[Aozi]

>"How many PhD's does it take to do <generic task>?" So now instead of one untrained person doing the dishes, you have 5 PhD students hovering around a robot as it spends 8 hours poorly cleaning one.

Yeah, and then it spends 8 hours cleaning another, and soon it'll be spending 5 hours cleaning two, 2 hours cleaning a dozen, and it'll keep going down, and those 5 PhD's will keep improving the robot, more and more. And it doesn't even need to be faster than us, because that one robot can keep washing dishes 24/7, with no rest and no pay.

And eventually it'll catch up to us in speed and precision, and it'll keep getting better and surpass us.

And then, once you have a single good robot. You can simply replicate it, again and again, mass producing thousands of them and they will all keep working 24/7 with no rest and no pay.

Yeah, we're not there yet for most jobs, but we're getting there. It's gonna take a while but it will without a doubt happen

[noonespecial]

It will then no longer be referred to as a "robot" or "AI", will look nothing at all like how it started (probably just a big box), and people will call it "the dishwasher" as they wonder why AI and Robots are always 10 years away.

[quaquaqua1]

Yes, but at a certain point you will have automated away most of the labor that needs doing.

[OnlineGladiator]

> It's gonna take a while but it will without a doubt happen

Vehemently disagree. The assumption that technology will continue to improve to be useful for everything is inherently flawed. We don't know what the hard limits are yet, but nobody understood the limitations of the Carnot cycle for energy efficiencies once upon a time (the ICE will get better and better until no efficiency is lost) or limitations of transmission lines (until transmission line theory was established that dictates 50% is the best theoretical outcome, people thought you could approach 100%). We'll discover some algorithms will never be O(n) but the best theoretical solution is O(n^2).

I don't know where the barriers are or what they are, but it's naïve to assume not only that we will solve everything, but even that it's theoretically possible that we can solve everything.

The obvious generic barrier right now for robotics is AI, but that's a complex subject and could mean many different things to many different people.