[baq]

> 460× less energy than digital computers

The brain is running on 20W of power and it has the best LLM, the best robotics control unit, very good sensor integration and all the other exciting stuff which we* want** AIs to have. I'd rather have that than nuclear powerplants feeding data centers.

* overreaching a bit

** also not really true for everyone

[p3opl3]

Should we just not grow robots organically then? We have the DNA structure.. why not..

[Aardwolf]

> and it has the best LLM

It takes many years to train it though

[moffkalast]

And it's EoL after about 40 years too.

[bawana]

Not really. Consider private equity’s solution to our doctor shortage. Import foreign trained physicians without requiring additional training. Give them access to an electronic medical record eith AI. Teach them how to click a mouse so they can copy/paste notes.Use digital real time translation to allow anyone to talk to anyone. Have them ‘treat’ 100 patients a day. Pay them next to nothing. When some patient suffers, allow the legal system to crucify the imported ‘doctor’. Deport that one and get the next one.

Now you know why you always see new doctors

[ben_w]

Yes really, human doctors start a medical degree at what, 17 or 18? Then it's a 4-6 year medical school followed by 3-7 years residency depending on your country and education system.

(This is also why LLMs passing medical exams, though impressive, has not rendered the profession obsolete: LLMs are book smart, but don't have the implicit knowledge that we humans only gain from practical experience).

[go_elmo]

Nit: we take 20w of chemical energy not electrical one like computers, way worse efficiency compared to solar panels Id say

[hwillis]

Actually, no! Producing ATP is ~30% efficient, which is much better than premium consumer solar panels. And while that heat is technically waste, even if it was more efficient we would still generate heat other ways just to keep warm.

What's even more shocking is that conversion of food to energy period is ~90% efficient, which is crazy to me. The fact that you can burn food and measure the energy given off, and that's very close to how much energy you get from eating it- that's insane.

The efficiency of the human body is all over the place. Muscles are only ~30% efficient, and the rest is waste heat... but humans walk using orders of magnitude less power than any walking robot. As far as I know we have never made a powered walking machine that is 10% as efficient as a person. The only way we can beat it is with a carefully balanced, specially-lubricated pair of legs that is leaned downhill on a treadmill and powered by gravity.

[Workaccount2]

To be fair, our food to energy conversion is so efficient because the foods we eat are already in a very energy ready state. Our bodies don't bother with stuff that is harder to convert.

[hwillis]

true, but recycling proteins is also pretty amazing. These are the most complex machines we know of, elegant atomic factories that do the seemingly impossible... and you dip them in acid and then you can pop them apart like a string of beads, to be reassembled into a totally new molecular miracle.

[bgnn]

What's also insane is the mitochondria are evolved from proteobacteria.

[fragmede]

I'd wait until walking robots are commonplace before discounting our ability to make an efficient one. I don't think I've seen one in person yet.

[hwillis]

I wouldn't. We have been trying[1]; humans are genuinely shocking in this way. Mechanical systems should have so many advantages over humans; springs are 10x better than tendons, motors are 3x better than muscles. It's possible humans evolved walking as a predatory tactic. Even if we develop a super-efficient walking robot, humans are efficient at several speeds, and keep that efficiency while varying their stride and foot placement, and with one of the largest most complex brains of any animal. And the ratio of leg/torso length is pretty variable among humans! Not to mention the flexible spine and swinging hips should be a huge energy sap, but they just kind of... aren't.

Beating human locomotion in the general case is pretty far off. It's a combination of body plan, extreme optimization of joints and energy storage, and really good algorithms.

One killer feature of the human body is synovial fluid. It's very thin, non-newtonian, self-replenishing and contained in particularly low-friction bearing surfaces. It's certainly better than 99.9% of mechanical joints, because these surfaces filter, heal and re-lubricate themselves. Mechanical joints have sticky grease so they stay lubricated without maintenance, and work in the presence of water and grit. It's doubtful that any joint that doesn't heal itself can compete, long-term.

[1]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-humanoid...

[fragmede]

A very select group has tried for not very long, but I think the most gains in efficiency are going to come from giving bipedal robots rollerblades.

[hwillis]

Absolutely correct, evolution will never ever beat a 10 cent ABEC-7 bearing. Skateboards really changed manufacturing by making a specific size of wildly precise bearing incredibly cheap. One day a robot will be able to step directly onto ice skates, but meanwhile I'm looking forward to the blooper reel because it's gonna be funny as hell

[marcosdumay]

As long as they have decent brakes... Because stairs and obstacles exist, and getting over them beats overall efficiency almost every time.

[raverbashing]

That's why the most efficient use of Superman would be to turn a giant crank generating energy

[pfdietz]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305

[im3w1l]

Our current society converts chemical energy to electrical, not the other way round. So its the electrical energy user that needs a lossy conversion step.

[tlb]

Fossil fuel plants are chemical -> heat -> mechanical -> electrical. The heat -> mechanical step is the inefficient one, sadly limited to ~40% efficiency even with very fancy machinery. Most other conversions can be above 90% efficient.

[pfdietz]

The efficiency of gas-fired combined cycle power plants can exceed 60% (lower heating value). And their capex is just over $1/W. Combustion turbines are amazing.

With a SOFC topping cycle they might approach 70-80% efficiency. SOFC with just a combustion turbine (no steam bottoming) could exceed 60%. Granted, SOFCs are direct chemical->electrical conversion, but their waste heat is very usefully hot.

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that nuclear power plants in the US stopped being built about the same time combustion turbines (by themselves, without the steam bottoming cycle) reached efficiency parity with high temperature steam turbines.

(SOFC = solid oxide fuel cell, which operate around 1000 C.)

("Lower heating value" is based on energy that could be obtained burning natural gas to CO2 and water vapor. An additional 10% could be obtained by condensing the water vapor to liquid, this is "higher heating value".)