Vishal_Max
We are not the best creatures at performing every possible job, yet we are so interested in building humanoid robots. Instead, we could build specialized robots for each job and create ways for them to integrate seamlessly into an ecosystem that includes humans and other robots.
A cooking robot, for example, doesn't necessarily need to look humanoid. It could be a completely autonomous kitchen with no hands at all, while another robot could have some kind of interface or mechanism that allows it to integrate with and interact with the kitchen.
I appreciate that the site also shows examples of this approach. But even then, we keep building humanoid robots because, deep down, they feel more alive. Seeing something that looks like a person working gives us a strange sense of joy and satisfaction.
Funny how much of robotics is driven not just by what is practical, but by what feels alive to us.
Just a thought experiment for you guys: imagine a bacteria that survives inside humans. It doesn't even know what a human is. For the bacteria, its entire world is simply the environment in which it lives. It doesn't know that we are living beings actively trying to maintain ourselves and survive.
Now, suppose a harmful bacteria enters our body, makes us sick, and we take medicine that kills all of them. From the bacteria's perspective, it could look like a natural disaster or some unexplained event in which they all suddenly get wiped out. They have no idea that a living being called a human actively tried to eliminate them using something called medicine, which was engineered specifically to kill them.
Similarly, what if our world, or nature itself, is part of some higher-level entity that we simply exist within? What if the reason for our deaths, natural calamities, and other events is something completely beyond our perception? Whatever we do, we may never be able to understand what is actually happening at that level, just as bacteria may never be able to understand that humans exist.
One thing that could potentially support this idea is self-regulation. We see self-regulating systems throughout nature, and these patterns seem to repeat at different scales. We ourselves are self-regulating organisms, and nature also has countless cycles and mechanisms that regulate themselves.
Maybe these patterns continue at scales we cannot perceive. We can observe certain things at the scale of humans, but we still don't fully understand what happens at the nano scale or on the scale of the universe. Perhaps there are higher levels of organization and self-regulation that we simply don't have the ability to perceive yet.
There are so many things happening around us, and one of the biggest things that separates people is knowledge. A non-technical person who puts in the effort to learn technology becomes a technical person. The only way to become good at something is to actually do it and practice.
Someone who still doesn't know what AI is also doesn't know what is possible in the world today. My mom is a good example. She comes up with a lot of ideas and tells me about them on calls. Recently I told her, "Just tell ChatGPT. It can probably build a lot of what you need." But even that sentence isn't enough for her to understand what I mean, because she doesn't yet have a mental model of what AI can actually do. She simply isn't aware of its capabilities.
I'm going home in a few days and will be staying with her for a couple of weeks. I'm actually going to try an experiment: teach her some of these tools and see what happens. Can someone with essentially no technical background learn to use AI effectively and actually build something meaningful within a few weeks?
She already has a good job and doesn't really need to become technical, so there is no practical necessity for her to do this. But I think it would be a fascinating experiment.
I'm not blaming people for the circumstances they're in or saying their suffering isn't real. I'm questioning the environment that teaches people what to do when they reach that point. Different people go through incredibly difficult situations and develop different ways of coping. My point is that ending your life shouldn't be one of those ways.
If someone is so exhausted that they feel they can't continue, the answer should be to help them, change their circumstances where possible, and help them find another way through it. Otherwise, what is the point of helping someone who is suicidal in the first place?
The goal isn't to force people to keep suffering. The goal is to help them stop suffering without ending their life.
For most of us, that escape mechanism can be something else instead of taking such a drastic decision. If we can make sure people don’t grow up believing that suicide is even a way to cope with what has happened to them, we could significantly reduce the number of suicides.
We only have one life. There’s no respawn. This world has so much to offer, and once we’re gone, we won’t get to experience any of the good things that are still ahead of us.
So why not keep going?
At least, hopefully, this rule helps future generations. People’s brains are so addicted that they can’t even focus for 10 minutes straight. On top of that, I see moms giving their toddlers mobile phones while they eat or whenever they need to get something done. People should really start considering how social media affects us in the long term.
Lately, I’ve been trying to design some websites completely using AI as side projects, and all I’ve gotten is disappointment at how AI-ish the websites can look and how easily people get repelled just by seeing them.