I'm a robotics noob currently building a prototype of a snow sweeping robot (www.frost-e.com) using my own design and I'm encouraged to see similar work coming from real places. Namely:
- Zero shot control using a visual harness and action primitives. I've seen this from a few other places as well (https://tml.stanford.edu/homebody/) and it's essentially having a generalist LLM command a robot via a set of predefined actions. Many robots and many tasks can probably be done with this approach, since not everything needs super intricate 6DoF arms or dexterity
- simulation bring-ups: I have a pipeline that takes in satellite imagery and reconstructs the lots and houses in a 3D environment and snows on it so that my virtual robot can learn to clean. With these latest models, you can probably create a higher fidelity digital twin more directly.
- self-improvement: These models (Argon, Astra, etc) can't operate the robot itself, but would be able to create data to distill into smaller models you can actually utilize.
Assuming that models continue to get 90% more efficient every 18 months, and assuming that hardware continues to get 2x more powerful per watt every 2 years...
Aren't we still like a decade away from an Argon model being able to run on battery power for any reasonable amount of time that would fit on a robot that isn't the size of a school bus?
Add on another couple of years for the speed to get to what it likely needs to be to be generally useful instead of narrowly useful?
I mean - I guess we're maybe 5-7 years away from a reasonably priced robot you could plug into the wall like an old vacuum cleaner (that runs on this type of tech).
I think for 95%+ of applications.. you just need a link to a data center anywhere.
My assumption is the hardware will have one/several smaller models running on it for locomotion, balance, etc.
Then the hardware "phones home" for decision making and planning.
Essentially the planning doesn't need to be close to the device as long as the local models can handle some part of the plan execution and make sure the robot doesn't fall over. The latency shouldn't be an issue. In fact more powerful centralized compute quickly creates an advantage over slower local compute in terms of end to end planning.
> Aren't we still like a decade away from an Argon model being able to run on battery power for any reasonable amount of time that would fit on a robot that isn't the size of a school bus?
Sooner or later, the models will stop improving. After that happens, the best models will be etched into model-specific ASICs with weights fixed in mask ROM (like Taalas is already doing), which will result in massive, at least order of magnitude inference efficiency increase.
I'm naive, but wouldn't industrial applications be enabled by this anyway? You'll have in-house inference hardware that a robot can talk to via local network.
Also, your model probably doesn't need like a lot of its knowledge to control a robot.
That's only bringing up the horizon maybe 1 year. At industrial scale - I guess something like an Amazon warehouse could start to be interesting with a local datacenter IN the warehouse within 2-3 years.
From a cost perspective, I just can't imagine that heavily, heavily specialized models wouldn't crush a general model, though - which Amazon already does.
I'm a robotics noob currently building a prototype of a snow sweeping robot (www.frost-e.com) using my own design and I'm encouraged to see similar work coming from real places. Namely:
- Zero shot control using a visual harness and action primitives. I've seen this from a few other places as well (https://tml.stanford.edu/homebody/) and it's essentially having a generalist LLM command a robot via a set of predefined actions. Many robots and many tasks can probably be done with this approach, since not everything needs super intricate 6DoF arms or dexterity
- simulation bring-ups: I have a pipeline that takes in satellite imagery and reconstructs the lots and houses in a 3D environment and snows on it so that my virtual robot can learn to clean. With these latest models, you can probably create a higher fidelity digital twin more directly.
- self-improvement: These models (Argon, Astra, etc) can't operate the robot itself, but would be able to create data to distill into smaller models you can actually utilize.
Assuming that models continue to get 90% more efficient every 18 months, and assuming that hardware continues to get 2x more powerful per watt every 2 years...
Aren't we still like a decade away from an Argon model being able to run on battery power for any reasonable amount of time that would fit on a robot that isn't the size of a school bus?
Add on another couple of years for the speed to get to what it likely needs to be to be generally useful instead of narrowly useful?
I mean - I guess we're maybe 5-7 years away from a reasonably priced robot you could plug into the wall like an old vacuum cleaner (that runs on this type of tech).
I think for 95%+ of applications.. you just need a link to a data center anywhere.
My assumption is the hardware will have one/several smaller models running on it for locomotion, balance, etc.
Then the hardware "phones home" for decision making and planning.
Essentially the planning doesn't need to be close to the device as long as the local models can handle some part of the plan execution and make sure the robot doesn't fall over. The latency shouldn't be an issue. In fact more powerful centralized compute quickly creates an advantage over slower local compute in terms of end to end planning.
> Aren't we still like a decade away from an Argon model being able to run on battery power for any reasonable amount of time that would fit on a robot that isn't the size of a school bus?
Sooner or later, the models will stop improving. After that happens, the best models will be etched into model-specific ASICs with weights fixed in mask ROM (like Taalas is already doing), which will result in massive, at least order of magnitude inference efficiency increase.
I'm naive, but wouldn't industrial applications be enabled by this anyway? You'll have in-house inference hardware that a robot can talk to via local network.
Also, your model probably doesn't need like a lot of its knowledge to control a robot.
That's only bringing up the horizon maybe 1 year. At industrial scale - I guess something like an Amazon warehouse could start to be interesting with a local datacenter IN the warehouse within 2-3 years.
From a cost perspective, I just can't imagine that heavily, heavily specialized models wouldn't crush a general model, though - which Amazon already does.
And? 5-7 years is nothing at the scale of our modern society and the outcome of what you describe could be enormous.
I don't disagree.
It just seems like jumping the shark a little bit.
It's basically completely unviable for a few years still.
It's viable today via network.
I don't think it's viable in the sense that they are still in a demo stage.
Also, I would assume these models are going to get bigger before they get smaller (but they will get smaller over the long run)
> It's viable today via network.
For a set of tasks that almost no one would use a robot for...