IMO the relevant product category here should be human-teleoperated robots, not independent robots.
Robot-control algorithms are not an issue, since we’re already conditioning on Element 1 (algorithms for TAI). Humans can teleoperate a teleoperable robot, and therefore if Element 1 comes to pass, those future AI algorithms will be able to teleoperate a teleoperable robot too, right?
And human-teleoperated robots can already fold sheets, move boxes, get around a cluttered environment, etc., no problem. I believe this has been true for a very long time.
And when I look at teleoperated robots, I find things like Ugo which might or might not be vaporware but they mention a price point below $10/day. (ETA: see also the much more hardcore Sarcos Guardian XT. Pricing is not very transparent, but one site says you leas it for $5K/month, which isn’t bad considering how low the volumes are.)
More generally, I think “progress in robotics” is not the right thing to be looking at in this context, because “progress in robotics” has been mainly limited by algorithms (and on-board compute). I think teleoperated robots are technologically much simpler, more like the kind of thing that a wide variety of companies can crank out at scale, almost as soon as there’s demand.
If humans can teleoperate robots, why don’t we have low-wage workers operating robots in high-wage countries? Feels like a win-win if the technology works, but I’ve seen zero evidence of it being close. Maybe Ugo is a point in favor?
Hmm. That’s an interesting question: If I’m running a warehouse in a high-wage country, why not have people in low-wage countries teleoperating robots to pack boxes etc.? I don’t have a great answer. My guesses would include possible issues with internet latency & unreliability in low-wage countries, and/or market inefficiencies e.g. related to the difficulty of developing new business practices (e.g. limited willingness/bandwidth of human warehouse managers to try weird experiments), and associated chicken-and-egg issues where the requisite tech doesn’t exist because there’s no market for it and vice-versa. There might also be human-UI issues that limit robot speed / agility (and wouldn’t apply to AIs)?
Of course the “teleoperated robot tech is just super-hard and super-expensive, much moreso than I realize” theory is also a possibility. I’m interested if anyone else has a take. :)
There are still HR and legal overhead costs involved if you have human operators.
I think part of the answer is also that the space of things low-wage workers can physically do remotely via teleoperation isn’t that much larger than the space of things that can be fully automated but still much smaller than the space of things a local human can do. It’s a fairly narrow band to exploit, IMO, and the labor cost arbitrage spread is rarely worth the complexity of the extra logistics, capital investment, and maintenance.
RE robots / “Element 4”:
IMO the relevant product category here should be human-teleoperated robots, not independent robots.
Robot-control algorithms are not an issue, since we’re already conditioning on Element 1 (algorithms for TAI). Humans can teleoperate a teleoperable robot, and therefore if Element 1 comes to pass, those future AI algorithms will be able to teleoperate a teleoperable robot too, right?
And human-teleoperated robots can already fold sheets, move boxes, get around a cluttered environment, etc., no problem. I believe this has been true for a very long time.
And when I look at teleoperated robots, I find things like Ugo which might or might not be vaporware but they mention a price point below $10/day. (ETA: see also the much more hardcore Sarcos Guardian XT. Pricing is not very transparent, but one site says you leas it for $5K/month, which isn’t bad considering how low the volumes are.)
More generally, I think “progress in robotics” is not the right thing to be looking at in this context, because “progress in robotics” has been mainly limited by algorithms (and on-board compute). I think teleoperated robots are technologically much simpler, more like the kind of thing that a wide variety of companies can crank out at scale, almost as soon as there’s demand.
If humans can teleoperate robots, why don’t we have low-wage workers operating robots in high-wage countries? Feels like a win-win if the technology works, but I’ve seen zero evidence of it being close. Maybe Ugo is a point in favor?
Hmm. That’s an interesting question: If I’m running a warehouse in a high-wage country, why not have people in low-wage countries teleoperating robots to pack boxes etc.? I don’t have a great answer. My guesses would include possible issues with internet latency & unreliability in low-wage countries, and/or market inefficiencies e.g. related to the difficulty of developing new business practices (e.g. limited willingness/bandwidth of human warehouse managers to try weird experiments), and associated chicken-and-egg issues where the requisite tech doesn’t exist because there’s no market for it and vice-versa. There might also be human-UI issues that limit robot speed / agility (and wouldn’t apply to AIs)?
Of course the “teleoperated robot tech is just super-hard and super-expensive, much moreso than I realize” theory is also a possibility. I’m interested if anyone else has a take. :)
There are still HR and legal overhead costs involved if you have human operators.
I think part of the answer is also that the space of things low-wage workers can physically do remotely via teleoperation isn’t that much larger than the space of things that can be fully automated but still much smaller than the space of things a local human can do. It’s a fairly narrow band to exploit, IMO, and the labor cost arbitrage spread is rarely worth the complexity of the extra logistics, capital investment, and maintenance.