wjfox wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 9:59 pm
Please help settle a debate between me and my younger brother. Thanks
Here's the thing, it's mostly down to when we can lick general AI. The actual mechanics of robotics will continue to advance, but without advancements in AI, even the most advanced modern robotics would be scarcely more impressive than the stiff proto-ASIMO robots from 30 years ago. Most advancements in the actual handling of robots follow improvements in control and energy efficiency, so it's no wonder that the past 5 years have simultaneously seen great AI progress AND great robotics progress (though it's more coincidental that LLMs blew up; they aren't the kinds of AI handling robots)
If we get even quasi-general AI, like AI that can handle most basic tasks but isn't sentient, that would still be more than enough to get to super-gracile robots capable of handling a proper human vs robot soccer match. Probably no where near better than professional or even mid-tier players, but once they can handle rudimentary matches, it's a short shot from there to beating the pros, at least in theory (because then the actual hardware needs to be built to do it).
So really, it comes down to when you think advanced generalist agents will arrive, and I see that as almost 100% certain in the next decade.
wjfox wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 6:14 pm We had a similar argument regarding autonomous vehicles.
The funniest thing is the same answer applies to AVs.
Autonomous cars might as well be renamed "car-like robots." Level 4 is a Potemkin village of what AGI could do; Level 5 will only happen with proper AGI. Elon Musk is foolish for eschewing LIDAR only because the only way to make visual spatial processing work is with AGI, which we don't have, and it's a godawful idea to try to force AVs to use cameras alone anyway for that reason.
It's even related to your old question about lifelike androids as well, since almost all of what makes something passably normal to a human comes down to the mental power to handle muscles and internal homeostassis (hence why the mentally disturbed and deficient have a tendency to fall into the uncanny valley— their brains are poorly coordinating the muscles and motor movement).
Anything to do with "when will [X kind of robot] be available or widespread" hinges on AI more than anything. We can do almost anything hardware-wise right now, within reason. We can make any car autonomous right now if we had the right AI (which, again, Musk likely jumped the gun on and is why FSD is so wonky). Perfect hyperrealism has been a thing in physical art/sculptures/models for 50+ years so in raw terms we could have had lifelike androids even in the 1970s, but the illusion breaks utterly and absolutely the moment the models start moving because computers can't handle the raw delicate intricacies of facial motion (or at least we never used a supercomputer for that purpose).
It doesn't matter if you sent the hardware shell of a supercomputer data center to the 1920s if they won't have the software to actually run a supercomputer for another century.
It doesn't matter if you build the chassis of a Ferrari and send it to Renaissance Florence, it's never going to drive.
It doesn't matter if you send an unfueled rocketship to the Romans, it's never going to fly.
That's our situation right now: if we had the AI, probably even Unitree's cheaper humanoids could compete in the next World Cup (though they'd need some extensive physical upgrades— they have no use for such upgrades without the prerequisite brainpower to make use of them so of course they wouldn't at the moment). But we don't.
As soon as we cross that threshold, it'll all start happening quickly.
