4 ms·

Maybe washing dishes is harder than doing art, who knew?

tombert 2y ago
I honestly think that there might be some truth to that. If you look at Boston Dynamics, these are some of the very best roboticists on the planet, and it's taken decades to get robots that can walk almost as well as humans. I don't think it's incompetence on Boston Dynamics' end, I think it turns out that a lot of the stuff that's trivial and instinctual for us is actually ridiculously expensive to try and do on a computer. Washing dishes might not be the best example because dishwashers do already exist, and they work pretty well, but having a robot with anywhere near the same level of flexibility and performance as a human hand? I'm not going to say it's impossible obviously, but it seems ridiculously complex.
- freejazz 2y ago
  And those robots can paint like a good painter??
  - tombert 2y ago
    Probably not, but the difference is that we can generate art at the "pixel" level instead of the "hand" level. Not really a way to do that for most other stuff.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Paintings aren't made at the "pixel" level and I think your distinction is especially humorous considering the context.
      - tombert 2y ago
        I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.
        freejazz 2y ago
        > that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand Wow, gee. Go figure! I'm curious, have you been to a museum that has good old paintings? I don't think you can replace paintings with pixel art.
        tombert 2y ago
        You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Of course I’ve been to an art museum. I’m not sure what you mean by “pixel art”? Given enough pixels, you can scan a painting and represent it on a screen well enough. Have you not played with Stable Diffusion or Midjourney or anything? It doesn’t just give you SNES sprites.
        freejazz 2y ago
        Paintings have texture and are three-dimensional, which I'd imagine you'd have realized having seen them in real life. >You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Very generous coming from the poster that's saying "we can make a thing like the other thing, assuming it's not actually like the other thing in any way that isn't superficial." It's like you're shooting for a gold medal in the obtuse olympics.
        tombert 2y ago
        It’s not being “obtuse” for me to not see the “three dimensional” aspect as important as you. I doubt I’m alone in that either. Art is “superficial” by definition so that’s not really the own that you seem to think it is. Eta: Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail?
        freejazz 2y ago
        The obtuse thing is you were talking about washing dishes and boston dynamics robots and then when I asked about painting, your response was that doesn't matter because of pixel art. >Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail? Artifact of the painting? Do you appreciate painting at all? It's fine if you don't, but that's kinda the whole issue in this thread. People who don't appreciating things making value judgments about the things they don't fundamentally care about. I'm not sure how the texture or three-dimensionality of a painting is 'superficial.' Besides the fact that it literally isn't, it's an actual facet of the painting that is objectively there, it just seems to reflect a lack of understanding on your part. If painting is all superficial anyway, what does it matter that a certain element of it is as well?

I honestly think that there might be some truth to that. If you look at Boston Dynamics, these are some of the very best roboticists on the planet, and it's taken decades to get robots that can walk almost as well as humans. I don't think it's incompetence on Boston Dynamics' end, I think it turns out that a lot of the stuff that's trivial and instinctual for us is actually ridiculously expensive to try and do on a computer. Washing dishes might not be the best example because dishwashers do already exist, and they work pretty well, but having a robot with anywhere near the same level of flexibility and performance as a human hand? I'm not going to say it's impossible obviously, but it seems ridiculously complex.

freejazz 2y ago
And those robots can paint like a good painter??
- tombert 2y ago
  Probably not, but the difference is that we can generate art at the "pixel" level instead of the "hand" level. Not really a way to do that for most other stuff.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Paintings aren't made at the "pixel" level and I think your distinction is especially humorous considering the context.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        > that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand Wow, gee. Go figure! I'm curious, have you been to a museum that has good old paintings? I don't think you can replace paintings with pixel art.
        tombert 2y ago
        You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Of course I’ve been to an art museum. I’m not sure what you mean by “pixel art”? Given enough pixels, you can scan a painting and represent it on a screen well enough. Have you not played with Stable Diffusion or Midjourney or anything? It doesn’t just give you SNES sprites.
        freejazz 2y ago
        Paintings have texture and are three-dimensional, which I'd imagine you'd have realized having seen them in real life. >You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Very generous coming from the poster that's saying "we can make a thing like the other thing, assuming it's not actually like the other thing in any way that isn't superficial." It's like you're shooting for a gold medal in the obtuse olympics.
        tombert 2y ago
        It’s not being “obtuse” for me to not see the “three dimensional” aspect as important as you. I doubt I’m alone in that either. Art is “superficial” by definition so that’s not really the own that you seem to think it is. Eta: Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail?
        freejazz 2y ago
        The obtuse thing is you were talking about washing dishes and boston dynamics robots and then when I asked about painting, your response was that doesn't matter because of pixel art. >Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail? Artifact of the painting? Do you appreciate painting at all? It's fine if you don't, but that's kinda the whole issue in this thread. People who don't appreciating things making value judgments about the things they don't fundamentally care about. I'm not sure how the texture or three-dimensionality of a painting is 'superficial.' Besides the fact that it literally isn't, it's an actual facet of the painting that is objectively there, it just seems to reflect a lack of understanding on your part. If painting is all superficial anyway, what does it matter that a certain element of it is as well?