tms102 t1_j7fcqqt wrote

I think you seem to be confused. I would pay what it's worth because that is how much I think it would be worth.

Being willing to pay only $100 for a $2000 laptop because you only have $100 doesn't make sense to me.

>I agree with the limitations being arbitrary, and certainly don't make much sense to me. But I would not pay much for level one because it seems to require supervision.... If I would not trust it to take care of a pet it means that is not safe.

What's in OP's mind about why it couldn't watch a pet or a kid is unknown. OP seems to be mostly concerned about to what degree the robot can substitute for a human partner. However, clearly, OP doesn't know what they're saying when they suggest cooking, cleaning, and taking out the trash are simple tasks. You also seem to be unaware of what these things imply about the capabilities of the robot.

Besides what you say doesn't logically follow, a Roomba can't take care of a pet but it can still vacuum the floor without supervision.

>And no, you can't rent it to get the money back, that makes no sense. If the robot can fulfill those roles and is much cheaper you have to assume that those roles dessapear.

What you say makes no sense. Why would those roles disappear?

>You seem to be confusing price vs willingness to pay.

So let me turn this around on you. I think you're confused here. Just because you're only willing to pay $1000 for a robot it doesn't mean that is what it would be priced at.

It's obvious from this thread that some people wouldn't willing to pay enough to own a sophisticated robot. But perhaps they would rent it. It's like you're saying car rentals, air bnb, tool rentals, etc. are not a thing.

You could even buy a robot together with friends and family and then share it.


tms102 t1_j7eyhji wrote

Jeez, how lonely is OP?

>They likely will be too dumb to even drive you They can do basics like cleaning, some cooking, taking trash out, and stuff like that. But outside of this basics they will have to be babysit

As expected of someone that has having sex with a robot top of mind: Doesn't realize how incredibly complex and sophisticated a robot would have to be to do cleaning, "some" cooking, and taking out the trash.

Completely out of touch with reality. $1000 for something that can do all this is hilarious considering a sophisticated roomba can get up to $1500.

A cleaning service can cost $65-250 an hour depending on the size of your home and they don't even cook for you.

The "limitations" seem completely arbitrary, too. So, it has the object detection and fine motor skills for "some" cooking (whatever that means) and can navigate your house for cleaning and even, presumably, outside to "take out trash". But is "too dumb to drive a car".

Anyway, level 1 could easily save you at least $20k worth of labor per year. Paying $50k for it would probably still be a steal.

The other levels are even funnier. People are already paying $15k for driver assist software systems that don't even work well in a number of instances. A robot that can drive you around and also do other complex tasks would easily be worth over $200k. You can rent it out as a taxi/maid and make your money back.


tms102 t1_j54xipg wrote

AI isn't magic and is still bound by physical limitations. Construction and travel, etc, will still take resources. And the most important resource is time.

I'm not a fan of VR but it's obvious you can do things in a virtual world that will never be possible in the real world.


tms102 t1_j29ir6b wrote

I don't think so. But the thing is SpaceX was attempting landings while doing actual missions and going to orbit. While blue origin only did like a relatively medium hop and landing at that point with a prototype vehicle.

So it was a pretty ridiculous tweet anyway.


tms102 t1_j1cnqno wrote

I don't think all search engine will be one chatbots without providing links to websites. That would be silly and there would always be a number of people that don't like it and therefore build something different.

I also hope people will realize that while the answers can be good there is a lot of context missing that can help judge if the answer you're getting is good or not.

For code answers for example I noticed it will give code snippets with functions that are deprecated or some functionality no longer exist in the library etc.


tms102 t1_j1cm6ly wrote

I'm not going to lie, I'm not sure juniors should use this too much for code questions. The answers it gives sometimes are terrible. And juniors wouldn't be able to recognize bad answers. Because there is some context missing.

For example, sometimes it will use deprecated functions in examples.


tms102 t1_itcuvmh wrote

The thing is that it is not one answer repeated but many different answers lead to the same conclusion. Meaning, the same conclusion can be drawn in different disciplines from different angles.

Just because youre ignorant of the answers and or don't understand them doesn't mean something isn't a fact.