No, they won't lower over time and those bearings and motors and reductions are extremely expensive for a reason. They are difficult to make.

>I also really doubt DHL just bought the robot arms with it just being a money sink, they wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would save them money.

It's probably not about saving money as much as it is about throughput. The engineers they'll have to bring on to maintain them, plus the cost in parts and power is going to cost more. Their hope is that they can take on more contracts because of this.

You ever see the difference between the male Orangutans of Sumatra vs. Borneo? Where food is abundant and the males do not fight, makes tend not to develop the massive face. Where food is scarce and males live solidarity and in competition, they tend to all develop the large leathery cheeks. Scientists claim not to know how it works, but I'm sure it is related to what we see here. Stressing a male body must cause a feedback loop of hormones that strengthens it, even to the point of physical transformation.

Boys become Men through physical and emotional trials. Weak boys become incels and liberals without trials. Weak life, Weak man. Let's see how many boys are triggered by this fact.

How will the cultural, religious and political differences be reconciled though?

A double whammy for the climate crisis, lower emissions and more cancer therefore fewer people!

/s

30 day bumper to bumper

Our innate drive to punish violators of norms, including fairness, is unfortunately undone by the tendency that far too many have toward pursuing a maxi-max strategy.

>The benefits are also that the robot works for no benefits, doesn't take sick days, doesn't complain, it doesn't take workers comp if an accident happens, it isn't late, ... you now have workers that will walk over and charge themselves and work in shifts nonstop reliably.

I can tell you've never worked with one. The ABB's that I've worked with were some of the most moody machines I've ever worked with. One of them was nice to me, kinda. One of them kept trying to take itself out with a plasma torch. That same one kept making direct attempts on my colleague's life. It requires engineers or machinists to train the robots right now. The code is quite annoying to work with but it's not the worst thing I've ever used I guess. The prices on these precision arms will remain pretty high, because the parts used to build them have already dropped in price decades ago. The robot dog, probably won't be going down in price soon and, being limited to a 90 minute runtime, isn't the most useful thing. You should take a look at the cost of the addons like cameras and arms and such. The prices are absurd and maintaining them is awful. You can find other machines that are more reasonably priced. But you get what you pay for.

Ah so it's just like leaded fuel then (still used in propeller planes), they know it's toxic and they'll still make and use it

This is that scene from Wayne's World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs

Don’t even need to carry firearms at all when you can just carry a syringe with a poison payload.

>This leaves precious few new members in the trades needed to fix our cities, bridges and railroads.

This sounds like a compensation problem. The reason they don't go into those trades is the compensation packages just aren't as good as the alternative. Everyone will agree with you until you mention raising taxes or ending suburban and rural subsidies, then all of a sudden everyone is unanimous, we can do without those things as long as it keeps our tax bill down.

Here’s our new biofuel to replace oil — it’s made of discarded oil products. 🫠

The following submission statement was provided by /u/rherbom2k:

The article explores the significance of integrating causality into machine learning algorithms and how it could impact different fields, including medicine, robotics, and natural language processing. By enabling machines to comprehend cause and effect, they would be better equipped to make informed decisions, learn more effectively, and adapt to changing situations. In medicine, for instance, integrating causality could aid in discovering new and improved treatments for ailments, creating new diagnostic tools, and personalizing treatment for patients. Additionally, integrating causality into robots could enhance their ability to navigate their surroundings, while in natural language processing, it could ensure that algorithms generate coherent and factually accurate text. With the continued advancement of causal inference, the potential applications of this technology are extensive and diverse. By providing machines with a comprehension of causality, researchers could unlock new prospects for artificial intelligence, resulting in a future where machines are more capable and versatile than ever before.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11djqxa/why_artificial_intelligence_needs_to_understand/ja912p3/

AI is software, doing math, adding and multiplying really fast, that's it, it's just numbers

Experts?

More likely clueless pundits and academics with no practical experience

What could possibly go wrong when the AI gets aggressive and just shoots you in the face? I thought robot dogs mounted with machine guns were bad. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

I don't think we will be looking at heavy machinery (prohibitive cost of getting it up the gravity well) or many current technologies. It is also unlikely to have a huge manpower component.

More likely we will establish a small research station on the moon, with a great deal of automated manufacture (think 3D printing) using lunar materials.

Some of the mining we do will be excavation for underground habitation purposes. This activity will probably where we learn more about manipulating and processing lunar materials.

SO far, "we don't know what we don't know".

We have so much to learn, and will really only begin to figure stuff out when we get there and begin a lunar habitation.

Only reason I work a demanding physical job is it pays well and nobody else would hire me.

[removed]

EDIT: I wanted to have that I’m enjoying your responses and I hope I’m not coming off as combative. It’s nice to have a good interaction on Reddit and this is the best of my day so far. :)

I agree that good policy is good for all in the long term. Hope we get there.

If you look at the industrial revolution in Britain in isolation, then it is an arc upwards. If you look at the British empire, it’s not quite so rosy.

The destruction of the Indian textile industry was essential to the success of Britain’s domestic wonder. Since it wasn’t an area I had directly studied in school, up until recently I assumed that it was mostly the consequence of Britain being a first mover, and overwhelming the inefficient, unfortunate textile producers in India, and other places. After reading a few histories of the British east India company, it became pretty clear that the British monopoly on textiles was not a matter of efficiency. It was imposed by tariffs, laws restricting, the importation of machinery, and at least three spectacular instances by force of arms and the destruction of property.

Real income and GDP in India took a severe hit from Britain’s Industrial Revolution, and continued to be suppressed to provide a market for British finished goods output. India is still recovering.

Again, this is not a necessary outcome of technology. I’m bringing this up to note that the external costs of past revolutions, especially the global winds, have to be looked at globally. It’s very dangerous to look justify the people who benefit. And in this case, even the working class people in the UK benefited. Yes, the arc went up. But it didn’t go out for everybody, at least not for a few centuries.

But it is unfortunately a common and likely outcome of our current system, where productivity games are assigned, almost exclusively to the owners, and, that group has a tremendous amount of leverage when it comes to creating laws and steering government spending.

The whole article and it doesn't bother to mention which chemicals they are talking about?

Kuratas with real guns and ai targeting.

You might be weighting unevenly important ethical questions as falsely equivalent.

Sure, the trolly problem is a great way to emphasize a certain framework, but it's an outlier in practice, as it's useful for certain designs like safety devices or predictive measures.

However the baseline of behaviour regulation around basic legal frameworks is perhaps less sensitive to these variables and more easily fit into a roughly acceptable set of global standards and norms.

An example might be child sexual abuse proscriptions. It doesn't really matter much if your culture is authoritarian about family relations, that's a line we can likely agree should never be crossed.

That was a wonderful thing to read here.

>Because you would need so little Helium-3 to produce so much energy with fusion – theoretically, 200 tonnes could provide a year’s worth of global energy needs – there’s a compelling business case for mining it on the moon and bringing it back to use on Earth. Each tonne would be worth billions of dollars.

>Space mining is indeed the stuff of science non-fiction. It is strategic and necessary, and whoever figures out how to do it first will be rewarded. With the proper supports and policies, that could be Canada, and Canadian companies. It is ours to win, a generational opportunity for Canada and its citizens that would benefit life all around our planet.

If we get to the place of He3 fusion as commercially viable, it would be great to see Lunar mining become viable.