Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I clearly was aware of them. Do you think I just rattled of the bit about needing special glue to hold the fabric and only certain seam types being possible? There was a whole thing about these in the Economist last year and it was discussed on HN. While it’s technically possible you can’t deploy it. It turns out gluing an then applying solvents to fabrics doesn’t result in a product people want.

This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. So yeah, maybe super advanced AGI could do it, but probably not. We don’t even have good models now of how large economies work down to a granular level. People are like I said messy and respond in weird ways to their environments. The best we can do right now is working with prices as signals for the amount of effort other people are willing to put into something. And while that’s imperfect, it’s just improbable that we can do much better. Which is not to say that narrow objectives aren’t possible, only that the bigger and broader you aim the more impossible it becomes.



> I clearly was aware of them.

You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.

> This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has.

Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.


> You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate.

Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point.

> The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.

Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages.

You are clearly misunderstanding me.

> Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.

I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen.

I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.


[flagged]


> We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment.

No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt.

> No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue

You're being very rude, this isn't twitter.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: