Overall, I love this essay. However, the entire argument hinges on one assertion, buried about halfway through:
> Robots are improving fast, but I do not believe that this cute fellow will be stuffing envelopes or affixing stamps anytime soon.
Is this correct? I don't feel qualified to say. But if it's wrong... well, then there's a missing pixel in the magic circle, and flood fill will make the whole thing unrecognizable.
I also love this essay, but I think there's a much larger, scarier breach in the magic circle.
We humans consume information on the Internet, it changes our ideas, and those ideas directly inform our very physical and material behavior. We ourselves are essentially 3D printers for our thoughts, running 24/7.
Flashmobs, scenic spots that get overrun with tourists after an Instagram post goes viral, teens eating tide pods, adults failing to cure COVID with Ivermectin, fashion trends, everyone kind of getting into sourdough during the pandemic, Kate Bush making almost half a million bucks in two weeks because of Stranger Things, the death of Payton Isabella Leutner, millions of people protesting for Black Lives Matter, and thousands more are real-world events that would not have happened without the Internet infecting brains.
Elections are decided based on what people learn online, and those elections have world-sized potentially catastrophic impact when you consider things like climate change policy.
I fear there is no meaningful separation between the digital world and the physical world, because it's really about the separation between ideas and material reality. Living beings exist entirely to span that bridge.
> However, the entire argument hinges on one assertion, buried about halfway through:
>> Robots are improving fast, but I do not believe that this cute fellow will be stuffing envelopes or affixing stamps anytime soon.
Okay, lets presume he is correct; the conclusion is still "We will do the unthinking manual work requiring physical dexterity while the computers will direct us".
His (compelling) evidence for that assertion is that printers still jam after 40 years. For humans, writing something on a piece of paper is absolutely trivial, and if something goes wrong, grabbing a new piece of paper or a pen is also trivial. Computers _can_ now write on paper tolerably fast and well, but they absolutely can't handle even simple failure modes. And the real world is _massively_ failure-prone, in contrast to the digital domain.
Think about Tesla's pivot to "AI robots". My guess is that they'll get to something that can very slowly pick up a dropped sock and put it in the washing basket. But that it will fall over occasionally on the stairs, wrecking your kid's photos and the vase standing at the bottom, and dinging the wall. It might do a passable job of picking up the shards of pottery, but gluing the picture frames together, plastering the wall and repainting it... well maybe in in Elon's chemical dreams.
Like Rodney Brooks says, "No one has managed to get articulated fingers (i.e., fingers with joints in them) that are robust enough, have enough force, nor enough lifetime, for real industrial applications."
Here, I'll link to that piece directly, it's long and detailed and illustrated, and it also counters the idea of just throwing AI at the problem until robot dexterity emerges from whatever physical parts.
"there have now been fifteen different families of neurons discovered that are involved in touch sensing and that are found in the human hand" ... "a human hand has about 17,000 low-threshold mechanoreceptors" ... "These receptors come in four varieties (slow vs fast adapting, and a very localized area of sensitivity vs a much larger area)"
You might ask, do robots that interact with the real world need such complicated bio-mimicking physical tech, or can they cut corners? But they can't cut all the corners, anyway. Somebody has to make a high-bandwidth robot hand with flexible strength and a self-repair ability. Or, hey, cyborgs maybe? Reanimate cadavers with AI, that could do the trick.
Even if the assertion is correct, what would life be like with computers incomprehensibly smarter and faster thinking than humans?
All management decisions from the top down to individual manual workers handled by an AI (LLM or otherwise)?
Owner has a company-wide AI, instructs it to maximize profit and lets it run. It handles hiring and firing, marker research, advertisement, ordering supplies, ... It generates individualized instructions for each worker what to do throughout the day. Any communication between humans would be redundant, the AI would have microphones and cameras everywhere, humans would only be needed for physical interaction with the world. Even communication with other companies, suppliers and clients, would by done between AIs, they would be better and faster at negotiating.
1) It sounds like a dystopian nightmare - constant surveillance and taking orders from a machine which only cares your productivity.
2) Would it lead to a devolution of the human race? What makes us different from other animals is intelligence. If all humans are good at (= economical to use for) is manual labor, would intelligence stop being a sexually attractive trait?
3) It would completely remove any social mobility. If those who own companies continue owning them after an AI revolution and there's little economic value in human labor except the most menial, then there would be a 2 class society with almost no way for non-owners to become owners.
I've been having much the same thoughts. What will work look like, say, 10 years from now? I'm beginning to think that we might have all the knowledge worker type jobs largely filled, or filled with significantly less workers, (hopefully) more free time for everyone, and the remaining people working in more physical positions.
In many ways, I think this is probably better for society than the opposite, since in general there are fewer knowledge workers than not.
Well, applying a new tool to an intractable problem is certainly something that will take skill. Someone who finds a general purpose way to do it will become very rich. For my part, I was sufficiently thrilled when Claude Code could self-iterate on a simple device to hold board game cards for me. The more sophisticated modeling isn't so easy with it, but the fact that I could use a machine intelligence to construct surfaces for me is amazing to me. 5 years ago if you had told me this I would have called you a bullshitter.
I wanted a way to track letters sent via First Class mail. USPS doesn’t provide this directly, a la parcel tracking, but it does scan those letters — all of them — and the data is available, but you have to wire everything up yourself, jumping through a few hoops along the way.
This assumes very slow AI progress. I'm not one to hype up LLMs, but I would never claim it'll take 200 years before an AI can untangle a sewing machine with robot hands. Stuffing an envelope and applying a stamp? My bet is less than 20 years. That's a level of tactility that can do a tremendous amount of real-world activity. And the capability of a high end robot controlled by a human keeps expanding, so in the hypothetical "AGI" scenario the flood fill gets pretty big.
Self-driving looks like a much easier problem, it has gotten a massive amount of investment in the last decade, and it's not fully solved yet. Compared to that your 20 years estimate sounds way too optimistic.
I don't think driving looks easier than untangling. You can untangle nice and slow with little outside involvement. When it comes to self-driving at 25mph without traffic, it pretty much is a solved problem.
I think this untangling problem gets underestimated because people aren't consciously aware of what they're using to analyze and address a tangle. The input is not all vision - you've got sensation in your fingers giving you feedback with which you update your model of the problem as you progress. The operation varies in strength depending on so many factors.
At the point you have enough sensor input, enough force application variability, and the power to process this in the ballpark of real-time (comparable to a human brain), you now have a being who's going to advocate for the removal of slavery and the application of rights.
On the other hand a dumb computer can figure out the exact topology of the threads.
Edit: Oh wait I forgot I actually said the 20 year number for doing mail. If that's the comparison to driving a car there's really no contest at all. Mail is so easy in comparison to comprehending traffic.
A robot that automatically untangles a rope is pretty much the coolest project idea I have ever heard of. It hits all the right buttons: extremely technically difficult with many design possibilities, completely novel, and of marginal utility. You cannot say that it would never be useful!
> Robots are improving fast, but I do not believe that this cute fellow will be stuffing envelopes or affixing stamps anytime soon.
Is this correct? I don't feel qualified to say. But if it's wrong... well, then there's a missing pixel in the magic circle, and flood fill will make the whole thing unrecognizable.
reply