3 ms·

> 460× less energy than digital computers The brain is running on 20W of power and it has the best LLM, the best robotics control unit, very good sensor integr

by baq 2y ago

> 460× less energy than digital computers The brain is running on 20W of power and it has the best LLM, the best robotics control unit, very good sensor integration and all the other exciting stuff which we* want** AIs to have. I'd rather have that than nuclear powerplants feeding data centers. * overreaching a bit ** also not really true for everyone

go_elmo 2y ago
Nit: we take 20w of chemical energy not electrical one like computers, way worse efficiency compared to solar panels Id say
- im3w1l 2y ago
  Our current society converts chemical energy to electrical, not the other way round. So its the electrical energy user that needs a lossy conversion step.
  - tlb 2y ago
    Fossil fuel plants are chemical -> heat -> mechanical -> electrical. The heat -> mechanical step is the inefficient one, sadly limited to ~40% efficiency even with very fancy machinery. Most other conversions can be above 90% efficient.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The efficiency of gas-fired combined cycle power plants can exceed 60% (lower heating value). And their capex is just over $1/W. Combustion turbines are amazing. With a SOFC topping cycle they might approach 70-80% efficiency. SOFC with just a combustion turbine (no steam bottoming) could exceed 60%. Granted, SOFCs are direct chemical->electrical conversion, but their waste heat is very usefully hot. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that nuclear power plants in the US stopped being built about the same time combustion turbines (by themselves, without the steam bottoming cycle) reached efficiency parity with high temperature steam turbines. (SOFC = solid oxide fuel cell, which operate around 1000 C.) ("Lower heating value" is based on energy that could be obtained burning natural gas to CO2 and water vapor. An additional 10% could be obtained by condensing the water vapor to liquid, this is "higher heating value".)
- raverbashing 2y ago
  That's why the most efficient use of Superman would be to turn a giant crank generating energy
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305 https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305
- hwillis 2y ago
  Actually, no! Producing ATP is ~30% efficient, which is much better than premium consumer solar panels. And while that heat is technically waste, even if it was more efficient we would still generate heat other ways just to keep warm. What's even more shocking is that conversion of food to energy period is ~90% efficient, which is crazy to me. The fact that you can burn food and measure the energy given off, and that's very close to how much energy you get from eating it- that's insane. The efficiency of the human body is all over the place. Muscles are only ~30% efficient, and the rest is waste heat... but humans walk using orders of magnitude less power than any walking robot. As far as I know we have never made a powered walking machine that is 10% as efficient as a person. The only way we can beat it is with a carefully balanced, specially-lubricated pair of legs that is leaned downhill on a treadmill and powered by gravity.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    I'd wait until walking robots are commonplace before discounting our ability to make an efficient one. I don't think I've seen one in person yet.
    - hwillis 2y ago
      I wouldn't. We have been trying[1]; humans are genuinely shocking in this way. Mechanical systems should have so many advantages over humans; springs are 10x better than tendons, motors are 3x better than muscles. It's possible humans evolved walking as a predatory tactic. Even if we develop a super-efficient walking robot, humans are efficient at several speeds, and keep that efficiency while varying their stride and foot placement, and with one of the largest most complex brains of any animal. And the ratio of leg/torso length is pretty variable among humans! Not to mention the flexible spine and swinging hips should be a huge energy sap, but they just kind of... aren't. Beating human locomotion in the general case is pretty far off. It's a combination of body plan, extreme optimization of joints and energy storage, and really good algorithms. One killer feature of the human body is synovial fluid. It's very thin, non-newtonian, self-replenishing and contained in particularly low-friction bearing surfaces. It's certainly better than 99.9% of mechanical joints, because these surfaces filter, heal and re-lubricate themselves. Mechanical joints have sticky grease so they stay lubricated without maintenance, and work in the presence of water and grit. It's doubtful that any joint that doesn't heal itself can compete, long-term. [1]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-humanoid-robot https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-humanoid...
Aardwolf 2y ago
> and it has the best LLM It takes many years to train it though
- moffkalast 2y ago
  And it's EoL after about 40 years too.
- bawana 2y ago
  Not really. Consider private equity’s solution to our doctor shortage. Import foreign trained physicians without requiring additional training. Give them access to an electronic medical record eith AI. Teach them how to click a mouse so they can copy/paste notes.Use digital real time translation to allow anyone to talk to anyone. Have them ‘treat’ 100 patients a day. Pay them next to nothing. When some patient suffers, allow the legal system to crucify the imported ‘doctor’. Deport that one and get the next one. Now you know why you always see new doctors
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Yes really, human doctors start a medical degree at what, 17 or 18? Then it's a 4-6 year medical school followed by 3-7 years residency depending on your country and education system. (This is also why LLMs passing medical exams, though impressive, has not rendered the profession obsolete: LLMs are book smart, but don't have the implicit knowledge that we humans only gain from practical experience).
p3opl3 2y ago
Should we just not grow robots organically then? We have the DNA structure.. why not..

by baq 2y ago

go_elmo 2y ago

Nit: we take 20w of chemical energy not electrical one like computers, way worse efficiency compared to solar panels Id say

im3w1l 2y ago
Our current society converts chemical energy to electrical, not the other way round. So its the electrical energy user that needs a lossy conversion step.
- tlb 2y ago
  Fossil fuel plants are chemical -> heat -> mechanical -> electrical. The heat -> mechanical step is the inefficient one, sadly limited to ~40% efficiency even with very fancy machinery. Most other conversions can be above 90% efficient.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The efficiency of gas-fired combined cycle power plants can exceed 60% (lower heating value). And their capex is just over $1/W. Combustion turbines are amazing. With a SOFC topping cycle they might approach 70-80% efficiency. SOFC with just a combustion turbine (no steam bottoming) could exceed 60%. Granted, SOFCs are direct chemical->electrical conversion, but their waste heat is very usefully hot. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that nuclear power plants in the US stopped being built about the same time combustion turbines (by themselves, without the steam bottoming cycle) reached efficiency parity with high temperature steam turbines. (SOFC = solid oxide fuel cell, which operate around 1000 C.) ("Lower heating value" is based on energy that could be obtained burning natural gas to CO2 and water vapor. An additional 10% could be obtained by condensing the water vapor to liquid, this is "higher heating value".)
raverbashing 2y ago
That's why the most efficient use of Superman would be to turn a giant crank generating energy
- pfdietz 2y ago
  https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305 https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305
hwillis 2y ago
Actually, no! Producing ATP is ~30% efficient, which is much better than premium consumer solar panels. And while that heat is technically waste, even if it was more efficient we would still generate heat other ways just to keep warm. What's even more shocking is that conversion of food to energy period is ~90% efficient, which is crazy to me. The fact that you can burn food and measure the energy given off, and that's very close to how much energy you get from eating it- that's insane. The efficiency of the human body is all over the place. Muscles are only ~30% efficient, and the rest is waste heat... but humans walk using orders of magnitude less power than any walking robot. As far as I know we have never made a powered walking machine that is 10% as efficient as a person. The only way we can beat it is with a carefully balanced, specially-lubricated pair of legs that is leaned downhill on a treadmill and powered by gravity.
- fragmede 2y ago
  I'd wait until walking robots are commonplace before discounting our ability to make an efficient one. I don't think I've seen one in person yet.
  - hwillis 2y ago
    I wouldn't. We have been trying[1]; humans are genuinely shocking in this way. Mechanical systems should have so many advantages over humans; springs are 10x better than tendons, motors are 3x better than muscles. It's possible humans evolved walking as a predatory tactic. Even if we develop a super-efficient walking robot, humans are efficient at several speeds, and keep that efficiency while varying their stride and foot placement, and with one of the largest most complex brains of any animal. And the ratio of leg/torso length is pretty variable among humans! Not to mention the flexible spine and swinging hips should be a huge energy sap, but they just kind of... aren't. Beating human locomotion in the general case is pretty far off. It's a combination of body plan, extreme optimization of joints and energy storage, and really good algorithms. One killer feature of the human body is synovial fluid. It's very thin, non-newtonian, self-replenishing and contained in particularly low-friction bearing surfaces. It's certainly better than 99.9% of mechanical joints, because these surfaces filter, heal and re-lubricate themselves. Mechanical joints have sticky grease so they stay lubricated without maintenance, and work in the presence of water and grit. It's doubtful that any joint that doesn't heal itself can compete, long-term. [1]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-humanoid-robot https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-humanoid...

Aardwolf 2y ago

> and it has the best LLM It takes many years to train it though

moffkalast 2y ago
And it's EoL after about 40 years too.
bawana 2y ago
Not really. Consider private equity’s solution to our doctor shortage. Import foreign trained physicians without requiring additional training. Give them access to an electronic medical record eith AI. Teach them how to click a mouse so they can copy/paste notes.Use digital real time translation to allow anyone to talk to anyone. Have them ‘treat’ 100 patients a day. Pay them next to nothing. When some patient suffers, allow the legal system to crucify the imported ‘doctor’. Deport that one and get the next one. Now you know why you always see new doctors
- ben_w 2y ago
  Yes really, human doctors start a medical degree at what, 17 or 18? Then it's a 4-6 year medical school followed by 3-7 years residency depending on your country and education system. (This is also why LLMs passing medical exams, though impressive, has not rendered the profession obsolete: LLMs are book smart, but don't have the implicit knowledge that we humans only gain from practical experience).

p3opl3 2y ago

Should we just not grow robots organically then? We have the DNA structure.. why not..