What's even funnier is that the video of the robot making the bed was AI generated. This bed making robot doesn't even exist, yet guy has to shame people having roommates? :D
No it costs $20,000. Then costs $400/month for the premium Roommate plan. $50 for the AI-compatible sheets only washable by your CoMpAny-ApProVeD washing machine.
Also you pay with your private data
Warning: Robot not responsible for any damaged goods, or murdered humans.
I looked it up thinking there had to be more to this that just isn't pictured here. We're missing context or something
I can find nothing.
This guy literally thinks people have roommates to make their bed for them?
Even thinking people have roommates to help with chores, instead of bills, why the fuck would he think the main chore we need help with is "making my bed"?
Like I'm going to bring somebody else into my house so they can make my bed for me? My bed? That's weird as fuck
People need roommates because they don't make enough money to live on their own. He concludes that the reason they don't have enough money is because they aren't working hard enough for him because they have to do so many domestic chores. This robot promises to free you from the "profitless" enterprise of doing things that aren't making money for him.
I get that, and while that's super out of touch with pretty much everything, to me, that's the least weird thing about this
Lets go with his logic and pretend we do need roommates for chores.
Out of all of the chores he thinks I need help with he thinks it's making my bed? Not dishes, or cleaning, or shopping... making my bed? And not even my own bed, he thinks I have a roommate who comes into my room and makes my bed for me?
He thinks we all have strangers living in our houses to make our beds for us?
Yeah it's stupid as hell that this man thinks we have roommates as maids instead of people to help pay bills, but it's even more stupid that he thinks the #1 chore that we would need these people for is bed making. And now that there's a robot that can make your bed for you, that's it? That's the end of roommates?
I don't need a robot to cook for me or clean for me or anything else? Bed making is the end game?
WTF is wrong with this man. This is all so fucking weird
Tell me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid without telling me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid.
I mean, if you like getting handjobs from an Indian dude remotely controlling your robot, sure I guess? Though expect it to do that thing where it looks like it shuts down and then starts up again as it goes through a bunch of Indian dudes who see the request and then quit their job on the spot. Just hope you don't get one of the ones that punches you first.
If I had a robot that was supposed to be AI, but actually run remotely from India, handjob mode would be the least of their concerns.
I'd put a strap-on on it, dress it up like a farmer, I'd dress like a can of tuna fish, I'd cover myself in cottage cheese and roll on the ground in convulsions screaming "FUCK ME WILBER! FUCK YOUR TUNA CAN! FUCK IT GOOD"....
..and that would just be Monday.
Those poor drivers would have PTSD when I'm done with them.
gonna be honest, i really, really liked the 498 square foot studio i had to myself for a couple years in Austin. it barely had a kitchen, but i cooked gourmet meals for myself and it's honestly the cleanest i've ever kept a place. I discovered i make mess to subconsciously mark my territory and hide my property, since growing up my brothers would always steal my shit and my parents would leave us to fight it out since they just wanted kids to do their chores for them.
"Yeah, jobby-bot, keep going...wh... why'd you stop?"
"Gig working all day and getting handies burns a LOT of your energy, even though you never leave the house, and that's why you need HELLO FRESH. Say anything at all to start your subscription today and mention the code HandyJ20 for 20% off!"
"B...but..."
"Hate a ruined finish? Subscribe to ULTRA PREMIUM PLUS for no ads, plus get pillow talk and therapy mode!"
Given the state of AI slop and how rocky the road to automated driving has gone, I think I'll wait on handjob mode until the lawsuits have all paid out.
They think homeowners have roommates to get labor from them. The same way they have servants who cook and clean for them. To them, the idea of not being able to afford housing is literally inconceivable. It’s not even on their radar, because they’ve never had to worry about it before. The only reasons they can think that someone would have a roommate is for convenience.
In most demos, yes. Though they have managed to do things that vaguely seem correct, in very specific tasks in very controlled environments and often showing a behavior you wouldn't want.
Like for example, they got it trained to pull out a dish rack and put a dish in, and push the rack back in. Then a human pulls out the rack and the robot pushes it back in. Which they like to show as it responding to the environment, but in real life the human wanted to do something with the rack, why would the robot incessantly keeping it from being out be desired?
Another one where it could pick up clothes, so long as the clothes were within a set square meter and the background was solid white.
The remote control is the mechanism to try to train them to work independently, but it is a tall order. To get the relatively more straightforward movement of operating a car, they took millions of miles of data to feed it. These robots are aiming for far more intricate work and have a severe lack of access to training data.
Further, imagine any task that becomes very difficult just by putting on gloves. Congratulations, there's a task machine learning can't help with, because they don't have tactile in the input loop.
Interesting issue regarding the gloves situation. However I might add that gloves are often used for safety whereas a robot might not need that safety. For example, pulling weeds.
Though, I think you’re getting at something subtle. It’s not about tasks which require gloves. It’s about any theoretical task which would become harder if you happened to do it with gloves on.
That’s a lot of tasks when you think about it. For starters, I use my fingers in a kind of “friction test” to make sure I’ve fully cleaned a dish of any oil. If my finger slides, it needs another scrub.
It's not about the machinery struggling with gloves, it's just the difficulty of capturing the data when a human really needs to touch/feel.
Like that 'friction test', the point is when they use machine learning, they want to feed all the inputs and outputs from the human operator. They don't have a good way of capturing 'feel' (you can have a camera to capture what eyes see, you can have microphones to capture what the human hears). Similar on human inputs, for a car, they can instrument the pedals and steering and they pretty much got it all. If a human hand is doing something, well, if the human is local they might be able to make a glove to capture all that, but our sense of feeling can be fouled so easily that trying to instrument it tends to ruin it. If the human is remote then you can just get controller style inputs.
Yeah, this should be researched. How would you produce an analog signal to represent touch semantics?
You ever heard of that paper, *what the frog eye tells the frog brain” (Or something like that) ? It covers what’s effectively semantic information, not bits of data, getting sent over the central nerve. Edges, flashes, …
I wonder what the skin might tell the brain.
I also wonder if there would be a way to bounce a static field, or something, off the surface… maybe vibrate the material, etc,,, to approximate these sort of details.
These robots are aiming for far more intricate work and have a severe lack of access to training data.
I'll bet that all the data being harvested by smart glasses is now going to train those models. Basically it provides a first-person view of someone doing stuff with their hands all day, walking around, talking, etc.
Problem is that is too indirect. Imagine trying to do that intricate work on sight alone. Like trying to do stuff with numb hands. Without tactile feedback, we are useless in a lot of these tasks. But the tactile feedback is not instrumented. To the extent that machine learning works, it needs to have all the inputs and outputs instrumented, and feeling is left out.
We can see something done and have an explanation and internalize it and then 'get a feel for it' later. But AI doesn't currently feature this ability to really translate that sort of instruction to an entirely different set of sensation.
This looks like bad translation. For many asian languages the words maid and mate look sound quite similar. And the distance from house too room might also just be bad translation. Aaand if you change room mate to house maid the headline makes a LOT more sense...
So, someone who is fluent enough in English that they would use a colloquialism like "killed the argument" somehow doesn't know the difference between "roommate and house maid"?
And, even if you make that swap, who is making a "need a house maid" argument? Is there anybody who argues (with whom?) that they need a house maid because making a bed is too difficult? Yes, a maid might make a bed, but the bigger service they provide is cleaning: laundry, dishes, vacuuming, mopping, dusting, scrubbing the bath / shower, cleaning the toilet. A live-in housekeeper will probably also cook meals and do some childcare too.
A robot might be able to do some of that, but a robot that capable will be tens or hundreds of thousands. You're not going to save money by switching to a robot.
i'm not well versed in the goings on of the back end of the house beyond the butlery (i do enjoy a good butle) and the work of the valet, so i don't quite know the exact species pairing. but i am told one exists.
Technically? It might be more grammatically correct to say "rooms-maid" since they typically take care of a whole house, but even that's kinda clumsy sounding.
I can think of several arguments for needing a roommate. None of them have to do with making my bed. Perhaps that would fall into the "wife" category, but it's hardly a priority. I can make my own damn bed just fine.
Roommates make your bed, no? Clean your dishes? Vacuum the place? Keep the WiFi running? Make sure everything is paid up on time? Why wouldn't you want someone who cleans up for you and otherwise stays out of your way?
Is there video evidence of one of these robots making a bed? I don't even care if it's fully cherry-picked; I'd be impressed just to see it happen mechanically. Tucking the fitted sheet around the corners is not a simple task.
The rich lack the empathy to care that you can't "afford" something. They think everything is a choice. The homeless chose to be homeless as much as they chose to be rich. Fucking delusional evil people!
They genuinely believe their familial history and it being the reason they’re rich or privileged enough to become wealthy is their own doing, that they actively participated in creating that opportunity and they’ll call themselves a rags to riches success story for investing a small inheritance or loan of a million dollars into hundreds of millions, saying it was all grind and sheer willpower. They think everyone who didn’t do that is dumber than they are, and then they’ll tell you all about their neat ideas on how scientists and experts are wrong and how all their boys at the private country club told them the real truth about health and economics and women and the poor and anyone who doesn’t believe it is a sucker and deserves it.
If the purpose of a roommate was to make your bed for you, wouldn't that just make a roommate ouroboros where you each make each other's beds? After all, you are your roommate's roommate...
In rich world there is a title difference between property owner and roommate. These are not equals, but a superior and subservient class.
A property owner provides housing and charges the roommate money and/or labor for the privilege of living on the property. Why take on a roommate if free labor is available?
Rich people understand that the only market for these monstrosities are other rich people.
The "roommate" thing is an attempt to make them more acceptable while they're still being developed for other purposes. The purposes they will be used for against the poor who will never be able to afford or control one.
We are not the intended user of advanced robots. They'd never hand off such tech to people who could figure out how to turn the robots against them.
You and I will never see a general-purpose, programmable advanced robot in our house making our bed, or doing the laundry. It just will not happen. They can only risk dumbed-down, locked-down, weak and single purpose robots for us. They could mass produce the advanced ones, and make them more affordable, but they never will.
This is one reason I predict that future household robots will be physically tied to the house, riding on tracks, dependent on a wired power grid, not batteries, unable to ambulate.
The purposes they will be used for against the poor who will never be able to afford or control one.
I dunno, we might end up seeing them become commonplace. They'll be on an "affordable" monthly loan perhaps, but you're right, it would be like having a snitch and a cop in every home. That's the only reason it'd be subsidized.
Yeah, I didn't think of that. Nothing like having a cop stationed right in the living room 24/7.
I still think they might be afraid to give us private, 24/7 access to the machines. They can't defend themselves once their battery dies. They can't phone home from inside a faraday cage. They can't hide their secrets from a power grinder.
Wait, are we sure hes not making fun of the purchaser? Like, "You obviously dont need a roommate to lower expenses if you can afford a robot that makes your bed"? Thus killing the argument?
Am i missing something here? To me, this reads "people lazy, thats why poor" not "roommates exist as glorified trad wives"?
"You obviously dont need a roommate to lower expenses if you can afford a robot that makes your bed"
Yeah I think that's what he has to be saying and just worded it poorly. The only way any of this makes any bit of sense is if he's saying "If you have enough money to have your own personal robot, then you probably aren't so broke that you need a roommate to cover half the rent."
I am that old and this is patently false. Sharing a flat was a way to reduce expenses for my generation and generations before me. More common in urban areas. Also for women was often safer than living alone.
Yeah, and from my understanding there was an implication for people who had one after a certain age, that's more related to the idea of "why aren't you married yet". There was definitely a suspicion when two 40 year olds have been roommates for 20 years and attend social and family events together, rather than two 28 year olds who met via an ad for a roommate in the newspaper a few years ago and are still trying to get ahead in the city.
Fun fact before Julius Caesar froze the rent in Rome for a year, it was actually getting to the point of abject absurdity to the point folks were splitting rent 4 ways minimum in some neighborhoods. Must've been able to smell the gayness apon stepping foot into that city, maybe that's why Caesar crossed the Rubicon he wanted to get rid of the smell.
Like, yeah. Your great aunt Abigail who was always so bad with money that she and her best friend lived together in a one bedroom apartment for 45 years despite always taking vacations to Vermont and the third largest Greek island to celebrate their favorite poet was almost certainly gay. Maybe. There might be a clue.
But actual literal platonic roommates have existed for a long time. Like, it's relatively recent that people started to practice living exclusively with romantic partners and family.
Yeah, I was just curious about Keilik's world view in particular and how it led to them having this perception. They explained in another response that in their experience people could afford to live alone so it appeared to be a choice to live together (and then assumed it was romantic versus for other benefits like to platonic companionship/safety etc.)
But actual literal platonic roommates have existed for a long time. Like, it’s relatively recent that people started to practice living exclusively with romantic partners and family.
My instinct is to think that housing practices depend so much on social and cultural norms so it seems like this needs some really specific context to be true but then I catch myself realizing I have no idea what you mean about recent so I am in fact a clown for jumping to conclusions about your meaning 😅
To be clear, I was most echoing and agreeing with you, and I just had a sudden mental image of the world's least subtle gal-pal-lesbian that I wanted to put out there.
And yeah, my "recent" is a pretty long horizon. It was in roughly the 1700s that we started to see people living less in arrangements that we would be willing to call "roommates" in the west. Largely driven by factors relating to industrialization making it so people who lived in proximity were less likely to work in proximity, and making it more feasible to sustain and manage redundant living situations. It was still common though, since the financial perks hit unevenly. Increasing urbanization pushed towards denser living, while doing more to move families into private housing. Hence the apartment with 40 steelworkers in bunk beds image, and the apartment next door with a pair of siblings, their spouses and children and maybe a grandparent.
This trend continues across a lot of cultures, although the specific arrangements vary. Industrialization being the turning point. Although the soviets had a more unique twist as a result of picking up entire rural communities and dropping them in low cost buildings. You get a lot of the communal living type arrangements we saw through history but stuck in an oddly modern setting, with maybe two unrelated families, a handful of singles and a few couples all sharing an apartment with one kitchen, a complicated bathroom and a bedroom breakdown roughly what we'd expect now.
One way or another, people throughout history have tended to want to live near family, which included friends, liked having a roof, and usually didn't bother building more cooking tools than they needed. The specific forms have changed, but the social nature of humans is pretty consistent.
It really wasn’t though where I used to live, rent was cheap enough people legitimately wondered what was wrong with you if you had a roommate and weren’t in a minimum wage job.
Was not expecting this to be so unpopular but legitimately when I was growing up there were open mic nights and jazz clubs filled with musicians taking turns. People had weird exotic hobbies or fun cars they would drive on the weekend. There were artists and art galleries and little bookstores and microbreweries and hobby shops for anything you could imagine.
Now they have all closed, the jazz clubs bulldozed and paved over for parking lots, and no one does anything but work and be angry.
I remember a time growing up that people were paid enough to actually live and I refuse to let that die
Dude, you're talking about 2010 like it's ancient history, and I've got shirts that old. Everything you're describing still exists, but I'm sorry if your town's fun bar closed.
In 2010 things were already way too expensive, I’m talking like 2000-2005. I’m not saying that stuff doesn’t exist, I’m saying a lot more people used to be able to afford to do things.
In 2000, you were 7 years old and had no clue what anyone was paying for rent, much less how cool was open mic night at the local. Your parents could afford to do things and shielded you from what they cost. Or sitcom families could do things and you're remembering Will & Grace.
I mean, yes: shit's expensive today, but heterosexual people had roommates in 2000, in 1990, 1980, even in 1960. In 1980, it was scandalous to have a roommate of the opposite gender.
I have a special needs sister and my parents were so excited I was “normal” they made me help out and I grew up pretty quick.
I definitely was middle class, I started taking drum lessons early on and actually enrolled at the mason gross school of music at Rutgers when I was 11 and had been playing with jazz combos at those open mic nights since I was 10 or so. When I was 13 I did percussion with my teacher and others for a production of the H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan at a few different theaters in NJ. I auditioned at Juilliard when I was 16 but didn’t get a scholarship and realized I couldn’t make it in music the way I wanted to because I wasn’t good enough.
So I was taught how to budget very early on because there was a chance I was going to need to know how to do it myself, and all of the people I interacted with were in there 30’s and 40’s because I couldn’t relate to the kids in school.
So yea, I knew when shit started getting ridiculously expensive because suddenly everyone I knew was a struggling artist or had to stop and get a “real” job because they couldn’t pay their bills.
In the suburbs in the middle of NJ. There were enough good Union jobs that even without a degree you could make enough money to live pretty comfortably, and the only notable thing about the area was that you could get to NYC or Philadelphia in about an hour and a half or so by train
I think you meant homophobes? Though that doesn't really make any sense either.....
The only time having a roommate implied you were gay is if you were an older person belonging to the gentry who chose to live with someone else if you didn't need to.
It's not like people were looking at tenement housing and saying, oh yeah "that's the big building where we store all the gays".
People have always had roommates, they just aren't typically the class of people represented in fictional stories of the time.
Because it's not a fact lmao. The commenter is only 33. At no point in their life has having roommates meant you were gay. Maybe another 20+ years before them, and if you were a man in your 30s or older with a roommate. But that's because the assumption is generally that if you're living with someone in your 30s, 9 times out of 10 they're your partner. Most people find a long-term partner by then that they live with.
139 replies
Let me translate this thought process from rich asshole to regular human:
What's even funnier is that the video of the robot making the bed was AI generated. This bed making robot doesn't even exist, yet guy has to shame people having roommates? :D
Does the robot pay the rent?
Why is my roommate making my bed?
Why isn't mine?!!!
Because people exist to be exploited by you. What other value could another person possibly have,?
No it costs $20,000. Then costs $400/month for the premium Roommate plan. $50 for the AI-compatible sheets only washable by your CoMpAny-ApProVeD washing machine.
Also you pay with your private data
Warning: Robot not responsible for any damaged goods, or murdered humans.
For that much I better be able to fuck it.
The robot that you can fuck just killed the "need a girlfriend" argument.
This is just weird
I looked it up thinking there had to be more to this that just isn't pictured here. We're missing context or something
I can find nothing.
This guy literally thinks people have roommates to make their bed for them?
Even thinking people have roommates to help with chores, instead of bills, why the fuck would he think the main chore we need help with is "making my bed"?
Like I'm going to bring somebody else into my house so they can make my bed for me? My bed? That's weird as fuck
People need roommates because they don't make enough money to live on their own. He concludes that the reason they don't have enough money is because they aren't working hard enough for him because they have to do so many domestic chores. This robot promises to free you from the "profitless" enterprise of doing things that aren't making money for him.
I get that, and while that's super out of touch with pretty much everything, to me, that's the least weird thing about this
Lets go with his logic and pretend we do need roommates for chores.
Out of all of the chores he thinks I need help with he thinks it's making my bed? Not dishes, or cleaning, or shopping... making my bed? And not even my own bed, he thinks I have a roommate who comes into my room and makes my bed for me?
He thinks we all have strangers living in our houses to make our beds for us?
Yeah it's stupid as hell that this man thinks we have roommates as maids instead of people to help pay bills, but it's even more stupid that he thinks the #1 chore that we would need these people for is bed making. And now that there's a robot that can make your bed for you, that's it? That's the end of roommates?
I don't need a robot to cook for me or clean for me or anything else? Bed making is the end game?
WTF is wrong with this man. This is all so fucking weird
He thinks maids are housemates.
Maybe he thinks house maids is spelled housemates 😄
Tell me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid without telling me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid.
No, the robot killed the "need a maid" argument.
No, the robot killed Grandma when it glitched out (having never properly functioned to start) fell on her and punctured her lung.
There's an onion video about "Sony 's newest thing that doesn't fucking do what it's supposed to do.
I don't know about you, but I will be spending my entire evening trying to coax some semblance of functionality out of this motherfucking time vampire
Here you go https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
100% chance of not getting rickrolled edition
Good bot
You had a 50/50 chance of getting the real link. Guess you were either lucky or unluck depending on how you see things.
Here you go https://youtu.be/8AyVh1_vWYQ
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
I can see how Scenario 2 will be much better for me. Sign me up.
Side note: That fucking robot better have a handjob mode.
I mean, if you like getting handjobs from an Indian dude remotely controlling your robot, sure I guess? Though expect it to do that thing where it looks like it shuts down and then starts up again as it goes through a bunch of Indian dudes who see the request and then quit their job on the spot. Just hope you don't get one of the ones that punches you first.
HA!
If I had a robot that was supposed to be AI, but actually run remotely from India, handjob mode would be the least of their concerns.
I'd put a strap-on on it, dress it up like a farmer, I'd dress like a can of tuna fish, I'd cover myself in cottage cheese and roll on the ground in convulsions screaming "FUCK ME WILBER! FUCK YOUR TUNA CAN! FUCK IT GOOD"....
..and that would just be Monday.
Those poor drivers would have PTSD when I'm done with them.
I was right there with you until the cottage cheese came into the scene. Damn shame.
The Mechanical Jerk
Pack it up everyone. This guy won the thread. Nothing more to see here, move along.
Incredible joke 10/10
gonna be honest, i really, really liked the 498 square foot studio i had to myself for a couple years in Austin. it barely had a kitchen, but i cooked gourmet meals for myself and it's honestly the cleanest i've ever kept a place. I discovered i make mess to subconsciously mark my territory and hide my property, since growing up my brothers would always steal my shit and my parents would leave us to fight it out since they just wanted kids to do their chores for them.
The handjob mode is only available with a Premium subscription, or ad free in Premium Plus.
"Yeah, jobby-bot, keep going...wh... why'd you stop?"
"Gig working all day and getting handies burns a LOT of your energy, even though you never leave the house, and that's why you need HELLO FRESH. Say anything at all to start your subscription today and mention the code HandyJ20 for 20% off!"
"B...but..."
"Hate a ruined finish? Subscribe to ULTRA PREMIUM PLUS for no ads, plus get pillow talk and therapy mode!"
":("
Pay more to unlock new skins.
And if you don't think you need extra skins, give the handjob mode a test drive.
Given the state of AI slop and how rocky the road to automated driving has gone, I think I'll wait on handjob mode until the lawsuits have all paid out.
Aside from the affordability thing...
Do rich people think we make each others beds? Tuck each other in for the night?
They think homeowners have roommates to get labor from them. The same way they have servants who cook and clean for them. To them, the idea of not being able to afford housing is literally inconceivable. It’s not even on their radar, because they’ve never had to worry about it before. The only reasons they can think that someone would have a roommate is for convenience.
we should
Normalize tucking in the homies and kissing them goodnight.
Normalize roomie cuddles. It's a lonely world.
Bros don't let Bros get sexually frustrated
Only if I can get a cup of warm milk and a story as well
of course bro, you deserve it, I also have mini marshmallows
and give each other forehead kisses? 👉👈😅
They also think that art is about coming up with a great idea, nothing else, that's why they're pushing for the prompt machines.
They're confusing utility value with artistic value.
Aren't those types of robots mostly remotely controlled?
AI = Actual Indians
In most demos, yes. Though they have managed to do things that vaguely seem correct, in very specific tasks in very controlled environments and often showing a behavior you wouldn't want.
Like for example, they got it trained to pull out a dish rack and put a dish in, and push the rack back in. Then a human pulls out the rack and the robot pushes it back in. Which they like to show as it responding to the environment, but in real life the human wanted to do something with the rack, why would the robot incessantly keeping it from being out be desired?
Another one where it could pick up clothes, so long as the clothes were within a set square meter and the background was solid white.
The remote control is the mechanism to try to train them to work independently, but it is a tall order. To get the relatively more straightforward movement of operating a car, they took millions of miles of data to feed it. These robots are aiming for far more intricate work and have a severe lack of access to training data.
Further, imagine any task that becomes very difficult just by putting on gloves. Congratulations, there's a task machine learning can't help with, because they don't have tactile in the input loop.
Interesting issue regarding the gloves situation. However I might add that gloves are often used for safety whereas a robot might not need that safety. For example, pulling weeds.
Though, I think you’re getting at something subtle. It’s not about tasks which require gloves. It’s about any theoretical task which would become harder if you happened to do it with gloves on.
That’s a lot of tasks when you think about it. For starters, I use my fingers in a kind of “friction test” to make sure I’ve fully cleaned a dish of any oil. If my finger slides, it needs another scrub.
It's not about the machinery struggling with gloves, it's just the difficulty of capturing the data when a human really needs to touch/feel.
Like that 'friction test', the point is when they use machine learning, they want to feed all the inputs and outputs from the human operator. They don't have a good way of capturing 'feel' (you can have a camera to capture what eyes see, you can have microphones to capture what the human hears). Similar on human inputs, for a car, they can instrument the pedals and steering and they pretty much got it all. If a human hand is doing something, well, if the human is local they might be able to make a glove to capture all that, but our sense of feeling can be fouled so easily that trying to instrument it tends to ruin it. If the human is remote then you can just get controller style inputs.
Yeah, this should be researched. How would you produce an analog signal to represent touch semantics?
You ever heard of that paper, *what the frog eye tells the frog brain” (Or something like that) ? It covers what’s effectively semantic information, not bits of data, getting sent over the central nerve. Edges, flashes, …
I wonder what the skin might tell the brain.
I also wonder if there would be a way to bounce a static field, or something, off the surface… maybe vibrate the material, etc,,, to approximate these sort of details.
I'll bet that all the data being harvested by smart glasses is now going to train those models. Basically it provides a first-person view of someone doing stuff with their hands all day, walking around, talking, etc.
Problem is that is too indirect. Imagine trying to do that intricate work on sight alone. Like trying to do stuff with numb hands. Without tactile feedback, we are useless in a lot of these tasks. But the tactile feedback is not instrumented. To the extent that machine learning works, it needs to have all the inputs and outputs instrumented, and feeling is left out.
We can see something done and have an explanation and internalize it and then 'get a feel for it' later. But AI doesn't currently feature this ability to really translate that sort of instruction to an entirely different set of sensation.
Yes but you’re not supposed to know that
No they're pretty open about it. And that's why a lot of people think it's too creepy to try it.
This looks like bad translation. For many asian languages the words maid and mate look sound quite similar. And the distance from house too room might also just be bad translation. Aaand if you change room mate to house maid the headline makes a LOT more sense...
So, someone who is fluent enough in English that they would use a colloquialism like "killed the argument" somehow doesn't know the difference between "roommate and house maid"?
And, even if you make that swap, who is making a "need a house maid" argument? Is there anybody who argues (with whom?) that they need a house maid because making a bed is too difficult? Yes, a maid might make a bed, but the bigger service they provide is cleaning: laundry, dishes, vacuuming, mopping, dusting, scrubbing the bath / shower, cleaning the toilet. A live-in housekeeper will probably also cook meals and do some childcare too.
A robot might be able to do some of that, but a robot that capable will be tens or hundreds of thousands. You're not going to save money by switching to a robot.
In my experience room mates don't even make their own beds.
is roommaid a thing?
chambermaid, maybe?
i'm not well versed in the goings on of the back end of the house beyond the butlery (i do enjoy a good butle) and the work of the valet, so i don't quite know the exact species pairing. but i am told one exists.
Technically? It might be more grammatically correct to say "rooms-maid" since they typically take care of a whole house, but even that's kinda clumsy sounding.
Wtf is a "need a roommate" argument?
I can think of several arguments for needing a roommate. None of them have to do with making my bed. Perhaps that would fall into the "wife" category, but it's hardly a priority. I can make my own damn bed just fine.
Roommates make your bed, no? Clean your dishes? Vacuum the place? Keep the WiFi running? Make sure everything is paid up on time? Why wouldn't you want someone who cleans up for you and otherwise stays out of your way?
bitch ass landlords asking to get stabbed
I refuse to believe that there's a bipedal robot that can make my bed, with out ridiculous specific programming.
There's not. These ridiculous things can barely walk or fill a glass of water outside of highly controlled settings.
There is, it is just controlled by a human operator. XD
Is there video evidence of one of these robots making a bed? I don't even care if it's fully cherry-picked; I'd be impressed just to see it happen mechanically. Tucking the fitted sheet around the corners is not a simple task.
We don't use the P work anymore, it's been replaced with "AI"
The rich lack the empathy to care that you can't "afford" something. They think everything is a choice. The homeless chose to be homeless as much as they chose to be rich. Fucking delusional evil people!
It's funny how the most valid part of Christianity, that rich people are the most evil, is the part modern "Christians" reject the most.
Well, very few people like to be told they’re the villain…
99.999% of Christians are not wealthy
We are the collection of all of “our” choices.
Even the ones we made before we were born by people we’ll never meet lol
They genuinely believe their familial history and it being the reason they’re rich or privileged enough to become wealthy is their own doing, that they actively participated in creating that opportunity and they’ll call themselves a rags to riches success story for investing a small inheritance or loan of a million dollars into hundreds of millions, saying it was all grind and sheer willpower. They think everyone who didn’t do that is dumber than they are, and then they’ll tell you all about their neat ideas on how scientists and experts are wrong and how all their boys at the private country club told them the real truth about health and economics and women and the poor and anyone who doesn’t believe it is a sucker and deserves it.
It's the same as divine right of kings and queens
That it's God's will that they are the monarch, they are not bound by normies laws etc, and everything they do is blessed by God.
We have failed, as a society, to educate them that there is any other truth to this
Just choose to be born healthy to a rich family. DUH
Instead of sharing rent with a roommate, people will now not want to save money and actually pay more by purchasing a robot.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
hehe i did a funny and moved in with family and then when the house expires i will die
Rich people think roommates are servants
If the purpose of a roommate was to make your bed for you, wouldn't that just make a roommate ouroboros where you each make each other's beds? After all, you are your roommate's roommate...
Real roomates sleep in the same bed!
Cuddles for the homies!
Not in rich world.
In rich world there is a title difference between property owner and roommate. These are not equals, but a superior and subservient class.
A property owner provides housing and charges the roommate money and/or labor for the privilege of living on the property. Why take on a roommate if free labor is available?
Omg they were roommates!
That's not how you spell "maid", mate.
Rich people understand that the only market for these monstrosities are other rich people.
The "roommate" thing is an attempt to make them more acceptable while they're still being developed for other purposes. The purposes they will be used for against the poor who will never be able to afford or control one.
We are not the intended user of advanced robots. They'd never hand off such tech to people who could figure out how to turn the robots against them.
You and I will never see a general-purpose, programmable advanced robot in our house making our bed, or doing the laundry. It just will not happen. They can only risk dumbed-down, locked-down, weak and single purpose robots for us. They could mass produce the advanced ones, and make them more affordable, but they never will.
This is one reason I predict that future household robots will be physically tied to the house, riding on tracks, dependent on a wired power grid, not batteries, unable to ambulate.
The best household robots are the ones that don't move at all. Appliances. Like a dishwasher, FFS.
I dunno, we might end up seeing them become commonplace. They'll be on an "affordable" monthly loan perhaps, but you're right, it would be like having a snitch and a cop in every home. That's the only reason it'd be subsidized.
Yeah, I didn't think of that. Nothing like having a cop stationed right in the living room 24/7.
I still think they might be afraid to give us private, 24/7 access to the machines. They can't defend themselves once their battery dies. They can't phone home from inside a faraday cage. They can't hide their secrets from a power grinder.
Not sure about that. Ever seen a gucci store and what people go in there? Not people who should buy a 100 dollar belt.
Wait, are we sure hes not making fun of the purchaser? Like, "You obviously dont need a roommate to lower expenses if you can afford a robot that makes your bed"? Thus killing the argument?
Am i missing something here? To me, this reads "people lazy, thats why poor" not "roommates exist as glorified trad wives"?
Avocado Toast!
Yeah I think that's what he has to be saying and just worded it poorly. The only way any of this makes any bit of sense is if he's saying "If you have enough money to have your own personal robot, then you probably aren't so broke that you need a roommate to cover half the rent."
I’m not that old and I can’t stress this enough, when I was a kid if you had a roommate it meant you were gay.
I am that old and this is patently false. Sharing a flat was a way to reduce expenses for my generation and generations before me. More common in urban areas. Also for women was often safer than living alone.
I could be wrong but I charitably suspect they were referring to the term "roommate" rather than the actual practice.
Good to be charitable but they said not a joke later in this thread.
Yeah, and from my understanding there was an implication for people who had one after a certain age, that's more related to the idea of "why aren't you married yet". There was definitely a suspicion when two 40 year olds have been roommates for 20 years and attend social and family events together, rather than two 28 year olds who met via an ad for a roommate in the newspaper a few years ago and are still trying to get ahead in the city.
Damn how old are you. My coworker is in his 60s and talks about how rent was too high so he had to lease an apartment with roommates in NYC in the 80s
Cities are expensive, who would have guessed. I’m 33 and rent was $5-800 where I grew up, it’s now up to $2750-3750 for 1-2 bedroom apartments.
Wow dude, that’s the gayest shit I’ve heard all day 🙄
Fun fact before Julius Caesar froze the rent in Rome for a year, it was actually getting to the point of abject absurdity to the point folks were splitting rent 4 ways minimum in some neighborhoods. Must've been able to smell the gayness apon stepping foot into that city, maybe that's why Caesar crossed the Rubicon he wanted to get rid of the smell.
Just because I have roommates doesn't mean that I'm gay!
...I mean, I am gay. But NOT because I have ROOMMATES
If your a top it ain't gay.
That's a lot to pay for rent, but I guess US rent just hits different.
(whoops replied to wrong post)
LMAO was this influenced by people pushing back on the "just gals being pals" trope and being like, "No Gladys they are lovers it's okay to say that"?
Like, yeah. Your great aunt Abigail who was always so bad with money that she and her best friend lived together in a one bedroom apartment for 45 years despite always taking vacations to Vermont and the third largest Greek island to celebrate their favorite poet was almost certainly gay. Maybe. There might be a clue.
But actual literal platonic roommates have existed for a long time. Like, it's relatively recent that people started to practice living exclusively with romantic partners and family.
Yeah, I was just curious about Keilik's world view in particular and how it led to them having this perception. They explained in another response that in their experience people could afford to live alone so it appeared to be a choice to live together (and then assumed it was romantic versus for other benefits like to platonic companionship/safety etc.)
My instinct is to think that housing practices depend so much on social and cultural norms so it seems like this needs some really specific context to be true but then I catch myself realizing I have no idea what you mean about recent so I am in fact a clown for jumping to conclusions about your meaning 😅
To be clear, I was most echoing and agreeing with you, and I just had a sudden mental image of the world's least subtle gal-pal-lesbian that I wanted to put out there.
And yeah, my "recent" is a pretty long horizon. It was in roughly the 1700s that we started to see people living less in arrangements that we would be willing to call "roommates" in the west. Largely driven by factors relating to industrialization making it so people who lived in proximity were less likely to work in proximity, and making it more feasible to sustain and manage redundant living situations. It was still common though, since the financial perks hit unevenly. Increasing urbanization pushed towards denser living, while doing more to move families into private housing. Hence the apartment with 40 steelworkers in bunk beds image, and the apartment next door with a pair of siblings, their spouses and children and maybe a grandparent.
This trend continues across a lot of cultures, although the specific arrangements vary. Industrialization being the turning point. Although the soviets had a more unique twist as a result of picking up entire rural communities and dropping them in low cost buildings. You get a lot of the communal living type arrangements we saw through history but stuck in an oddly modern setting, with maybe two unrelated families, a handful of singles and a few couples all sharing an apartment with one kitchen, a complicated bathroom and a bedroom breakdown roughly what we'd expect now.
One way or another, people throughout history have tended to want to live near family, which included friends, liked having a roof, and usually didn't bother building more cooking tools than they needed. The specific forms have changed, but the social nature of humans is pretty consistent.
I'm old but I've always been broke enough to understand this was a joke?
It really wasn’t though where I used to live, rent was cheap enough people legitimately wondered what was wrong with you if you had a roommate and weren’t in a minimum wage job.
Was not expecting this to be so unpopular but legitimately when I was growing up there were open mic nights and jazz clubs filled with musicians taking turns. People had weird exotic hobbies or fun cars they would drive on the weekend. There were artists and art galleries and little bookstores and microbreweries and hobby shops for anything you could imagine.
Now they have all closed, the jazz clubs bulldozed and paved over for parking lots, and no one does anything but work and be angry.
I remember a time growing up that people were paid enough to actually live and I refuse to let that die
Dude, you're talking about 2010 like it's ancient history, and I've got shirts that old. Everything you're describing still exists, but I'm sorry if your town's fun bar closed.
In 2010 things were already way too expensive, I’m talking like 2000-2005. I’m not saying that stuff doesn’t exist, I’m saying a lot more people used to be able to afford to do things.
In 2000, you were 7 years old and had no clue what anyone was paying for rent, much less how cool was open mic night at the local. Your parents could afford to do things and shielded you from what they cost. Or sitcom families could do things and you're remembering Will & Grace.
I mean, yes: shit's expensive today, but heterosexual people had roommates in 2000, in 1990, 1980, even in 1960. In 1980, it was scandalous to have a roommate of the opposite gender.
I have a special needs sister and my parents were so excited I was “normal” they made me help out and I grew up pretty quick.
I definitely was middle class, I started taking drum lessons early on and actually enrolled at the mason gross school of music at Rutgers when I was 11 and had been playing with jazz combos at those open mic nights since I was 10 or so. When I was 13 I did percussion with my teacher and others for a production of the H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan at a few different theaters in NJ. I auditioned at Juilliard when I was 16 but didn’t get a scholarship and realized I couldn’t make it in music the way I wanted to because I wasn’t good enough.
So I was taught how to budget very early on because there was a chance I was going to need to know how to do it myself, and all of the people I interacted with were in there 30’s and 40’s because I couldn’t relate to the kids in school.
So yea, I knew when shit started getting ridiculously expensive because suddenly everyone I knew was a struggling artist or had to stop and get a “real” job because they couldn’t pay their bills.
I know I work my ass off yet can't afford to do much
Where was this?
In the suburbs in the middle of NJ. There were enough good Union jobs that even without a degree you could make enough money to live pretty comfortably, and the only notable thing about the area was that you could get to NYC or Philadelphia in about an hour and a half or so by train
I don't get who is downvoting this and why. Bunch of homophones.
Yeah, shockingly some things were a lot better.
I think you meant homophobes? Though that doesn't really make any sense either.....
The only time having a roommate implied you were gay is if you were an older person belonging to the gentry who chose to live with someone else if you didn't need to.
It's not like people were looking at tenement housing and saying, oh yeah "that's the big building where we store all the gays".
People have always had roommates, they just aren't typically the class of people represented in fictional stories of the time.
People report facts here and get downvoted.
Because they aren't facts...... Just because you weren't aware of poor people existing before the present era doesn't mean they didn't exist.
What do you think tenement housing is, a gay housing project?
Because it's not a fact lmao. The commenter is only 33. At no point in their life has having roommates meant you were gay. Maybe another 20+ years before them, and if you were a man in your 30s or older with a roommate. But that's because the assumption is generally that if you're living with someone in your 30s, 9 times out of 10 they're your partner. Most people find a long-term partner by then that they live with.
Yes but downvotes counts up to the downvoters iq level. Sometimes they get a hundred but not often.
My way of dealing with comments is to take them at face value, unless it's completely off the rails.
If people want to act shocked at the idea that homophobia actually exists, I can't stop them.
Translation: "Some humans have negative iq"
Some humans have a sense of humor too. :)
Wait, were roommates supposed to be making our beds?