This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I can't speak for Ted Underwood and it's possible that he hasn't given it much thought.
But it's reasonable in this specific context, because evolution consists of a semi-random exploration of the fitness landscape, and neural net training is an attempt to discover the global minimum in the loss landscape; length of training is trivially expected to contribute to the «polish» and optimization of the feature – some old things like ribosomes can well be approaching the thermodynamical limits of efficiency, and then there's... how we do arithmetic (I've made this point to darwin somewhere in this thread). Animals have been navigating 3D space for a long time, as a result they're pretty good at it.
Further, short-term evolution is necessarily dominated by simple changes – often just a few substitutions here and there affecting quantitative parameters like the rate of expression of a protein which upregulates the secretion of some hormone, that leads to general size change and allometric growth, in other words, unequal scaling of body parts with changed size. Or even more commonly and to a greater extent, selection on «standing» variation, changing distributions of already polygenic traits:
Short bursts of evolution like those are simple to approximate with technology: once we achieve the very basic performance (at least using a somewhat analogous architecture, like with connectionist models), we can keep going, scaling, even if the exponent is more punishing than it was in the organic substrate.
Our higher-order cognition including symbolic thought (probably necessary for art) and speech is physically implemented on the array of almost homogenous cortical columns (with some priority for Wernicke and Broca areas in the case of speech), which has been scaled up by a factor of like, two in the last 2 million years, or something to this effect, depending on where you start assuming hominids had any semblance of speech; and Cochran argues even that was only part of the prerequisite, with real hot stuff – including cave art – starting to happen tens of thousands of years ago. So the expectation is that the change was something even simpler.
Having (presumably) discovered the general trick to learning, particularly in the domain of image recognition, and shown it with decent machine vision and other achievements, we can reasonably expect to cover the rest of the ground very quickly with scaling and scientifically trivial tweaks – which is all there is to those generative models.
We haven't yet shown equivalent mastery in tasks involving locomotion of real robots, though that's probably more an issue of iteration time.
Without evolutionary pressure both populations would regress to the mean. If you're stuck on a desert island, what good does a 130IQ brain do? It just wants more carbohydrates and mopes. Someone who's born with IQ125 will thrive a little bit more.
Leaving probable nutritional deficiencies etc. aside: the next generation will have an IQ of like 120, and the third one, I'd bet, of 119.6. Regression to the mean has nothing to do with evolutionary pressures, it's just the issue of resetting beneficial non-hereditary effects (which we assume explain 30-50% of the deviation from median phenotype in these particular specimens). It's not some abstract global mean but just the mean of the island population's genetic value for the trait. Cochran himself explained this well to Edge, in a kinder era:
(...Does he actually hope to do this?)
In the long run, the trait may well be watered down, of course – unless they discover some fitness peak that normie island populations couldn't get to because of all the valleys; I think Scott had a short story on brilliant island eugenicists?
But this happens because of purifying selection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is all a very good description of how things that have long been under the thumb of evolution approach efficiency thresholds better than things that have not been but I'm still not sure why we should expect that to be the relevant criteria for modern job replacement. Evolution spent a whole lot of time concerned about getting the absolute maximum out of a calorie balancing many concerns so it's resulting 'design' of our ability to jump very high is limited by many those concerns. We're able to use technology to circumvent most of these tradeoffs, a rocket is incomparably better at moving things very high.
Physical job requirements needn't be 'move through 3D space making exactly the same tradeoffs as humans make'. Artificial constructs don't need to worry about protecting a fragile cranium, keeping a supply of oxygen handy, storing all the needed energy inside themselves, reproduction and many more things that are vitally important to humans. They're not solving the same problem set as humans so why would we expect the optimization to be all that fit.
Well that's an easy one: observation bias on part of the commenters. Because everything we could do with neat streamlined engineering, we've automated already or are in the middle of automating. Rockets are simple, do one very basic thing very well, and follow largely from first principles; so do cars and these boxes. In the end, what's left is tasks that genuinely require good spatial perception, mechanical understanding, free navigation in human-centric environments, articulated manipulators with many degrees of freedom, high-fidelity sensors, fast response and so on. Fundamentally, those are tasks the complexity of which comes almost entirely from special context-dependent cases, the long tail of failures to apply generic solutions; like HVAC maintenance or repairing automated boxes in the warehouse. You can either leave it to humans or create something on par with them. And it turns out that for developing (software-wise, first of all) tools that solve hairy tasks like those, galaxy brain engineering doesn't work that well, compared with approaches leveraging stochastic trial and error, learning. So parallels with evolution, and inferences from evolutionary hardness of adaptation, are apt.
But again: it's more of an issue of data availability and iteration time. Training CLIP or SD is much easier, faster and cheaper than training robots.
True but (non-fat) humans are remarkably well-built, most of the body is useful for mechanical performance. I don't know about you but my balls are only a tiny fraction of my overall mass. You don't need to protect the cranium all that much, because error rate is so low (if you're dropping heavy stuff or something, you're already failing at the primary task), and even if you do, a basic helmet would typically suffice. Local energy storage is handy because it simplifies logistics of the workspace. There's only so much that can be trimmed off. Humanoid body really is close to the optimum for many of our tasks, and making a machine perform comparably well is in fact a big challenge.
Our actuators are also very, very good. This is probably the best we can do with current hobbyist tech. Invincible.jpg.
It's not the balls, it's the optimization for finding mates. Evolution only optimizes for moving through 3D spaces so long as that's a means to successful reproduction. going to a stranger's house and moving some plastic tubes around in a cramped space has at best tangentially benefitted from the primary 'goal' of evolution. If the primary 'goal' of evolution was to create the best possible plumber I'd imagine something much more like a raccoon.
For the purposes of this discussion a raccoon is not that different from a human, it's a series of minor allometric changes really. (Raccoon body plan is also affected by reproductive needs, of course). And I suspect that making a raccoon-like plumber is about as hard as making a humanoid plumber (or even harder, because sometimes you need a ton of power in this line of work, and actuators we can produce cheaply and at scale are weak per unit of mass, compared to muscles; we could make a hydraulic raccoon with external power, but...) All creatures with such capabilities will be comparably hard to make. One additional aspect is that we have already made lots of specialized tools adapted for our hand grip and arm strength; it's probably much cheaper to make a robot who can wield them than reinvent the hand and all it holds.
(In the long run though, I agree, our infrastructure will change and so will robots who serve it. Probably a lot more cramped spaces, if nothing else).
Reproductively advantageus traits tend to also be helpful for general survival and capability, or rather, beneficial traits get reinforced by sexual selection (see koinophilia); exceptions are so striking exactly because they violate our intuitions about natural selection.
Then I think we're largely in agreement. I would however say that the primary difference is not that evolution has had more time to work on the 3d space problem so much that there is a massive amount momentum in the infrastructure that physical jobs interface with that is much more difficult to replace/adapt than the fairly infrastructure light world of art. It's certainly harder to prototype, test and iterate on a buildings designed to automatically need no human maintenance than it is to prototype, test and iterate on art that needs no artist. And even if it wasn't it would still take a long time to get that design out in a world where most people are content living in multi-decade old buildings that need occasional maintenance.
I do feel like the next step is going to be claiming that, yes machines are faster, stronger, more energy efficient and have better articulation but they can't compete with humans in having all those things while being made out of meat. Technology has been driving human physical laborers into progressively tighter niches since the wheel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
openDogv3 is a really impressive project, but it's also optimized for low-cost and weight. There are a lot of better options out there than 8308s and a 3d-printed gearbox at the enthusiast or hobbyist level; they just blow out the rest of your budget out of the water and dramatically increase cost-of-entry.
That said, while the gap isn't as huge as you're suggesting, it's still pretty big. More efficient artificial approaches usually work by optimizing for entirely different purposes or environments.
I've been thinking today how good (smaller, lighter, more efficient) opendog would become if they just replaced all 3D-printed nonsense with CNC-machined or stamped metal and injection-molded polymers (and of course revamped electronics). Maybe it'd really be on par with Spot then, or (with added sensors, brains etc.) wipe the floor with Chinese knock-off dogs.
But that requires scale. I really hope somebody helps here: we need some sort of Stability for robotics.
If we don't optimize for low cost, at current costs those machines will be completely non-competitive.
What projects do you have in mind?
Yeah, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit available for improvements; even simple drill-press and 6061 aluminum could do a lot. But the toolchains for those processes are much more complicated and the processes themselves much messier, so it's not really in consideration. And, conversely, there's a lot of potential spaces for... more improvizational materials, where people are willing to design around them.
Scale is part of the problem, but you don't need that much scale. The FIRST FRC environment has a ton of devices being sold on scales of hundreds or low thousands that involve a lot of custom metal parts, and while they're not always good, they're definitely extant and productive. Part of that reflects the tax- and labor-advantaged nature of a situations where most customers and some sellers are non-profits or subsidiaries of non-profits, but that's ultimately a political choice: there's no that must favor FRC or Vex but not more productive matters.
The deeper issues... I think the big one is that there's simultaneously a big desire to build everything from 'scratch', but also to see some level of devices as indivisible, at least for this class of project. LEGO could make (arguably, does make, through Mindstorms) an injection-molded-polymer Spot knockoff, but the sort of people who want to build a LEGO kit aren't trying to put together a Spot variant. Even a lot of the Pi-and-cheap-servo posebots are largely marketed under the theory that they're an introduction to everything you'd need to learn for the project.
Some of this is just inevitable Pareto Principle stuff, but I think a lot of it's downstream of the death of manufacturing. The emphasis and ease-of-access to bits makes it so easy to considering scaling and production as someone else's problem, because, for no small part, it has been. I think the extreme time constraints and very limited purchaser base have done more to keep the FIRST ecosystem around as long as it has.
There's a few interesting takes on custom motors like the DizzyMotors, but almost all have a step one that involves taking apart a larger, expensive motor. Moteus is getting closer, but it's still (AFAIK) still in a prototype level, and it's very far from anything especially hitting the limits of the medium.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link