While I agree we'll see millions of bipedal robots, it won't be because they're doing our chores. People will buy them for the same reason I'd want one today: They're fun toys.

It's been 10 years since Boston Dynamics released this impressive video of Atlas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Even though today's robots are vastly more sophisticated, the progress of the last decade shows we shouldn't expect a sudden revolution in their abilities over the next ten years. As is often the case, solving those final few challenges that really make a difference always takes the longest.

That's not a robot problem, that's a toddler problem.

We don't leave our young toddlers to roam freely around the house for a reason. Our homes are full of hazards to these risk-seeking small people and a robot is just one more on the list.

So, staple the toddler onto the kitchen counter, so that the humanoid cooking robot can get free run of the house, got it

Well, if that is how you manage other hazards in the home, then yes.

I would recommend another approach though. We decided for making changes to our home to allow our toddler to be safe in our home environment without being notably constrained.

It most certainly isn't astrology that was on Google's mind when they decided for Gemini.

Made me curious enough to look it up...

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/products/google-gemini...

> 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC

Please don’t repeat this anti-Europe myth. Anyone applying a bit of common sense should realize how improbable that claim is.

It has always been like this.

Plan before you code. Now your plan is just in a prompt.

Calling this a "Protip" is generous.

That the combined element has any surface area that doesn't toggle the radio setting is a straight-up bug.

It is laughable for a component this heavily refined to have such a basic usability flaw.

I'm thinking protip was sarcasm :)

Their point may be about viewing distance.

If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless you physically move closer.

This is an interesting claim.

How many is plenty and what are the sources to back this?

It's basically a failure of setting up the proper response playbook.

Instead of:

1. AI detects gun on surveillance

2. Dispatch armed police to location

It should be:

1. AI detects gun on surveillance

2. Human reviews the pictures and verifies the threat

3. Dispatch armed police to location

I think the latter version is likely what already took place in this incident, and it was actually a human that also mistook a bag of Doritos for a gun. But that version of the story is not as interesting, I guess.

What's the point of saving money if it's a risk to reputation?

Will smith punched a dude on stage, a comedian. I think you are putting a lot on a cage concept with a scatter plot of outliers.

You actually need a reputation of merit for there to be risk. Hes a rapper, not a saint or Ethicist.