of the whole point of the hamburger/cheeseburger as a massively popular food in the US and many other countries is that it's very fast to make. The other part is that they're very cheap to make. This machine makes burgers slower and more expensive than your cousin who goes to work stoned out of his gourd.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This thread is so schizophrenic. The price is so cheap it can be dismissed out of hand as fake but also is higher than every restaurant on earth? Stop ranting about strawmen. The thing is useless for fast food because it's too slow and too expensive. It's also useless for most fast casual services as it is again too slow and too expensive for how most of them operate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are being crazy. Fast food hamburgers are regularly over 6 dollars. Nope, they're typically under $2.50.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm unclear why this robot would not also be able to make a cheaper burger if that is all you would eat. Just swap the oyster aoli tube for a bigmac sauce tube then switch the greyare cheese with a block of hydrogenated oil american cheese and replace the fresh organic beef with some frozen gristle or whatever. They could just not use fresh tomatoes and just skip the Pacific sauce with umeboshi plum and mole if they want to serve your "only the lowest price menu item at mcdonalds" goal. But they aren't even doing that market. They are competing against the burger king hamburger that costs 8 dollars, and more realistically competing against literally every other restaurant that already exists and doesn't have mcdonalds like prices. Because the robot is expensive garbage, op.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sauces include: Pacific Sauce (a CA riff on Thousand Island, with umeboshi and mole); Oyster Aioli, Charred Onion Jam, Sunflower Tahini, Pancetta Aioli, Garlic Sauce, Smoky Ketchup, Garlic Aioli, Hickory Smoked Jalapeño Sauce, Truffle Parm Fonduta, Blue Cheese Fonduta I can get that sort of poo poo for $5 or less at like a Shake Shack or even the big three burger chains sometimes. And hell White Castle has a lot of neat stuff for cheap albeit they insist on serving split up into multiple small burgs. BrandorKP posted:Jesus Christ here's what business give a poo poo about. The fact that all the chains with several thousand locations to have such machines placed in to save corporate $x per day don't do it should tell us a lot. Main Paineframe posted:The secret is that it's actually really really easy to cook a hamburger patty. This, exactly. There's a great reason burgers are one of the biggest fast food items: they're cheap and simple to make with minimal training to achieve that. Even fancy bullshit burgers usually just consist of "stick some more poo poo in the middle" which doesn't require much more effort. Kerning Chameleon posted:The real innovation here is this means assholes can order food without worrying the disgruntled employees in the back will spit in it. Now it will have to be generalized and the employees will have to spit in the supply and thus spit in everyone's food instead, which health inspectors can more easily catch. Is this why you think Uber making an automated Death Race 2000 machine means self-driving cars are just around the corner lol
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:Never underestimate the market demand for people to be dicks to service people without fear of any consequences. There will always be a need for at least two human employee positions at every fast food franchise no matter how much automation advances: on-site manager, and designated customer punching-bag. I mean your insane hatred and suspicion of other humans just seems to indicate why you think murdercars are actually a good thing for self driving cars being available, is all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:If you've ever driven in a major metropolis for more than a day, you would probably understand better people like myself who think replacing all the human drivers (myself included) with robots would be an absolute net improvement, flaws in AI coding and all. The cars are killing people and crashing frequently. They are doing bad for adoption unless all you actually want is more death.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If this is your metric then you should be in favor of full adoption today, they're killing people and crashing way less frequently than human drivers. Cool, another death cultist. No, they're not doing it "way less frequently" at all. They are being used way less frequently and a very high percentage of them are being kept to restricted areas on top of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:How about you keep your accusations to yourself. Stop promoting death if you don't want to be called a death cultist? Self driving cars keep proving themselves deadly. They both have trouble driving themselves and massive problems handing control back over to the "passenger" when the self driving system realizes it can't handle something and tries to throw back. None of these vehicles are capable of a realistic use pattern for the mass public as is or in the forseeable future, so that hand-off issue is particularly salient. Their fatality rate is only better if you ignore the fact that most of their driving time is in vastly restricted scenarios for driving. And you can keep pretending they're less deadly if you want, but they aren't. Just like OOCC can pretend that all computing is magic. RandomPauI posted:I think that automated burger/fry/drink stations could still end up as a cheap-enough way for restaurants to establish footholds in areas where they don't want to commit a full restaurant or a food truck. E.g: wedding catering by Burger King, a beach rest area with seating provided by McDonald's, a little league game sponsored by Wendy's. I really think you're ignoring that those are introducing huge problems thanks to the fact the machines won't be in nicely measured, stable, and free of debris scenarios. The beach one sounds like it'll be particularly troublesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How many decades exactly do you think this thing has been in use? The internet seems to indicate they started using this widely in 2014. That is hardly "decades" by any definition. That isn't even a half of a single decade. They hand filled them in the 90s. In the year 1947, the same year the transistor was invented, the Rudd-Melikian Company invented a vending machine which would automatically dispense a paper cup into the perfect place to fit under a nozzle, and then fill the cup with the appropriate volume of coffee using standard instant coffee and hot water. You had your coffee ready in in under 10 seconds from dropping the coin in the slot. By the 1950s there were hundreds of thousands of such devices deployed by many companies, worldwide. Extremely similar mechanisms were developed by that time to prepare other drinks, and offer multiple choices in the same machine in both drink dispensed and size of container. Things like dispensing measured portions of ice into drinks were also available. Essentially you could have that machine on the counter there before any humans had exited Earth's atmosphere. Raldikuk posted:What exactly are you basing this on? From the fatality data we have right now, they are pretty comparable. And AV have an exceptionally small sample size which should be concerning if you really want to hang your hat on the idea we need to mass implement the half-baked solutions now en masse. Essentially it relies on counting a bunch of testing that had a dude with hands on the wheel actively paying attention the whole time, tests where there were multiple people in the vehicle observing (and thus simplifying some aspects of emergency handoff), mass amounts of tests on semi-closed courses like how Google/Waymo's vehicles had a lot of driving done only on extremely detailed mapped areas immediately around HQ, with limits on speed beyond the posted speed limits, etc. fishmech fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And yet mcdonalds didn't use the drink thing until 2014. And hide it in the back so it doesn't function as any type of tech bro specticle. How do you explain that? Other than the obvious that things slowly drop in price in increase in function until they fill more and more roles. McDonald's used automated dispensers before 2014, you're just oblivious.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Menial work does not give you skills that can be applied to more complex types of work. Well that's straight up bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
Dude you're shitposting by declaring there's no useful skills in any low paid job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I feel like I've seen a pizza vending machine in one of the stores nearby, not sure if it was one exactly like this and making it from scratch, but if so, I'll definitely give it a try. There's an interesting thing about that, talk of this has been around so long that theres a Snopes article clearing up timelines: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pizza-vending-machine/ Essentially testing versions of such machines are known to have existed from 2009, but weren't deployed for true public use until ~2015 and are still pretty rare. You might well have been across one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
Sure. In that jitneys are primarily a dead form of transit with minimal presence in the modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The post above yours is literally Google's self driving cars running a taxi service. In a tiny restricted area of a place with near ideal weather conditions and roads for their purposes. This may shock you, but most humans don't live in horrible Arizona suburbs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:It's been speculated that widespread autonomous taxi service could, if the price was right, render personal car ownership unnecessary for many people (such as the people clinging to 20 year old shitboxes because it's the only way they can get to work). This is speculated by the kind of people who do unironic "What could a banana cost, $10?" questions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Nothing says low insurance risk like a car that barely works in more conditions than the F35.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Obviously manual driving will be fine on private property, but on public roads, I'm afraid resistance is futile, comrade. You should probably stop with talking like this until usable self driving cars exist and won't fall over in situations like "traffic" and "rain".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:
Humans successfully drive, actually. It's that simple, cars that fail way more often are not going to provide safety or other benefits. ryonguy posted:heavy traffic is the perfect situation for SDC because without a hundred different people with varying degrees of reflex reaction time you won't have bunching up and other traffic clots. Physics still exists dude, self driving cars (which don't exist) aren't going to be able to get rid of those things which have their causes in physical reality. No matter how much you believe Elon Musk, cars aren't going to have instant acceleration and instant braking.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Automated cars don't fail way more often, idiot. Wrong. Absolutely 0 of them can say come to where I am in Long Island at this moment and drive me over to Denver. That's a pretty big fail. mobby_6kl posted:There's obviously an upper bound on how much traffic can flow in a particular place, but a lot of the issues are absolutely caused by sub-optimal human behavior, e.g. And you can only add tiny amounts of capacity by "perfect" reflexes, because you're still saddled by rubber on asphalt (or concrete or whatever)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 20:27
|
|
