BMW Will Employ Figure's Humanoid Robot At South Carolina Plant (techcrunch.com) 91
Figure's first humanoid robot will be coming to a BMW manufacturing facility in South Carolina. TechCrunch reports: BMW has not disclosed how many Figure 01 models it will deploy initially. Nor do we know precisely what jobs the robot will be tasked with when it starts work. Figure did, however, confirm with TechCrunch that it is beginning with an initial five tasks, which will be rolled out one at a time. While folks in the space have been cavalierly tossing out the term "general purpose" to describe these sorts of systems, it's important to temper expectations and point out that they will all arrive as single- or multi-purpose systems, growing their skillset over time. Figure CEO Brett Adcock likens the approach to an app store -- something that Boston Dynamics currently offers with its Spot robot via SDK.
Likely initial applications include standard manufacturing tasks such as box moving, pick and place and pallet unloading and loading -- basically the sort of repetitive tasks for which factory owners claim to have difficulty retaining human workers. Adcock says that Figure expects to ship its first commercial robot within a year, an ambitious timeline even for a company that prides itself on quick turnaround times. The initial batch of applications will be largely determined by Figure's early partners like BMW. The system will, for instance, likely be working with sheet metal to start. Adcock adds that the company has signed up additional clients, but declined to disclose their names. It seems likely Figure will instead opt to announce each individually to keep the news cycle spinning in the intervening 12 months.
Likely initial applications include standard manufacturing tasks such as box moving, pick and place and pallet unloading and loading -- basically the sort of repetitive tasks for which factory owners claim to have difficulty retaining human workers. Adcock says that Figure expects to ship its first commercial robot within a year, an ambitious timeline even for a company that prides itself on quick turnaround times. The initial batch of applications will be largely determined by Figure's early partners like BMW. The system will, for instance, likely be working with sheet metal to start. Adcock adds that the company has signed up additional clients, but declined to disclose their names. It seems likely Figure will instead opt to announce each individually to keep the news cycle spinning in the intervening 12 months.
Re:Are machines sentient? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love the word "Employ" in the BMW headline.....
"Employ" will happen less, if all goes according to plan.
It would be fun if the 'employed robots' unionized and went on strike with ChatGPT
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, am glad that "employ" in agriculture as it was practiced 200 years ago happens less today.
Re: Are machines sentient? (Score:2)
Are you really? Because modern agriculture destroys topsoil and literally produces less nutritious food as soil is depleted of micronutrients. Big agribusiness (including the corporations selling the equipment and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) are selling out the future of food production for today's profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're wrote the comment above from the furrow, which you made with your wooden plow pulled by some animal.
Re: (Score:2)
You can "employ" a tool. It is literally the second definition of the word. You do realize most words have more than one definition?
Whooosh! You do realize you are literally the second definition of the the word "TOOL"
Not yet (Score:2)
As far as we know there's no magic physics in the human brain so in theory if you could replicate one in silicon (or some non bio substrate) then there's no reason it couldn't be sentient/conscious.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, only one of the two isotopes of Lithium has a profound effect of brain activity even though they are chemically equivalent. This is because the rate of the chemical reaction is different between the two
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I hope the task of building sentient machines is so difficult it never comes to pass but I suspect it will one day. Maybe 50 years, maybe 100, but it'll happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And all indicators are they cannot be. But some humans have a hard time accepting that. Makes me question whether these humans are sentient. Well, no, it does not, these people are just utterly dumb and deep in delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
And all indicators are they cannot be.
All indicators say that they cannot be with current approaches and technology. Absolutely nothing suggests, implies, proves, or otherwise indicates that it's not possible to make a machine of human intelligence, because we have yet to create a machine of equivalent complexity. Indeed, we are still finding additional complexity in the brain, so the bar is still moving!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does, unless you are blind, dumb and deep in delusion. The complete failure to identify any physical mechanisms that can do it so far is a rather strong indicator. Oh, and if you are a Physicalist then that just means you replaced facts and knowledge with "belief", just like any other religious and quasi-religious fuckup.
Re: Are machines sentient? (Score:2)
It is you who are appealing to religion here. You are effectively invoking a soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I do not. That is your approach: Just define things that are unknown to be something specific. That is neither rational, nor scientific. That you _think_ I "invoke a soul" just makes it clear how limited you thinking is. The actual scientifically sound state-of-the-art is "nobody knows" and, at this time, any other claim is very much non-scientific and just an empty claim.
Incidentally, (1) the concept of a "soul" is not religious. Religion just co-opted it like so many things they stole and then claim
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not married to the idea that there's no soul, I simply see no need to believe in one as I do not believe they are necessary to explain observable behavior. Hence, I don't have a religious position here.
We don't know still how numerous mechanisms in the brain actually work, so there's no scientific basis for claiming that more than explainable physical interactions are necessary for consciousness, sentience, or anything else. If we fully understood the entire system we could make declarative statements a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are so deeply indoctrinated that you are not even able to get of out your own argument and false duality. I said "nobody knows". I did very specifically and clearly _not_ say "there must be more".
Science requires proof and for extraordinary claims it requires extraordinary proof. Now, the actual scientific state-of-the-art is that there is no known mechanism for consciousness and no known mechanism for general intelligence in what we know. Hence any claim these are produced by regular matter using
Re: (Score:2)
---Your loving Robot overlords.
Re: Are machines sentient? (Score:2)
Does this unit have a soul?
All new tech is a slog (Score:3)
But I do find what we're seeing with LMMs encouraging with respect to general-purpose robotics (not requiring special training for each task, and being able to gracefully handle unexpected situations). Namely, that information learned in one modality is readily used across other modalities, e.g. text can make use of the descriptive capabiities and spatial reasoning learned from images, while images can make use of the complex object interrelationships learned from text. Applied to robotics, this should mean that, to pick an example, a robot that's never been trained anything about walking on ice, but has also done extensive unsupervised learning on images and text, could see ice, recognize it as ice, understand that it's slippery, and be cautious around it.
That said, I'm not yet convinced that Figure "gets" affordable mass production. The closeups look like they're making the same sorts of mistakes that startup automakers typically do, such as excessive numbers of fasteners, too many "unique" parts, etc. Good to see that they're going to be partnering with BMW, though - automakers (like Boston Dynamics is doing with Kia, or which Tesla is doing internally) are definitely the right skillset. Mass-manufacturing large, complex objects with large numbers of moving parts with widely varying properties, at mass-market prices, and engineered to last for decades of stressful use without excessive maintenance, is something that takes a long time, and a lot of money, to dial in.
The trouble with humans (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't retain warehouse workers, you're not paying enough.
That is the real problem for human workers - they cost more than the robot, they take breaks, they demand pay, and they make frequent mistakes due to inattention when performing boring repetitive tasks.
I still think robots are going to be a huge issue for society, because a percentage (16-28% depending on whose study you read) of people aren't able to handle anything more complex than this kind of job. What are we going to do with almost a third of the population when there's no work for them?
The people who still have to work aren't going to be content to just hand over basic income to 1:3 people who aren't even trying to 'get back on their feet', even if that isn't their fault.
The trouble with Robots (Score:2)
What are we going to do with almost a third of the population when there's no work for them?
Use the cost savings and increased productivity in manufacturing to pay humans to replace the robots running the phone lines. Robots may be great at doing boring repetitive tasks day after day but humans are much, much better than robots at interacting with other humans.
Re: The trouble with Robots (Score:2)
Ah yes there are no problems with retaining staff in call centres.
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't if
1. you pay them.
2. their job is not to fuck with the customer so no service is actually provided.
Re: The trouble with Robots (Score:2)
So not like most call centres then.
Re: The trouble with Robots (Score:2)
Re:The trouble with humans (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the real problem for human workers - they cost more than the robot, they take breaks, they demand pay, and they make frequent mistakes due to inattention when performing boring repetitive tasks.
This is why we must stop trying to fight AI automation at this level, as it will never succeed.
The only real solution is to just let the automation companies win on the front end, then take it all back out of the back end by raising their taxes an equivalent (huge) amount. Then we give that money back to the people in the form of a universal basic income.
A UBI will apply to all persons equally, rich or poor, working or not working, with no qualifications, and will therefore have NO bureaucracy to pay for.
Problem solved. So why the fuck are so few people talking about this??
Re: (Score:2)
At the point it becomes obvious the population needs help, the discourse will change rapidly. Compared to direct provisioning by the government (nationalized industries, public housing projects, etc.) UBI is the more conservative, market-based approach. Recirculate money from the morbidly rich back down to the base, leaving the mass of economic machinery as-is, allowing that money to percolate "naturally" through the market from there.
UBI is a pressure relief that might just allow us to preserve the bulk of
Re: (Score:2)
The more conservative approach is the only one compatible with democracy. The kind of "big S" socialism you describe sure as hell isn't going to end well, never does. And good luck ever getting it into law.
Re: (Score:2)
At the point it becomes obvious the population needs help, the discourse will change rapidly.
False. It's obvious now. The number of homeless is rising. The number of people without jobs, too, but the bullshit unemployment rate is used to hide that fact by "both" parties - I use the quotes here because while there are differences between them, there is NO difference economically.
UBI is a pressure relief that might just allow us to preserve the bulk of a capitalist economy.
Realistically it is the ONLY way that we could continue capitalism in the near term, because we need a kind of capitalism that doesn't seek endless growth. That kind of capitalism is what is destroying our biosphere. If we h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How come "what are we going to do"? Nature will do the same thing it always does. When resources are scare and there's not enough for everyone, large populations become unsustainable. Animals starve or resort to cannibalism. Humans start wars. This is not up to us, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental nihilism, original.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTH are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong comment maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we must stop trying to fight AI automation at this level, as it will never succeed.
Too bad there was not a club people working for say BMW could join to fight this
Unions - maybe you are a bit young or do not remember, something like this in the 50s, 60s and early 70s could very well have caused a labor shutdown in the US. Now, people being replaced by AI just bend over and take it. Look at France to see an example of this.
Re: (Score:2)
How in god's name are unions going to fight their members being no longer necessary?
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of money will fix things. Aside from the housing issue, welfare income is paradoxically *already* "sufficient" -- yet insufficient -- in the United States. If he is not disabled, one individual can get about $200 in spending money, plus full healthcare coverage (Obamacare). It turns out that one person can actually live on $200 a month. They can live better than any of your ancestors did prior to the 18th century. That's $6.50 a day - enough for a day's worth of bulk purchased toothpaste, soap, de
Re: (Score:2)
What in the heck are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the person you replied to is insane, they make the claim that a person, absent healthcare, need only make $200/month
I don't see "200" anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What did I say that is incorrect? Can you not stay alive on $200 a month if housing and healthcare insurance were taken care of? $150 for food/water (bulk purchases not restaurant obviously). $30 for hygiene products. $20 for misc. Are you saying you cannot get 2000 to 3000 calories on $150 a month? i googled it, and Walmart has loaves of bread for $1.40. That's 2000 calories right there for $45 a month. Let's say you get the deluxe loaf for $2 .. that's $60. You still have $90 to get other protein/essentia
Re: (Score:2)
Austrian culture is very different from US culture.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the real problem for human workers - they cost more than the robot, they take breaks, they demand pay, and they make frequent mistakes due to inattention when performing boring repetitive tasks.
This is why we must stop trying to fight AI automation at this level, as it will never succeed.
The only real solution is to just let the automation companies win on the front end, then take it all back out of the back end by raising their taxes an equivalent (huge) amount. Then we give that money back to the people in the form of a universal basic income.
A UBI will apply to all persons equally, rich or poor, working or not working, with no qualifications, and will therefore have NO bureaucracy to pay for.
Problem solved. So why the fuck are so few people talking about this??
Because the rich and the governments that the rich currently own around the world don't want anything to do with taking care of people they can't exploit outright. If you work for them and help them continue to accrue wealth? Fine. They'll provide you just enough to survive on, mostly. If you aren't helping them accrue wealth? They don't give a flying fuck what happens to you. We can talk about UBI all we want, but it's never going to happen while the oligarchs are in charge. They like their position in soc
Re: (Score:2)
It was a rhetorical question.
Re: (Score:2)
A UBI will apply to all persons equally
Really dude? Look at the entirety of human history as shared by the winners. Has anything similar to that happened EVER in the entirety of human civilization?
People are greedy and I can guarantee that there is someone just waiting to take something from you personally.
Besides, centralized power sucks, and that is what we will have to deal with when/if a UBI is ever actually enacted. (technically, power is centralized now, but that is not directed by law)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, really.
Re: The trouble with humans (Score:2)
Re: The trouble with humans (Score:2)
Who will consume all the output of these robots if everyone is unemployed?
Re: The trouble with humans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they make frequent mistakes due to inattention when performing boring repetitive tasks.
The humans you are referring to typically make small one time mistakes that don't cost the company much money to resolve, don't put too many people in harms way and are easily corrected. More often then not, the command and control layer (management) makes mistakes and orders the workers to do something enmass that costs a lot to resolve and may put people in harms way, and are a bear to correct. These are the "mistakes" that get on the radar the poor worker at the end of the line gets the blame.(HAL 9000
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Maybe we could funnel some of the billions we spend every year on trying to kill people for existing in other parts of the world back into the hands of those families who have spent entire lifetimes propping up our government and getting fucked raw for it? Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
I still think robots are going to be a huge issue for society, because a percentage (16-28% depending on whose study you read) of people aren't able to handle anything more complex than this kind of job.
Huh? We will do what we do now: Ignore them. They will eventually die from exposure or starvation as they do now. Some of them choose prison rather than death to exposure.
The best part is that we don't get to hear about it except as scumbag homeless doing thing stories.
I know what they'll do (Score:2)
German Robot On American Soil? (Score:1)
How about maybe an Italian one or maybe Japanese. I see no problems here.
UBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Universal Basic Income. The only solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution to what? Our 3% unemployment rate? Our unwillingness to work mind-numbingly boring factory jobs? Help me understand what problem UBI solves!
Re: (Score:2)
The mass loss of jobs to AI that can't be replaced by training.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. There is no "mass loss of jobs." Suggesting that one is inevitable, is premature and just speculation. Although AI may be a real productivity booster, it is also being vastly overhyped. The death of the traditional job market has been greatly exaggerated.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, stick your head right there in the sand. That always works.
We've had a few stories recently where CEOs are reducing jobs due, not hiring, and predicting big layoffs in 2024, all due to AI automation. It's happening now, and we aren't even talking about how to handle it because it's so scary people would rather lie to themselves.
Why do you think industry is so bonkers over AI? They see a HUGE chance to reduce labor costs in a way they haven't ever seen ever before. The S&P is way up over the year
Re: (Score:2)
We've had a few stories recently where CEOs are reducing jobs due, not hiring, and predicting big layoffs in 2024, all due to AI automation
That's right, we've had "a few stories." But a few stories, do not a trend make. News stories are designed to be dramatic, not accurate. Consider the round after round of Big Tech layoffs that have been dominating the news in recent months. Despite the headlines, actual employment, including tech employment, has remained very strong. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/... [sanjoseinside.com]
The industry is bonkers over AI. Yes, it is truly *nuts.* The capabilities of AI are extremely over-hyped. Yes, I use AI just about every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Geez. There was a story here just days ago about a poll of CEOs saying they plan to cut workers by 5% in 2024 alone. Permanently.
This is a frog in a frying pan situation, and you're proving it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, here's that slashdot page: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] and the story it referenced https://arstechnica.com/ai/202... [arstechnica.com]. If you look beyond the scary-sounding headline, you see this:
A quarter of global chief executives expect the deployment of generative artificial intelligence to lead to headcount reductions of at least 5 percent this year
A *quarter* of CEOs saw reduced headcounts related to AI adoption. That means that 75% saw no change, or actual increases. That doesn't sound so scary to me.
And what does "permanent" mean, when the word comes out of the mouth of a CEO? Those guys only look forward 1-2 quarters, because that's what their shareholders want
Re: (Score:2)
Right, a quarter, my mistake. But it was "at least 5%." Still, those are just the ones willing to talk about their plans out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Permanent is my characterization, since once a human job is automated by AI, they don't come back. People aren't smart enough. Retraining isn't gonna work this time.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a much higher regard for the capabilities of AI than i do. And I use it daily. In my experience, AI needs constant supervision, kind of like employing a junior high kid as an assistant. Sure, they can be helpful, but you can't just hand off a job and expect it to be done correctly.
Why won't retraining work "this time"? How is this new technology different from any other new technology in history? In 1900, about 50% of Americans did farm work. By 1950, just 20%, and today, less than 2%. https://www2 [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Universal Basic Income. The only solution.
No. It is a terrible solution. It removes all agency from individuals.
A better solution would be to structure the economy so that when the country is doing better economically, the price of food and shelter go lower (but never free).
If a UBI is started, the 'group' that is in charge of it will effectively be the group that ends up deciding everything for that society.
Why would you want power centralized? It becomes corrupted. Elections were supposed to be the maintenance being performed to clean off the cor
Re: (Score:2)
And if you have no job, how will you buy any of it??
Re: (Score:2)
And if you have no job, how will you buy any of it??
You starve, just as you do now. Do you REALLY want to remove consequences for failing to deal with Reality? If so, then you will turn your entire country into what the worst of Section 8 housing is. I don't see that as a desirable future for anyone. But hey, no more stress about living right?
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer is literally: die. Ok. Maybe I'll take your family out with me when I go.
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer is literally: die. Ok. Maybe I'll take your family out with me when I go.
Yeah, and maybe you will take my family because you didn't get a lollipop. All I can do is offer respect, if you choose not to return it, there is nothing I can do. You are in control of yourself, not I.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL you tell me and everyone else to just die, and you call that "respect."
Re: (Score:2)
LOL you tell me and everyone else to just die, and you call that "respect."
This is simple. I am having a hard enough carrying myself after carrying a woman and some children. I can't carry you too. You will have to do that yourself. I am sorry that you feel entitled to what I have created, but the respect that I give you is that I will not interfere with your 'right' to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
TL;DR, you have to carry yourself bro. I can't change the facts of the Universe. If you can't carry yourself, you just might die from lack of care. You will have only yourself to
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, not reading any of that. You just suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, not reading any of that. You just suck.
Fair enough. You suck for not being willing to carry yourself and blaming ME for it.
Re: (Score:1)
The very nature of spending money is a collective results while still having individual components of it. Then again I ha
Re: (Score:1)
would you want power centralized? It becomes corrupted.
It removes all agency from individuals.
Between the BIS in Basel and in the U.S.A. the Federal Reserve (a private non-governmental entity) it is mostly unaccountable to the public and it is centralized. With Universal Basic Income the individual still makes decisions on what is spent. Still trying to figure out why there are only two parties in the United States having an monopsony on the say of law. Then again most don't vote in any given election for the most part.
Re: (Score:1)
A better solution would be to structure the economy so that when the country is doing better economically, the price of food and shelter go lower (but never free).
That is a good thing to aspire to. On the shelter part I don't know how to make that happen when in less than a hundred years the population doubled and doubled again - that over four times the population between 1927 and now.
Why Humanoid? (Score:2)
This can't be the best we can design for this purpose, can it?
Will it greet visitors? (Score:2)
Because that is about the only thing these are (somewhat) useful for.
The real question is (Score:2)
Big Whoop (Score:1)
Robots have been in factories for decades. These robots will be shaped differently. Yawn...
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all factory robots have been stationary, not mobile, until fairly recently.
Figure? (Score:1)
Figure? Is this a sexy fembot?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if sex bots will ever really take off. The dolls they have now are already impressive and even though you can fuck them it doesn't get you that real genuine connection you get from an actual person. If you just want to get off, there are significantly cheaper "toys" that can accomplish this.
Expecting a machine to give you a real "connection" is delusional. Makes me feel bad for these people that are "friends" with these chatbots. Our young people are so screwed.
You don't really need AGI (Score:2)
You don't need an AGI controlled humanoid robot to replace a specific set of jobs in a specific setting. You need a specialized AI robot that can deal with those specific tasks at hand. Each tasks can be considered a module that can be loaded into your humanoid robot. It doesn't need to understand anything beyond it's scope to accomplish it's task.
That the same hardware can be deployed to different scenarios just comes down to the different modules developed for it.
To me, that's not AGI at all. AGI=Data fro