Toggle light / dark theme

Humanoid robots are one of those ideas that never truly goes out of style — it does, however, tend to ebb and flow across the decades. Whatever you happen to think about the project or the company that built it, Tesla’s Optimus prototype has revived the conversation around the form factor and efficacy and viability of general-purpose robots. Boston Dynamics founder Marc Raibert told me in an interview this week, “I thought that they’d gotten a lot more done than I expected, and they still have a long way to go.”

It’s also reopened the debate. When I spoke to Playground Global partner Peter Barrett last week, he was quick to point out that our bodies aren’t exactly the hallmark of efficiency or product design, even if they made us sufficiently capable of outsmarting or out-running a wooly mammoth back in the day. The flip side of that conversation certainly makes sense however: We built our environment with us in mind, so it follows that we’d make robots in our image to perform our jobs.

Figure, which comes out of stealth this week, is very much in the second camp. Back in September, we broke the news of the startup’s existence. Founded by Archer co-founder Brett Adcock (who has also funded the company to the tune of $100 million), the startup is spending lot of time and money to build a general-purpose bipedal humanoid robot. It’s not an easy dream in any respect, of course. That no one has yet managed to crack the code certainly isn’t for lack of trying.

‘Losing jobs to ChatGPT will never happen. The human mind is the most flexible instrument — so what you should do is, use ChatGPT as the base and then show your creativity!’ says Infosys Founder NR Narayana Murthy on whether ChatGPT is likely to take away coders’ jobs. Speaking to the press on the sidelines of the Nasscom Technology and Leadership Forum, Narayan Murthy said, “In 1977–78 there was a thing called program generators. Everybody said the youngsters will lose all jobs, it didn’t happen… The human mind is the most flexible instrument. It can adapt very well. And all that happened was people start solving bigger and bigger problems, which these program generators could not handle.” Murthy said that ChatGPT is good and one should welcome it…

———————-
Thank You for watching! Do not forget to Like | Comment | Share.
———————-
About the channel.
Watch us for the best news and views on business, stock markets, crypto currencies, consumer technology, the world of real estate, bullion, automobiles, start-ups and unicorns and personal finance. Business Today TV will also bring you all you need to know about mutual funds, insurance, loans and pension plans among others.
Follow us at:
Website: https://www.businesstoday.in.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BusinessToday.
twitter: https://twitter.com/business_today.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/business_today/

Costing tens of thousands of dollars, these robots were clearing tables and keeping cafeterias clean.

If human workers have been complaining about robots taking over their jobs, the macroeconomic situation has now put robots out of work.

Over a hundred robots at Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have allegedly been fired after the team maintaining them was shut down, Wired reported.


After a dip in advertisement revenues last year, Google’s Alphabet is preparing for the worse by firing expensive robots. Over a hundred robots have already been fired after the team maintaining them was shut down.

Nice. But I’m more concerned about the jobs that will be lost from this.


#Zoox #youtube #ai #yahoofinance.
This segment originally aired on February 17, 2023.
Zoox CEO Aicha Evans joins Yahoo Finance Live anchors Dave Briggs and Seana Smith to discuss approval of its self-driving auto by the California DMV, the state of the autonomous vehicle industry, and Amazon’s ownership of the company.
Don’t Miss: Valley of Hype: The culture that built Elizabeth Holmes.
WATCH HERE:

About Yahoo Finance:

A second problem is the risk of technological job loss. This is not a new worry; people have been complaining about it since the loom, and the arguments surrounding it have become stylized: critics are Luddites who hate progress. Whither the chandlers, the lamplighters, the hansom cabbies? When technology closes one door, it opens another, and the flow of human energy and talent is simply redirected. As Joseph Schumpeter famously said, it is all just part of the creative destruction of capitalism. Even the looming prospect of self-driving trucks putting 3.5 million US truck drivers out of a job is business as usual. Unemployed truckers can just learn to code instead, right?

Those familiar replies make sense only if there are always things left for people to do, jobs that can’t be automated or done by computers. Now AI is coming for the knowledge economy as well, and the domain of humans-only jobs is dwindling absolutely, not merely morphing into something new. The truckers can learn to code, and when AI takes that over, coders can… do something or other. On the other hand, while technological unemployment may be long-term, its problematicity might be short-term. If our AI future is genuinely as unpredictable and as revolutionary as I suspect, then even the sort of economic system we will have in that future is unknown.

A third problem is the threat of student dishonesty. During a conversation about GPT-3, a math professor told me “welcome to my world.” Mathematicians have long fought a losing battle against tools like Photomath, which allows students to snap a photo of their homework and then instantly solves it for them, showing all the needed steps. Now AI has come for the humanities and indeed for everyone. I have seen many university faculty insist that AI surely could not respond to their hyper-specific writing prompts, or assert that at best an AI could only write a barely passing paper, or appeal to this or that software that claims to spot AI products. Other researchers are trying to develop encrypted watermarks to identify AI output. All of this desperate optimism smacks of nothing more than the first stage of grief: denial.

Architects urgently need to get to grips with the existential threat posed by AI or risk, in ChatGPT’s words, “sleepwalking into oblivion”, writes Neil Leach.

In the near future, architects may become a thing of the past. Artificial intelligence (AI) is quickly advancing to a point where it can generate the design of a building completely autonomously. With the potential to create designs faster and with more accuracy than ever before, AI has the potential to revolutionize the architecture industry, leaving traditional architects out of the equation. This could spell the end of the profession as we know it, raising questions of what the future holds for architects in a world of AI-generated buildings.

I did not write the paragraph above. It was generated by ChatGPT, a highly impressive AI text generator that recently launched. Make no mistake: despite its innocuous-sounding name, ChatGPT is no simple chat bot. It is based on GPT3, a massive Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) that uses Deep Learning to produce human-like text from user-inputted prompts.

ChatGPT has passed the gold-standard exam required to practice medicine in the US — amid rising concerns AI could put white-collar workers out of jobs.

The artificial intelligence program scored between 52.4 and 75 percent across the three-part Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). Each year’s passing threshold is around 60 percent.

Researchers from tech company AnsibleHealth who did the study said: ‘Reaching the passing score for this notoriously difficult expert exam, and doing so without any human reinforcement, marks a notable milestone in clinical AI maturation.’