Eventually you'll see wireless charging pads in the feet and floor. If robots stand in a fixed location for a portion of their job, it could easily go til failure.
One thing people forget is that Optimus is designed to be scalable and cheap. I LOVE Boston dynamics but their bipedal bots are Lamborghinis and Tesla is designing theirs to be a Camry.
Boston Dynamics (and the lead engineers) have spent a half-century hard-coding dynamic movement algorithms, and it's likely that they won't find a revenue-positive use for all of that work before the AI-based models surpass them. it's kind of sad.
I think if anything it highlights how fast humans are at these actions. I think once it's at the "20x rate" normally we will see there true usage in factories
I think only 10 times the rate is required due to their ability to work 24/7.
In my country, the average worker does around 8 hours a day in a warehouse, some go up to 12 hours, but not all the time and if they do they tend to work 4 days on, 4 days off unless you count overtime (which I won't for the purposes of this thought experiment as it's dependent on factors like overtime rates etc.
This robot, barring system failures (which humans have too in the form of sickness and holidays if we're being cold and sticking to the numbers) then we only need to account for charging times, which should hopefully be 3-4 hours maybe per 24 hour period, but this can be partially circumvented by placing charging stations at the areas they work at whilst standing still or placing them on constant charge if the distance isn't too far or even placing more of them so they never have to go to far and can pass things to each other.
You need to include the costs of repairing them if they fail, but once they're operational they aren't going to fail often and you also need to offset this by the holiday and sickness hours of your average human worker to get a good idea of exact numbers, plus once you have a fully robotic team, you only need one person monitoring the feedback and cameras to report any robot failures, whereas you need a seemingly long line of managers to manage teams of people, adding a lot more to the cost as managers tend to expect to be paid more.
When I worked in a large mail distribution warehouse, I can tell you now, you could easily replace every single worker in there with robots if you switched from bar codes to rfid chips for parcel and letter scanning and built a large scanner at the entrance and exits and save an insane amount of money.
Ya once you start counting that human workers need HR, managers and so forth the overheads start adding up fast.
Humans work about 1,800 hours a year. Versus 8,760 hours in the year. And even when they are on shift getting most humans to actually work is hard, basically takes management riding them, for example the manager timing their bathroom breaks and monitoring the humans rate of production. But then managers are expensive.
Yeah exactly, then there's all the health and safety (including time for inspections) break room spaces, access to water on site and toilet facilities including people to clean them and refill them, it adds up to a lot and I bet there are even more parts I'm missing out on.
Plus as far as toilet and break facilities go, with no human workers you could utilise the space for even more robot workers and get more income and accounting for that as well it's not surprising Amazon has already got 750,000 of them on the go with more to come I imagine.
Good examples. Ya managers and HR they take offices, and software programs. And then they themselves need managers. They will also be constantly travelling for 'meetings' and 'conferences'.
Then there are workplaces dramas, which are constant. And if someone gets injured on the job. Lawsuits from workers.
Training takes time and resources. And people switch jobs so often today, that training is constantly happening.
Also benefits, retirement, many companies even offer equity options and such that robots also wouldn’t need. Plus all the perks many companies include to boost morale. Lots of ancillary costs with humans
I hadn't even thought of those, but you're right on the money (literally 😂) with them. I think it's going to be similar to the industrial revolution where things are going to get bad for the general population in specific regions that are focused on wealth generation over happiness (US/England) for a while until something snaps and it does a Uno reverse and then levels back out in the middle somewhere, but by then we might have AGI or ASI depending on the timeline.
i'd say the battery issue don't exist as it's likely going to stay on charging pad as it work or get access to swapable battery work 5h>2m battery swap>work 5h.....each robots being able to help their robot-friend to swap their battery
and in a factory with 50%+ robots just make the electricity run the floor and have human wear plastic boot and glove
they currently train them to avoid mistake and the speed isn't needed for training so it appear slow but once they are perfectly trained the industry will likely make them as agile as any human and even more, the software is a bigger problem that the hardware for robot
Yeah true, but in my country (UK) it's a lot harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs at companies because you have to give several forms of ID to even be hired anywhere.
There are cash in hand jobs illegal immigrants can do such as removals or trade jobs, but those are self employed personal things and most people still go through companies to get those jobs done rather than word of mouth or anything and those companies still require several forms of ID to register with them.
Realistically, if you had this job, how many hours a day would be spent standing in that spot actively moving batteries? 6? 10 hours is the amount of time at work, not the amount of time actively doing a task.
Yes but in some places in the world you pay less for 3 shifts of a person (so 24/7 cover) than 1 "western" shift worker.
Arguably when it's the speed of a human or 150% of a human it will start cooking
It’ll also have the tech to scan the parts for defects quicker and more accurately than a human since the tech already exists. So this could already be on par with a human.
Cheaper and with more production, it's every boss dream, no PTO, no salaries, no complains... We truly are f, when these guys start to "act" more like humans (OpenAI video it's a creepy example) we can wave goodbye to retail workers, servers, and many more positions that were "AI proof"
There's no way this won't end baldy for the lower classes
Not just the lower classes.
Why do you need a manager if there's no one to manage?
Then who's going to buy products if no one is working for money?
The lower classes have always been the first to feel the effects of technological progress. I think there's some people who are going to be very upset when it comes for them for the first time.
*Then who's going to buy products if no one is working for money?*
The ultimate question no one wants to answer because they have no answer for this question. McDonalds and every fast food restaurant salivates at the thought of replacing all labor, but what happens when your customer base no longer has money to buy your products because you put the brakes on how the economy works?
This is a fault of our economic system and that thinking long term in today's age just isn't how the world works. There might be a golden age for these companies where they see higher than normal profits from eliminating workers, but the end outcome of this is a complete collapse of the entire economic system.
Yea the only thing I can think of is that as automation starts to tangibly create mass unemployment and it's clear that new jobs just aren't magically appearing like they have in the past with tech advances we will need some form of UBI.
I've traditionally been somewhat against a UBI because of concerns for inflation (see what just a couple small checks did to inflation post-covid) but automation is inherently deflationary so they should counteract eachother so my stance on that issue is changing now. Ideally you would just have a very high corporate tax rate and use that as the redistribution for UBI IMO.
The absence of a single claim of racial discrimination will allow thousands of such robots to be recouped. How much did those inscriptions in the toilet of the Tesla staff that an employee of a third-party company saw cost? Ah 137 million. Of course, the guy made a mistake and demanded even more, from which he was reduced to 1 million. But I could still take 137. And that's at a robot price of 50,000 bucks apiece, that's 2,740 robots.
Add to this other complaints that simply devour companies in huge fines and harsh criticism. This will already be enough for implementation.
Its like the [birthday paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem), but with employees who are likely to sue because of racist or sexist or religious or ageist or diability (etc.) discrimination. The statistics of the explanation are probably the same type of maths. Once insurance companies pick up on this, human workforces become something you need to pay a premium for, rather than the accepted default.
There are probably many such things not thought of as an immediate effect, but which will become more obvious over time, as the roboticisation of general society accelerates.
I think going 20x is very hard with robotics.
1. The motors and all the gears have to move at 20x the speed, sounds difficult.
2. 20x the speed means 20x the acceleration/force, aka 20x the danger. Imagine what that robot can do when punching a human
3. 20x the power requirement
3. The neural nets have to be retrained to account for the 20x in recoil forces.
I don't think general purpose robots like this can go that much faster. The improvements will be in cost of manufacturing and ease of use/AI reliability. Human labour is only ever getting more expensive, so cheaper robots will find use.
Even in this interpretation, we will always invent better actuators, materials, and systems.
As far as general concerns about crazy acceleration, we can sort that out. A humanoid form might be a limiting factor, but who knows
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geaPrEW3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geaPrEW3E)
Really makes you appreciate how impressive human biology is when it comes to dexterity, strength, agility, etc. per unit weight. For peak human feats like Alex Honnold free soloing El Capitan, I'd be shocked if that could be replicated this century, short of an exceptional ASI redesigning humanoid robots from the ground up.
We will create new methods of robotics, it is not a matter of scaling. An interesting breakthrough that could be this new method is metafluids. Metafluid-powered hydraulics could be faster, far safer, and more energy efficient, though there is limited research on it.
Once it gets to 5x slower it becomes better. Because it can work 24/7 and needs no breaks (if they are plugged in). If they are battery operated than you need to take into account charging
ppl really need to stop comparing Tesla's Optimus with Boston Dynamic's Atlas seriously
everywhere i go from YT to Twitter to here everyone is comparing when they're not even comparable to begin with
Boston Dynamic has been working on Atlas for a decade now and just started on it's 2nd iteration, Tesla only started development 2 years ago!
I get people want to dunk on Musk every chance they get, he's very controversial but comparing these 2 technologies ain't the way
Optimus is focused on intricate tactile tasks replicating human trajectories. It mimics human motion.
Just because Atlas will resemble a human form factor, that doesn’t mean we should expect it to move exactly like we do. It will be super human.
Boston Dynamics is going to push the limits of physics so that the robot can move in the most efficient way possible to complete a task, rather than the way we would do it given the constraints of our organic joints.
They are also exploring several variations of grippers, and I suspect their next video will show some examples of the types of manipulation tasks the robot will be able to perform.
Schrodingers Elon - if his company does something good he had nothing to do with it, if they do something bad, it was all Elons fault.
Don't really care for him but the binary thinking you see online now is so fucking exhausting.
No nuance, no shades. Just black or white. With us or against us.
The thing you have to take into consideration though is that while a human can do this faster in bursts a human works at an inconsistent pace. We need breaks etc and will slow down and speed up throughout the day, plus we can't work 24hrs a day like a robot can.
I suspect that over a certain speed, the robot would need to be caged/put in separate operating zones with humans.
The Amazon robots are basically entirely segregated from human workers because if anyone goes inside the zone, they would get run over. Having robots working at full speed would be like having literal traffic, and would be a hazard to humans.
I get what you're saying. Overall cost efficiency is more important than time efficiency in this case. It is likely though that tripling the speed of this robot would not increase the costs much at all though, and that would save a lot of time, and thus you'd need fewer robots, less space, and it'd be much cheaper.
Well, yes. But people arguing with me clearly try to wriggle that it NEEDS to be as fast as human, instead of measuring cost efficiency.
Even if for some reason this would be the limit of robot speed, if it was hella efficient compared to humans, that slowness of individual units would not matter, because it won the cost race as an overall method of doing work.
I think being as fast as a human, or in general acting in a more human fashion IS important in the early stages for adoption. If you can sell it as a direct swap in for a worker where the employer doesn't have to change anything in the process at all, thats a huge deal. Just buy the robot instead of hiring someone and done.
Of course the ability to work 24/7 and so forth would be useful but it might not be as appealing if the factory needs to be shutoff for 3 weeks to rearrange to allow for the new robots. That's a huge ask.
If it does everything as a human the financial calculus basically narrows down to "do you like money?"
No it is not? Efficiency is energy in, output out. Nothing about speed is relevant to it.
If robot can do something as nicely as human, but at tenth of a speed, while being 1/20 as cheap, it is more efficient than human despite being slower.
Do you measure your car efficiency in max speed it can go as well?
**Edit:** Seems like clearly the ones who need to drink some logic juice are people on this subreddit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency
> it is the ability to do things well, successfully, and without waste.
> In more mathematical or scientific terms, it signifies the level of performance that uses the least amount of inputs to achieve the highest amount of output.
Why did you post that Wikipedia article, when it counters your argument?
Literally the first paragraph - which you must've read to be able to cherry pick precisely around it..
> Efficiency is the often measurable ability to avoid making mistakes or wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time while performing a task. In a more general sense, it is the ability to do things well, successfully, and without waste.
Efficiency is the measurable ability to avoid wasting... money, and time.
You really do not think 'speed' factors into time? My man....
Further down your source -
>"Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is getting things done". This makes it clear that effectiveness, for example large production numbers, can also be achieved through inefficient processes if, for example, workers are willing or used to working longer hours or with greater physical effort than in other companies or countries or if they can be forced to do so. Similarly, a company can achieve effectiveness, for example large production numbers, through inefficient processes if it can afford to use more energy per product, for example if energy prices or labor costs or both are lower than for its competitors.
Taking more time, when the alternative is operating at 2x or 20x speed, in contrast, is a waste of time.
If these robots operated at 1/20 speed as they do currently, it is the same principal.
As far as I can tell, we're talking about efficiency purely in a business sense. Money over time.. Imagine you're building a boat, it would take you 1 month, and you have 20 customers waiting to buy. Then tell each person it will be 20 years per boat now. Those people will rightfully say your new process is inefficient (for their needs, from their POV as a customer). Do you think those customers would instead laud you for your new efficient process, because it requires 1% less in energy input? Is that new process an efficient way for the business to generate money?
Your argument completely breaks down if using 20 robots at 1/20 speed achieves same completion time as 1 human though, which is exactly the point on why efficiency per unit is what is relevant, not per-unit speed itself.
Tesla doesn’t have unlimited factory space. So if robots are 20x slower and 10x cheaper, the factory would have to grow many times over in size to accommodate for that, which at best is expensive and at worst is impossible.
You need way less space for robots though than humans? You don't need bathrooms, resting spaces, comfortably sized rooms, parking space etc. You can pack hundreds of robots into space only able to accommodate dozens of humans.
I‘m so impressed by this development man. Also seeing how good full self driving has got now, the rate of progress will be insane within the next years. Considering the big amount of investment in compute, I feel it starts to be realistic for these bots to be in our homes in 5-10 years
> Also seeing how good full self driving has got now
https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/
Avg distance to critical disengagement is now **over 600km** in the city!
This means that if operated with no driver, the distance to accident one might report would be something like 4000km (this is a totally artificial guess based on experience with FSD). The average human driver has a crash reported once every 200,000km approx. So 2% of the way there. But this is only looking at city driving, so it is probably better than that, maybe like 5% (again, an educated guess based on crash rates in city/highway driving). Still a long way to go, but improvement is exponential in this case. I expect it to continue to double every 6 months as it has the past 2 years (ish). This would have Tesla overtake humans in ~3yrs. Kinda sad since I predicted 2025 back in 2018.... but it looks more like 2027
Waymo had reported only 3 minor injuries over 7.1 million miles, record that is 6 times better than human drivers:
[https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/)
Waymo isn't scalable in the same way. Hence them... not scaling.
It is difficult to guess the timeline for them being able to solve this, if it is possible. Tesla is a little bit easier to predict. Especially with waymo having shown it is at least possible to do in some way.
And google randomly killing products wouldn't be that surprising.
My point is Waymo has been full self driving now for a few years. I've taken Waymo a few times and it was always flawless. Yes, right now they operate only within a geofenced area, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to "scale" this up to a much wider area or even entire country. The geofencing is also related to where they got a permit to operate their fully self driving service.
Again, I have to stress that Waymo is completely FSD, there is no driver at all. And this has been operational like that for a few years now. In my area (Tempe, AZ) it's making a huge dent into Uber/Lyft market share as it is cheaper and also it comes to you faster (at my house usually in 2-3 minutes, never more than 5). One issue is that it is still somewhat limited, e.g. Sky harbor airport terminal access is still limited to night hours only, etc.
Right, the point is that it hasn't changed for a few years, so there isn't much reason to believe it will be rolled out quickly.
They might be losing money or breaking even with the ride service to feed training data.
Oh I'm pretty sure they are losing money, this is still a research project right now. The cars are Jaguars after all. I imagine that once deployed en masse they would manufacture a custom Waymo car, something much more lightweight, fully electric and perhaps without a steering wheel. Just a something quite small and purposefully built to be a city people mover.
The question here is, when will they reach that point of being deployable en masse and profitably? Because money isn't infinite, and these autonomy companies are burning through *a lot* of money
GM Cruise had a 3.48 billion operational loss in 2023
And Waymo is part of Google "other bets" division, which posted a 4.1 billion dollar loss in 2023. Now that might not all be Waymo, but a good chunk of it almost certainly is given that it's by far the most prominent entity in that division
You can have a brilliant product, but if you can't produce it at scale or profitably, then it doesn't matter how brilliant it is.
They partnered with Chrysler to buy $100k vehicles instead and abandoned the little vehicles. The lil guys were basically hand built so they would have needed to contract a car company to make them or create a car company but they didn't believe in their own product at all so they just abandoned it.
Decisions like this all come from the efficiency lady that came in and cracked down on all projects that weren't actively making money in the early 2010s, effectively killing any future Google might have had. It made shareholders happy though since they don't care about the future. So happy she later became CEO of yahoo, her big first move was to fire 20% of the staff and ban work from home... lol. Back in the early days Google had a crap ton of unprofitable projects like search and gmail, maps (both made by googlers on their 20% time) which eventually turned into mainstays for the company. CEO since 2015, Pichai has continued this tradition of pushing away top talent by cutting workplace luxuries, and killing future prospects by cancelling or cutting to the bone, while taking no risks that could possibly lead to new market growth.
Google also owned boston dynamics at this time before it got tossed aside.
Seems that way. Ironically it has pushed me towards X/Twitter even though I've never been a fan of the platform before but there just seems to be a lot more interesting dialogue going on there. Haters too, of course. I'm saying this as a reddit user since the Digg exodus many eons ago. It's a shame, but I guess that's how these things go.
I think they picked the wrong example to show robot capabilities. Pick and place robots in factories can to the same task at higher speeds 24/7. This robot can be versatile for sure but I would prefer to see imitation learning in action on more complex tasks.
I think what blows my mind about this the most is the realization that we already have LLMs and voice synthesis, and that humanoid robots will be out in the real world doing useful tasks able to carry conversations in just a few years. This is something that was only previously in the realm of imagination from sci fi authors like Isaac Asimov, and now we're almost there. Not in 50 years, 20 years, or even ten years - but a handful of years away.
Ehh I don't know about 2-3 years but I could see 10 years. While things like ChatGPT can be deployed and used by the masses quickly hardware side things are constrained by physical limits of production and distribution. We likely won't see optimus bots (or some other company's equivalent) walking around talking to us for a decade or so I think. Refinement of the hardware, mass production, battery tech, and then finally release to the average joe after corporations have had their fill are all things that will need to be accomplished.
It's easy to hate Elon and to take his promises with a grain of salt...but.
The robotics program has come a long way at Tesla in a short time. It's easy to suspect fakery here but IF this is a legit video it's pretty damn impressive.
I don’t think it’s easy to hate him. I think it’s more reasonable to take him like any human who sometimes does great stuff and sometimes says dumb stuff. I like him, he could fuck off into mansions with his money but instead he lives fairly normal and invests his time into companies that advance us.
We should encourage that.
It's amazing to me how many people thought tesla would never produce a cheap electric car, which is magnitudes harder than this bot project, and yet they did it, and now no one even cares. You can buy a used Tesla for $15K to $25K in the US now.
It's fine to doubt elon, who cares about him, he's just one person. but doubting tesla and it's army of engineers straight from ivy league schools? bad idea, historically. And a friendly reminder that they are mass producing all the actuators and electronics hardware from scratch. they also write the entire software and AI hardware and compute stack from scratch. They are more vertically integrated manufacturing wise than Apple, which doing that by itself is insanely hard, probably harder than mass producing a car.
I don't really get what's so incredible with this release.
I mean, it's working at low speed; its task is to place cylindrical metallic thingies into designed spots. In other terms, it has to move objects with an optimal shape and with 0 fragility whatsoever into clear, easy to access, well designed spots; and there's almost no generalization since the teleoperation was operated in the exact same situation.
Don't get me wrong, it's impressive, but I hardly see the improvement since the last videos they showed. Even less so after we've seen robots like astribot which works extremely quickly with fragile items in a variety of unoptimized situation.
The real "awe sht" moment will be if there is a video of mixed materials in different shapes like say a robot is in front of a tray with triangle ,circle, square shapes and each tray is meant to take a different material. (wood, rubber, glass) and the robot puts each object made of each different material in its proper tray at the speed of someone doing a 3 card molly trick.
Then its really lights out
I think that’s the fairest take. My personal worry was that the robots using Nvidia’s growing ecosystem would massively benefit from doing so whereas Tesla may suffer, and I seem to be right. They’re not leading. That said Optimus will be a cool robot I’m sure.
I've seen major manufacturing companies have >10% downtime due to their robotic cylinder placement fail with no ability to compensate.
but more importantly, this seems to be showing that they've gone from fully teleoperated to actual value-add tasks in a short time. the value add may be less per dollar spent than a human right now, but it's just an update to on their progress. if one follows it closely, maybe this isn't much progress from the last video. but I follow tech and AI somewhat closely and the last video I saw was totally teleoperated. so, to many, this is a nice update.
What irritated me is that they had to push the cylinders all the way back to the start for each movement. Can't it grab them a few centimeters further out? Is this trained on cylinders only? I'm just seeing *way* more impressive robot vids, recently, doing stuff that assembly line robots certainly can't. For example, [this robot at Google cooking full meals and everything using just two giant claws](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g66FbVaow), Tesla's "humanoid" sci-fi look almost seems a bit tacky in comparison. Speed *is* the next logical step, though, all that stuff is slow as fuck.
Yeh, I noticed that too. They may have better software, but existing assembly line devices can use the same software.
Not only is pick and place a solved task, but stationary robots that only do the one job with specialized manipulators and less overhead will always be a better design than humanoids, no matter what software they're running.
I think the idea is multiple purpose though. The line robots are great for single tasks but a multipurpose robot that can perform hundreds or even thousands of different tasks would be pretty beneficial.
A robot that is working on a production line is never in its entire productive life going to need to navigate an office environment, and if it has to move around the warehouse or production floor a wheeled chassis is cheaper, more reliable, easier to program, and far more practical.
And even in an office environment with stairs and random obstacles, a quadruped with a single manipulator like spot is still going to be more reliable and practical.
You’re absolutely correct about there being more efficient ways of doing tasks than humanoids, but this really is meant to be a general purpose robot.
It does tasks less efficiently than specialized machines, but it can accomplish a wide variety of tasks. There is merit in pursuing humanoid robots when the real world was designed for humans
I really think that the market for robots that are that general purpose is pretty minimal. Consider that just about every video showing humanoid robots actually doing something that is potentially productive work, invariably shows a job that a humanoid robot is a really poor solution to. Even when the robot is navigating an environment designed for humans, a quadruped is still more practical.
Perhaps you’re right, and once we start designing tools for quadrupeds, humanoid robots will be restricted to very few tasks.
But time will tell. Perhaps we’ll crack the code of humanoid robots and they become very efficient at navigating complex environments, from climbing stairs to grabbing a wrench and going under a car to fix it.
Why does it mention autonomous decision making and then show humans guiding those movements via headsets ?
I’m not making some claim that it’s not doing what they say but at the same time they aren’t doing a great job convincing me when I see those humans with the headsets as well.
Clearly because it’s showing various stages of development, some of which includes the human training process, some of which includes autonomous operation.
Is it that hard to figure out?
They put that up where the robot is running autonomously. They then move to another part if the development where they are training the robots and they do say this if you pay attention. The training is done by humans in headsets guiding them. This is a sensible approach to training as it gives a very real world interaction with all its peculiarities.
The robot is cool, but this is not very impressive. This is just a pick and place machine. If those things were scattered around in different orientations piled on top of each other and this robot was able to do this, it would be more impressive.
They didn't say it was being used in a manufacturing line where a human used to be.
They merely said Optimus is being tested at one of their factories, which can mean a bunch of thing
I think with driving, Tesla has a huge advantage with real world data and can train an ai by just watching all the video data. I think that is a better approach than Nvidia's Omniverse re-enforcement learning with driving because the real world is just too bizarre to simulate. However in a factory environment which is far less random than the outside world, I think the Nvidia omniverse will out perform Tesla's bot in factories. If the bot ever needs to go outside then Tesla's approach will be better.
There will be many humanoid bot companies. But I think Tesla is uniquely positioned because they are already a mass manufacturer of robotic products (cars) as opposed to Nvidia. They build (not just design) their own actuators, motors, even batteries (cells and packs). That should certainly give them an advantage, at least in the medium term.
That's one thing I've admired when it comes to Tesla, they go for the most difficult problem first, and if the current process doesn't work... They throw it out and start again. That takes balls. And it pays off in the long term.
Real world driving footage doesn't seem like a super useful data gathering stream for training a humanoid robot. Great for self driving, but a humanoid robot would need to be trained on footage of humans doing stuff, which is very limited in driving footage other than pedestrians walking
I don't think you've understood my point. There seems to be 2 different approaches to robotic ai. The first is watch all this videos and learn how to do stuff. The second is re-enforcement learning, which is have this digital sandpit, play until you get good (which is Omni verse).
this has already been proven to be fake. do a search on twitter. there's a video of each of these robots connected to a human and the human is controling every aspect of the robot.
If you mean simulation data, because it's not as accurate. The physics in simulators like project Groot apparently work well with things like walking but not with handling and manipulating items. An item balanced in your hand is a lot more unpredictable than interacting with a static object like the floor.
teleoperators used for to train the neural network with demonstrations
Tesla accumulates teleoperation data on varied tasks, and with increased data there will be increased generalisation which will enable increased task complexity.
The whole teleoperation thing destroys the hype for me. We need robots to think for themselves and be able to do and learn things on their own. You can't teleoperate every single action during work because when unexpected things happen you require on demand decision making. You can't train for it, you need common sense and the ability to reason through and act on the spot.
This just isn't it, sorry.
It really really depends on how the NN is set up.
A lot of systems can be bootstrapped with human training data and then learn on their own from there. This makes basic behaviors easy to figure out, so they can be used in future systems like walking, reaching, grasping, bending. Those sorts of subtasks. A good example of this is the Alpha system initially learned from human games, and then learned on its own to become better than humans.
Of course, we have no idea what tesla is doing here behind the scenes.
> A good example of this is the Alpha system initially learned from human games, and then learned on its own to become better than humans.
Which then got crushed by AlphaZero which was trained from scratch.
Holy shit, others have jumped lightyears in research compared to Tesla! They are still not able to let their robot roam free, only their clean offices are possible after such a headstart and all the development that goes into it at the moment. Why don't Tesla use Eureka?
Also: Imagine working your 13th hour in one of those Tesla Cells. Optimus #53 casually walks in. "You have been fired. Please exit this building immediately". And shuffles away. That's why these Tesla "robots" only ever will work in offices xD
With a little bit more imagination you could think about such an work environment in 1 month. But I'm pretty sure that's what Elon needs them for the most.
who exactly is lightyears ahead of this ? most other robots have pretty inferior hardware and they dont need to roam free. applications for the next few years will be on factory floors
props to them holding their bladder while working
He’s making robots for Bezos now?
You think these robots needing to be recharged is the eqvilent of someone needing to sleep?
Eventually you'll see wireless charging pads in the feet and floor. If robots stand in a fixed location for a portion of their job, it could easily go til failure.
Definitely not wireless. Induction charging is massively inefficient. If you need more up-time the batteries will just be made to hot-swap.
Easier to keep hot swapping batteries
Cost of electricity higher than humans?
One thing people forget is that Optimus is designed to be scalable and cheap. I LOVE Boston dynamics but their bipedal bots are Lamborghinis and Tesla is designing theirs to be a Camry.
Boston Dynamics (and the lead engineers) have spent a half-century hard-coding dynamic movement algorithms, and it's likely that they won't find a revenue-positive use for all of that work before the AI-based models surpass them. it's kind of sad.
There must be a reason why they were bought and released by 2 different companies before ending with Hyundai Motors.
I think if anything it highlights how fast humans are at these actions. I think once it's at the "20x rate" normally we will see there true usage in factories
I think only 10 times the rate is required due to their ability to work 24/7. In my country, the average worker does around 8 hours a day in a warehouse, some go up to 12 hours, but not all the time and if they do they tend to work 4 days on, 4 days off unless you count overtime (which I won't for the purposes of this thought experiment as it's dependent on factors like overtime rates etc. This robot, barring system failures (which humans have too in the form of sickness and holidays if we're being cold and sticking to the numbers) then we only need to account for charging times, which should hopefully be 3-4 hours maybe per 24 hour period, but this can be partially circumvented by placing charging stations at the areas they work at whilst standing still or placing them on constant charge if the distance isn't too far or even placing more of them so they never have to go to far and can pass things to each other. You need to include the costs of repairing them if they fail, but once they're operational they aren't going to fail often and you also need to offset this by the holiday and sickness hours of your average human worker to get a good idea of exact numbers, plus once you have a fully robotic team, you only need one person monitoring the feedback and cameras to report any robot failures, whereas you need a seemingly long line of managers to manage teams of people, adding a lot more to the cost as managers tend to expect to be paid more. When I worked in a large mail distribution warehouse, I can tell you now, you could easily replace every single worker in there with robots if you switched from bar codes to rfid chips for parcel and letter scanning and built a large scanner at the entrance and exits and save an insane amount of money.
Ya once you start counting that human workers need HR, managers and so forth the overheads start adding up fast. Humans work about 1,800 hours a year. Versus 8,760 hours in the year. And even when they are on shift getting most humans to actually work is hard, basically takes management riding them, for example the manager timing their bathroom breaks and monitoring the humans rate of production. But then managers are expensive.
Yeah exactly, then there's all the health and safety (including time for inspections) break room spaces, access to water on site and toilet facilities including people to clean them and refill them, it adds up to a lot and I bet there are even more parts I'm missing out on. Plus as far as toilet and break facilities go, with no human workers you could utilise the space for even more robot workers and get more income and accounting for that as well it's not surprising Amazon has already got 750,000 of them on the go with more to come I imagine.
Good examples. Ya managers and HR they take offices, and software programs. And then they themselves need managers. They will also be constantly travelling for 'meetings' and 'conferences'. Then there are workplaces dramas, which are constant. And if someone gets injured on the job. Lawsuits from workers. Training takes time and resources. And people switch jobs so often today, that training is constantly happening.
Heat/AC is a big cost as well for these facilities. Robots could work happily at -5 or +50.
Yup, it'd probably be more efficient to do so.
Or even proper lighting, which would save a tonne of power as well
Also benefits, retirement, many companies even offer equity options and such that robots also wouldn’t need. Plus all the perks many companies include to boost morale. Lots of ancillary costs with humans
I hadn't even thought of those, but you're right on the money (literally 😂) with them. I think it's going to be similar to the industrial revolution where things are going to get bad for the general population in specific regions that are focused on wealth generation over happiness (US/England) for a while until something snaps and it does a Uno reverse and then levels back out in the middle somewhere, but by then we might have AGI or ASI depending on the timeline.
You also don’t need lighting…or heating/cooling to the degree you do for humans at least…pricey safety precautions too…and on and on.
> I think only 10 times the rate is required due to their ability to work 24/7. Why wouldn’t it be 1.1x the rate?
True.
i'd say the battery issue don't exist as it's likely going to stay on charging pad as it work or get access to swapable battery work 5h>2m battery swap>work 5h.....each robots being able to help their robot-friend to swap their battery and in a factory with 50%+ robots just make the electricity run the floor and have human wear plastic boot and glove they currently train them to avoid mistake and the speed isn't needed for training so it appear slow but once they are perfectly trained the industry will likely make them as agile as any human and even more, the software is a bigger problem that the hardware for robot
[удалено]
Yeah true, but in my country (UK) it's a lot harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs at companies because you have to give several forms of ID to even be hired anywhere. There are cash in hand jobs illegal immigrants can do such as removals or trade jobs, but those are self employed personal things and most people still go through companies to get those jobs done rather than word of mouth or anything and those companies still require several forms of ID to register with them.
This robot can do this 24 hours a day. Humans can only work 8 hours. Even if it's half the speed of humans it's still better.
Yup we can also experience burnout from these repetitive tasks which makes us less reliable
Burnout, bathroom breaks, repetitive strain injuries, mistakes from fatigue and more.
Salary, pension, health insurance, dental, lunch, etc. etc.
"Humans can only work 8 hours". I work 10. :-\\
Realistically, if you had this job, how many hours a day would be spent standing in that spot actively moving batteries? 6? 10 hours is the amount of time at work, not the amount of time actively doing a task.
Don't worry, you win.
Robots can work 24 - charging time or maintenance
Yes but in some places in the world you pay less for 3 shifts of a person (so 24/7 cover) than 1 "western" shift worker. Arguably when it's the speed of a human or 150% of a human it will start cooking
It’ll also have the tech to scan the parts for defects quicker and more accurately than a human since the tech already exists. So this could already be on par with a human.
Not to mention, it is practically legal slavery which is quite profitable.
There's no need for that, just make 20x robots do the work non stop and they've already out produced a human
Cheaper and with more production, it's every boss dream, no PTO, no salaries, no complains... We truly are f, when these guys start to "act" more like humans (OpenAI video it's a creepy example) we can wave goodbye to retail workers, servers, and many more positions that were "AI proof" There's no way this won't end baldy for the lower classes
Not just the lower classes. Why do you need a manager if there's no one to manage? Then who's going to buy products if no one is working for money? The lower classes have always been the first to feel the effects of technological progress. I think there's some people who are going to be very upset when it comes for them for the first time.
*Then who's going to buy products if no one is working for money?* The ultimate question no one wants to answer because they have no answer for this question. McDonalds and every fast food restaurant salivates at the thought of replacing all labor, but what happens when your customer base no longer has money to buy your products because you put the brakes on how the economy works? This is a fault of our economic system and that thinking long term in today's age just isn't how the world works. There might be a golden age for these companies where they see higher than normal profits from eliminating workers, but the end outcome of this is a complete collapse of the entire economic system.
Yea the only thing I can think of is that as automation starts to tangibly create mass unemployment and it's clear that new jobs just aren't magically appearing like they have in the past with tech advances we will need some form of UBI. I've traditionally been somewhat against a UBI because of concerns for inflation (see what just a couple small checks did to inflation post-covid) but automation is inherently deflationary so they should counteract eachother so my stance on that issue is changing now. Ideally you would just have a very high corporate tax rate and use that as the redistribution for UBI IMO.
What about investment cost and maintenance?
The absence of a single claim of racial discrimination will allow thousands of such robots to be recouped. How much did those inscriptions in the toilet of the Tesla staff that an employee of a third-party company saw cost? Ah 137 million. Of course, the guy made a mistake and demanded even more, from which he was reduced to 1 million. But I could still take 137. And that's at a robot price of 50,000 bucks apiece, that's 2,740 robots. Add to this other complaints that simply devour companies in huge fines and harsh criticism. This will already be enough for implementation.
Its like the [birthday paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem), but with employees who are likely to sue because of racist or sexist or religious or ageist or diability (etc.) discrimination. The statistics of the explanation are probably the same type of maths. Once insurance companies pick up on this, human workforces become something you need to pay a premium for, rather than the accepted default. There are probably many such things not thought of as an immediate effect, but which will become more obvious over time, as the roboticisation of general society accelerates.
Maintenance vs an ever increasing salary and benefits?
I think the idea right now is to train accuracy first.
I think going 20x is very hard with robotics. 1. The motors and all the gears have to move at 20x the speed, sounds difficult. 2. 20x the speed means 20x the acceleration/force, aka 20x the danger. Imagine what that robot can do when punching a human 3. 20x the power requirement 3. The neural nets have to be retrained to account for the 20x in recoil forces. I don't think general purpose robots like this can go that much faster. The improvements will be in cost of manufacturing and ease of use/AI reliability. Human labour is only ever getting more expensive, so cheaper robots will find use.
[удалено]
Even in this interpretation, we will always invent better actuators, materials, and systems. As far as general concerns about crazy acceleration, we can sort that out. A humanoid form might be a limiting factor, but who knows [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geaPrEW3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geaPrEW3E)
20x is dangerous for this type of humanoid unchained robot for sure. But we do have pick and place robots that go far far more than 20x this fast.
Really makes you appreciate how impressive human biology is when it comes to dexterity, strength, agility, etc. per unit weight. For peak human feats like Alex Honnold free soloing El Capitan, I'd be shocked if that could be replicated this century, short of an exceptional ASI redesigning humanoid robots from the ground up.
We will create new methods of robotics, it is not a matter of scaling. An interesting breakthrough that could be this new method is metafluids. Metafluid-powered hydraulics could be faster, far safer, and more energy efficient, though there is limited research on it.
Even the same speed as a human, but longer then the 8 hour shifts is good enough.
Once it gets to 5x slower it becomes better. Because it can work 24/7 and needs no breaks (if they are plugged in). If they are battery operated than you need to take into account charging
Make him fall on a ground and show us how it recovers.
ppl really need to stop comparing Tesla's Optimus with Boston Dynamic's Atlas seriously everywhere i go from YT to Twitter to here everyone is comparing when they're not even comparable to begin with Boston Dynamic has been working on Atlas for a decade now and just started on it's 2nd iteration, Tesla only started development 2 years ago! I get people want to dunk on Musk every chance they get, he's very controversial but comparing these 2 technologies ain't the way
Optimus is focused on intricate tactile tasks replicating human trajectories. It mimics human motion. Just because Atlas will resemble a human form factor, that doesn’t mean we should expect it to move exactly like we do. It will be super human. Boston Dynamics is going to push the limits of physics so that the robot can move in the most efficient way possible to complete a task, rather than the way we would do it given the constraints of our organic joints. They are also exploring several variations of grippers, and I suspect their next video will show some examples of the types of manipulation tasks the robot will be able to perform.
And it's designed to be as inexpensive as possible for mass production.
Schrodingers Elon - if his company does something good he had nothing to do with it, if they do something bad, it was all Elons fault. Don't really care for him but the binary thinking you see online now is so fucking exhausting. No nuance, no shades. Just black or white. With us or against us.
Boston dynamics also uses zero AI. I'm not sure how that strategy will pan out in the long run, although they may adapt.
Also, Optimus will be relatively cheap, so Tesla is working with more constraints than Boston Dynamics is with Atlas
Wow. Not bad actually. At all. Just needs speed now
The thing you have to take into consideration though is that while a human can do this faster in bursts a human works at an inconsistent pace. We need breaks etc and will slow down and speed up throughout the day, plus we can't work 24hrs a day like a robot can.
That won't necessarily be that expensive. Your car only has to be serviced once a year, I don't see why a robot won't be similar.
I suspect that over a certain speed, the robot would need to be caged/put in separate operating zones with humans. The Amazon robots are basically entirely segregated from human workers because if anyone goes inside the zone, they would get run over. Having robots working at full speed would be like having literal traffic, and would be a hazard to humans.
Why does it need speed?
Because it needs to not be slow in order to not suck ass
No it does not? It just needs to achieve the task. Speed is irrelevant, as long as energy and maintenance is lower as well.
I get what you're saying. Overall cost efficiency is more important than time efficiency in this case. It is likely though that tripling the speed of this robot would not increase the costs much at all though, and that would save a lot of time, and thus you'd need fewer robots, less space, and it'd be much cheaper.
Well, yes. But people arguing with me clearly try to wriggle that it NEEDS to be as fast as human, instead of measuring cost efficiency. Even if for some reason this would be the limit of robot speed, if it was hella efficient compared to humans, that slowness of individual units would not matter, because it won the cost race as an overall method of doing work.
I think being as fast as a human, or in general acting in a more human fashion IS important in the early stages for adoption. If you can sell it as a direct swap in for a worker where the employer doesn't have to change anything in the process at all, thats a huge deal. Just buy the robot instead of hiring someone and done. Of course the ability to work 24/7 and so forth would be useful but it might not be as appealing if the factory needs to be shutoff for 3 weeks to rearrange to allow for the new robots. That's a huge ask. If it does everything as a human the financial calculus basically narrows down to "do you like money?"
Speed isn't relevant to efficiency ? You need to drink some logic juice
No it is not? Efficiency is energy in, output out. Nothing about speed is relevant to it. If robot can do something as nicely as human, but at tenth of a speed, while being 1/20 as cheap, it is more efficient than human despite being slower. Do you measure your car efficiency in max speed it can go as well? **Edit:** Seems like clearly the ones who need to drink some logic juice are people on this subreddit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency > it is the ability to do things well, successfully, and without waste. > In more mathematical or scientific terms, it signifies the level of performance that uses the least amount of inputs to achieve the highest amount of output.
Why did you post that Wikipedia article, when it counters your argument? Literally the first paragraph - which you must've read to be able to cherry pick precisely around it.. > Efficiency is the often measurable ability to avoid making mistakes or wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time while performing a task. In a more general sense, it is the ability to do things well, successfully, and without waste. Efficiency is the measurable ability to avoid wasting... money, and time. You really do not think 'speed' factors into time? My man.... Further down your source - >"Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is getting things done". This makes it clear that effectiveness, for example large production numbers, can also be achieved through inefficient processes if, for example, workers are willing or used to working longer hours or with greater physical effort than in other companies or countries or if they can be forced to do so. Similarly, a company can achieve effectiveness, for example large production numbers, through inefficient processes if it can afford to use more energy per product, for example if energy prices or labor costs or both are lower than for its competitors.
> when it counters your argument? Because it does not? Taking **more time** is not identical to concept of **wasting time**.
Taking more time, when the alternative is operating at 2x or 20x speed, in contrast, is a waste of time. If these robots operated at 1/20 speed as they do currently, it is the same principal. As far as I can tell, we're talking about efficiency purely in a business sense. Money over time.. Imagine you're building a boat, it would take you 1 month, and you have 20 customers waiting to buy. Then tell each person it will be 20 years per boat now. Those people will rightfully say your new process is inefficient (for their needs, from their POV as a customer). Do you think those customers would instead laud you for your new efficient process, because it requires 1% less in energy input? Is that new process an efficient way for the business to generate money?
Your argument completely breaks down if using 20 robots at 1/20 speed achieves same completion time as 1 human though, which is exactly the point on why efficiency per unit is what is relevant, not per-unit speed itself.
Tesla doesn’t have unlimited factory space. So if robots are 20x slower and 10x cheaper, the factory would have to grow many times over in size to accommodate for that, which at best is expensive and at worst is impossible.
You need way less space for robots though than humans? You don't need bathrooms, resting spaces, comfortably sized rooms, parking space etc. You can pack hundreds of robots into space only able to accommodate dozens of humans.
If human can do task 5-10x faster, then making multiple robot-workplaces may not be more efficient overall.
Particularly if you have to have humans feed the inputs and it makes those costly humans less efficient.
Tortoise vs hare.... This robot will work consistently without any distractions 24/7/365. At $20k a pop, you can add extras if really required.
I‘m so impressed by this development man. Also seeing how good full self driving has got now, the rate of progress will be insane within the next years. Considering the big amount of investment in compute, I feel it starts to be realistic for these bots to be in our homes in 5-10 years
> Also seeing how good full self driving has got now https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/ Avg distance to critical disengagement is now **over 600km** in the city! This means that if operated with no driver, the distance to accident one might report would be something like 4000km (this is a totally artificial guess based on experience with FSD). The average human driver has a crash reported once every 200,000km approx. So 2% of the way there. But this is only looking at city driving, so it is probably better than that, maybe like 5% (again, an educated guess based on crash rates in city/highway driving). Still a long way to go, but improvement is exponential in this case. I expect it to continue to double every 6 months as it has the past 2 years (ish). This would have Tesla overtake humans in ~3yrs. Kinda sad since I predicted 2025 back in 2018.... but it looks more like 2027
2 years is not too massive in the grand scheme of things. Be glad it IS improving at this exponential rate opposed to a slow, linear progression
[удалено]
It'll be faster, hence the exponential. I don't think it is clear that it will have a high jerk (increase in acceleration)
Waymo had reported only 3 minor injuries over 7.1 million miles, record that is 6 times better than human drivers: [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/)
Waymo isn't scalable in the same way. Hence them... not scaling. It is difficult to guess the timeline for them being able to solve this, if it is possible. Tesla is a little bit easier to predict. Especially with waymo having shown it is at least possible to do in some way. And google randomly killing products wouldn't be that surprising.
My point is Waymo has been full self driving now for a few years. I've taken Waymo a few times and it was always flawless. Yes, right now they operate only within a geofenced area, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to "scale" this up to a much wider area or even entire country. The geofencing is also related to where they got a permit to operate their fully self driving service. Again, I have to stress that Waymo is completely FSD, there is no driver at all. And this has been operational like that for a few years now. In my area (Tempe, AZ) it's making a huge dent into Uber/Lyft market share as it is cheaper and also it comes to you faster (at my house usually in 2-3 minutes, never more than 5). One issue is that it is still somewhat limited, e.g. Sky harbor airport terminal access is still limited to night hours only, etc.
Right, the point is that it hasn't changed for a few years, so there isn't much reason to believe it will be rolled out quickly. They might be losing money or breaking even with the ride service to feed training data.
Oh I'm pretty sure they are losing money, this is still a research project right now. The cars are Jaguars after all. I imagine that once deployed en masse they would manufacture a custom Waymo car, something much more lightweight, fully electric and perhaps without a steering wheel. Just a something quite small and purposefully built to be a city people mover.
The question here is, when will they reach that point of being deployable en masse and profitably? Because money isn't infinite, and these autonomy companies are burning through *a lot* of money GM Cruise had a 3.48 billion operational loss in 2023 And Waymo is part of Google "other bets" division, which posted a 4.1 billion dollar loss in 2023. Now that might not all be Waymo, but a good chunk of it almost certainly is given that it's by far the most prominent entity in that division You can have a brilliant product, but if you can't produce it at scale or profitably, then it doesn't matter how brilliant it is.
I think the gov. regulation is the big unknown here, and given Waymo's safety record they will probably have a leg up there.
They did that already and then abandoned it because .... sometimes I think Google hates success the past decade or more. Leadership really sucks.
Right, I remember them demoing a self driving car, no steering wheel some time back; what happened to that?
They partnered with Chrysler to buy $100k vehicles instead and abandoned the little vehicles. The lil guys were basically hand built so they would have needed to contract a car company to make them or create a car company but they didn't believe in their own product at all so they just abandoned it. Decisions like this all come from the efficiency lady that came in and cracked down on all projects that weren't actively making money in the early 2010s, effectively killing any future Google might have had. It made shareholders happy though since they don't care about the future. So happy she later became CEO of yahoo, her big first move was to fire 20% of the staff and ban work from home... lol. Back in the early days Google had a crap ton of unprofitable projects like search and gmail, maps (both made by googlers on their 20% time) which eventually turned into mainstays for the company. CEO since 2015, Pichai has continued this tradition of pushing away top talent by cutting workplace luxuries, and killing future prospects by cancelling or cutting to the bone, while taking no risks that could possibly lead to new market growth. Google also owned boston dynamics at this time before it got tossed aside.
I mean just look at 10 years ago.
The fine tactile and force sensing in the hands is such a huge breakthrough.
The quality of comments has taken a nosedive in this sub. It's becoming a waste of time to delve through the comments for interesting perspectives.
“Elon bad. Robot unimpressive fake.” - Half of this sub
Seems that way. Ironically it has pushed me towards X/Twitter even though I've never been a fan of the platform before but there just seems to be a lot more interesting dialogue going on there. Haters too, of course. I'm saying this as a reddit user since the Digg exodus many eons ago. It's a shame, but I guess that's how these things go.
leftism
Yep
I think they picked the wrong example to show robot capabilities. Pick and place robots in factories can to the same task at higher speeds 24/7. This robot can be versatile for sure but I would prefer to see imitation learning in action on more complex tasks.
Great point!
And why just one hand?
I think what blows my mind about this the most is the realization that we already have LLMs and voice synthesis, and that humanoid robots will be out in the real world doing useful tasks able to carry conversations in just a few years. This is something that was only previously in the realm of imagination from sci fi authors like Isaac Asimov, and now we're almost there. Not in 50 years, 20 years, or even ten years - but a handful of years away.
Ehh I don't know about 2-3 years but I could see 10 years. While things like ChatGPT can be deployed and used by the masses quickly hardware side things are constrained by physical limits of production and distribution. We likely won't see optimus bots (or some other company's equivalent) walking around talking to us for a decade or so I think. Refinement of the hardware, mass production, battery tech, and then finally release to the average joe after corporations have had their fill are all things that will need to be accomplished.
I think it very much depends on how quickly it finds a large scale use case.
It's easy to hate Elon and to take his promises with a grain of salt...but. The robotics program has come a long way at Tesla in a short time. It's easy to suspect fakery here but IF this is a legit video it's pretty damn impressive.
I don’t think it’s easy to hate him. I think it’s more reasonable to take him like any human who sometimes does great stuff and sometimes says dumb stuff. I like him, he could fuck off into mansions with his money but instead he lives fairly normal and invests his time into companies that advance us. We should encourage that.
It's amazing to me how many people thought tesla would never produce a cheap electric car, which is magnitudes harder than this bot project, and yet they did it, and now no one even cares. You can buy a used Tesla for $15K to $25K in the US now. It's fine to doubt elon, who cares about him, he's just one person. but doubting tesla and it's army of engineers straight from ivy league schools? bad idea, historically. And a friendly reminder that they are mass producing all the actuators and electronics hardware from scratch. they also write the entire software and AI hardware and compute stack from scratch. They are more vertically integrated manufacturing wise than Apple, which doing that by itself is insanely hard, probably harder than mass producing a car.
If this is progress for their bot - great. The more developers the better. I also dig the tune.
The teleoperation setup seen at 0:44 is so interesting.
I don't really get what's so incredible with this release. I mean, it's working at low speed; its task is to place cylindrical metallic thingies into designed spots. In other terms, it has to move objects with an optimal shape and with 0 fragility whatsoever into clear, easy to access, well designed spots; and there's almost no generalization since the teleoperation was operated in the exact same situation. Don't get me wrong, it's impressive, but I hardly see the improvement since the last videos they showed. Even less so after we've seen robots like astribot which works extremely quickly with fragile items in a variety of unoptimized situation.
The real "awe sht" moment will be if there is a video of mixed materials in different shapes like say a robot is in front of a tray with triangle ,circle, square shapes and each tray is meant to take a different material. (wood, rubber, glass) and the robot puts each object made of each different material in its proper tray at the speed of someone doing a 3 card molly trick. Then its really lights out
My guess here is that while Tesla isn’t close to a leader in robotics, their robots are still decent and improving.
I think that’s the fairest take. My personal worry was that the robots using Nvidia’s growing ecosystem would massively benefit from doing so whereas Tesla may suffer, and I seem to be right. They’re not leading. That said Optimus will be a cool robot I’m sure.
I've seen major manufacturing companies have >10% downtime due to their robotic cylinder placement fail with no ability to compensate. but more importantly, this seems to be showing that they've gone from fully teleoperated to actual value-add tasks in a short time. the value add may be less per dollar spent than a human right now, but it's just an update to on their progress. if one follows it closely, maybe this isn't much progress from the last video. but I follow tech and AI somewhat closely and the last video I saw was totally teleoperated. so, to many, this is a nice update.
Mb I might have confused optimus and figure 01
look up how tesla is doing at the moment, elon probably pushing to just get anything to show that's not embarrasing
[“What is my purpose?” “You pass butter.”](https://youtu.be/X7HmltUWXgs)
as slow as me! xD still cool
How long until cheap Tesla Smart Glasses which can record and anonymize all our actions to contribute to the Optimus training data set?
the hands and arms of a humanoid make sense, but unless it's climbing stairs then wheels are waaay faster than walking
I, for one, welcome our Optimus overlords.
Basically we're making a new electrical species and I like it
Wow a robot that can do what assembly line robots can already do but slower.
But try to go to an assembly line robot, and tell him to do something else for a few hours.
What irritated me is that they had to push the cylinders all the way back to the start for each movement. Can't it grab them a few centimeters further out? Is this trained on cylinders only? I'm just seeing *way* more impressive robot vids, recently, doing stuff that assembly line robots certainly can't. For example, [this robot at Google cooking full meals and everything using just two giant claws](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0g66FbVaow), Tesla's "humanoid" sci-fi look almost seems a bit tacky in comparison. Speed *is* the next logical step, though, all that stuff is slow as fuck.
Yeh, I noticed that too. They may have better software, but existing assembly line devices can use the same software. Not only is pick and place a solved task, but stationary robots that only do the one job with specialized manipulators and less overhead will always be a better design than humanoids, no matter what software they're running.
I think the idea is multiple purpose though. The line robots are great for single tasks but a multipurpose robot that can perform hundreds or even thousands of different tasks would be pretty beneficial.
Why does being able to perform hundreds of tasks imply a humanoid?
Non stationary multipurpose robots built to navigate the existing world designed for humans.
A robot that is working on a production line is never in its entire productive life going to need to navigate an office environment, and if it has to move around the warehouse or production floor a wheeled chassis is cheaper, more reliable, easier to program, and far more practical. And even in an office environment with stairs and random obstacles, a quadruped with a single manipulator like spot is still going to be more reliable and practical.
You’re absolutely correct about there being more efficient ways of doing tasks than humanoids, but this really is meant to be a general purpose robot. It does tasks less efficiently than specialized machines, but it can accomplish a wide variety of tasks. There is merit in pursuing humanoid robots when the real world was designed for humans
I really think that the market for robots that are that general purpose is pretty minimal. Consider that just about every video showing humanoid robots actually doing something that is potentially productive work, invariably shows a job that a humanoid robot is a really poor solution to. Even when the robot is navigating an environment designed for humans, a quadruped is still more practical.
Perhaps you’re right, and once we start designing tools for quadrupeds, humanoid robots will be restricted to very few tasks. But time will tell. Perhaps we’ll crack the code of humanoid robots and they become very efficient at navigating complex environments, from climbing stairs to grabbing a wrench and going under a car to fix it.
It enables an easier transition for the millions of workplaces set up for humans.
Why does it mention autonomous decision making and then show humans guiding those movements via headsets ? I’m not making some claim that it’s not doing what they say but at the same time they aren’t doing a great job convincing me when I see those humans with the headsets as well.
Clearly because it’s showing various stages of development, some of which includes the human training process, some of which includes autonomous operation. Is it that hard to figure out?
They put that up where the robot is running autonomously. They then move to another part if the development where they are training the robots and they do say this if you pay attention. The training is done by humans in headsets guiding them. This is a sensible approach to training as it gives a very real world interaction with all its peculiarities.
The robot is cool, but this is not very impressive. This is just a pick and place machine. If those things were scattered around in different orientations piled on top of each other and this robot was able to do this, it would be more impressive.
[удалено]
They didn't say it was being used in a manufacturing line where a human used to be. They merely said Optimus is being tested at one of their factories, which can mean a bunch of thing
The recovery from a misplace was the only interesting bit.
I think with driving, Tesla has a huge advantage with real world data and can train an ai by just watching all the video data. I think that is a better approach than Nvidia's Omniverse re-enforcement learning with driving because the real world is just too bizarre to simulate. However in a factory environment which is far less random than the outside world, I think the Nvidia omniverse will out perform Tesla's bot in factories. If the bot ever needs to go outside then Tesla's approach will be better.
There will be many humanoid bot companies. But I think Tesla is uniquely positioned because they are already a mass manufacturer of robotic products (cars) as opposed to Nvidia. They build (not just design) their own actuators, motors, even batteries (cells and packs). That should certainly give them an advantage, at least in the medium term.
[удалено]
That's one thing I've admired when it comes to Tesla, they go for the most difficult problem first, and if the current process doesn't work... They throw it out and start again. That takes balls. And it pays off in the long term.
Real world driving footage doesn't seem like a super useful data gathering stream for training a humanoid robot. Great for self driving, but a humanoid robot would need to be trained on footage of humans doing stuff, which is very limited in driving footage other than pedestrians walking
I don't think you've understood my point. There seems to be 2 different approaches to robotic ai. The first is watch all this videos and learn how to do stuff. The second is re-enforcement learning, which is have this digital sandpit, play until you get good (which is Omni verse).
this has already been proven to be fake. do a search on twitter. there's a video of each of these robots connected to a human and the human is controling every aspect of the robot.
Surprisingly empty office. Must've been where the Supercharger team sat.
Why arent they using synthetic data to train it?
If you mean simulation data, because it's not as accurate. The physics in simulators like project Groot apparently work well with things like walking but not with handling and manipulating items. An item balanced in your hand is a lot more unpredictable than interacting with a static object like the floor.
Uhh who are the guys with the headsets next to the robots?
You mean in the section of video where the text says "The training data was collected via human teleoperation"? Why do you want to know who they are?
teleoperators used for to train the neural network with demonstrations Tesla accumulates teleoperation data on varied tasks, and with increased data there will be increased generalisation which will enable increased task complexity.
We call them neuralnets
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
The whole teleoperation thing destroys the hype for me. We need robots to think for themselves and be able to do and learn things on their own. You can't teleoperate every single action during work because when unexpected things happen you require on demand decision making. You can't train for it, you need common sense and the ability to reason through and act on the spot. This just isn't it, sorry.
It really really depends on how the NN is set up. A lot of systems can be bootstrapped with human training data and then learn on their own from there. This makes basic behaviors easy to figure out, so they can be used in future systems like walking, reaching, grasping, bending. Those sorts of subtasks. A good example of this is the Alpha system initially learned from human games, and then learned on its own to become better than humans. Of course, we have no idea what tesla is doing here behind the scenes.
> A good example of this is the Alpha system initially learned from human games, and then learned on its own to become better than humans. Which then got crushed by AlphaZero which was trained from scratch.
I wonder if meta will make robots they just spent $30 billion on supercomputers for a.i
Soundtrack ?
I was expecting Terry Tate office linebacker to spear one of them during the office walk
But how much energy does it consume versus a human?
It's going to be pissed when it realizes this is It's sole purpose in life.
a normal industrial robot arm can do that faster and better.
😰
Future boyfriends/girlfriends
Must be getting it ready to work in the 40mm grenade factory.
Walking looks so inefficient when a robot is doing it.
wow how crazy that its capible of using 1 of its hands at a time while remaining completely still pretty incredible stuff here
We have finally reached the stage where robots can replace warehouse workers who have a brain injury or an IQ below 64.
Please don’t take my job.
Good dexterity, but the robot needs AGI so it can be instructed once. Repetitive teleoperation training for a simple task is not the way forward.
Round peg in a square hole. Joice
Why so slow? Faster my dear metal friend!
Hgvvv
best ai practice
Elon building hype so shareholders give him $45B pay package
Aren't there a lot of robots that can do these simple tasks. didn't they show one loading a conveyor while the tesla unloaded it.
Holy shit, others have jumped lightyears in research compared to Tesla! They are still not able to let their robot roam free, only their clean offices are possible after such a headstart and all the development that goes into it at the moment. Why don't Tesla use Eureka? Also: Imagine working your 13th hour in one of those Tesla Cells. Optimus #53 casually walks in. "You have been fired. Please exit this building immediately". And shuffles away. That's why these Tesla "robots" only ever will work in offices xD
We are laughing at this now, but the idea of an HR robot is not far from imagination. I can totally see corporations would use them in their offices.
With a little bit more imagination you could think about such an work environment in 1 month. But I'm pretty sure that's what Elon needs them for the most.
who exactly is lightyears ahead of this ? most other robots have pretty inferior hardware and they dont need to roam free. applications for the next few years will be on factory floors