We show many signs of stopping our infinite expansion.

As for why we want dexterous robots, the obvious answer is to do things that we don't want to do. Things that are back-breaking, disgusting, dangerous, or just plain boring.

The AI will need generalized robots to build the highly specialized ones.

Why not both?

agriculture first (mining and manufacturing are already robotizing).

I actually like Tau's videos a lot better than Google's. An agile robot getting out of a car carrying a tote is actually novel and difficult and useful. In contrast, what Google is showing here is mostly glorified pick and place with low success rates on a needlessly complex robot and a voice LLM slapped on top to pre-announce its moves like an anime character, with fancy video editing and bubbly music to distract you from how slow it is.

Sure Tau is teleoperated, but teleoperating an agile movement like that is actually really hard to get right and still involves AI to keep the robot balanced. Tau is a lot closer to real deployment than Google, and when it performs useful tasks it is simultaneously collecting the data to eventually automate those tasks.

Welsh Labs has a great video on JEPA and robotics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYkIdXwW2AE

A 36% success rate on screwing in a light bulb means there's probably something to LeCunn's take that VLM/VLA models aren't going to be the thing powering tomorrow's robots, but only time will tell.

It does mention it though?

> Many robotic applications need to operate without network latency or internet connectivity. Gemini Robotics On-Device 2 is built specifically to handle these constraints — it is our most-efficient vision-language-action model (VLA) optimized to run locally on robotic devices.

The question of agency and the question of income are different. The former - we do things manually that can be automated for fun all the time and make entirely arbitrary weird things to do for no value. However some find it hard to move from work to leisure.

For income - who knows?

I think that people will argue around that. Self-driving cars are already strong enough to kill people and even if you only made the robot strong enough to lift 15 pounds of weight, that's probably strong enough to slit someone's throat with a kitchen knife while they sleep... There probably isn't a level of strength that's weak enough to be completely safe but strong enough to be useful.

So at some point you have to trust that the tech is safe. Both in terms of "robot won't go off the rails", but also in terms of hostile actors can't remotely take over your robot while you sleep.

In terms of sleeping, personally, I would like for the law to mandate that robots must have a physical off switch, in a very visible location, that physically disconnects power. The switch should be illuminated while in the ON position. What makes me a bit pessimistic there is that we don't even have laws to mandate webcam indicator lights (e.g. a very tiny red LED) must be ON in hardware.

it s a trick question, they are actually looking for robots

They already do: https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen-robotsuite

Nvidia also releases their Cosmos series models.