The mathematics research results are certainly impressive, but I don't see what that has to do with robotics.

Waymo is getting somewhere, but it's been a long slog. There doesn't seem to be much progress on, say, package delivery.

For more, see:

https://secondthoughts.ai/p/14-reasons-robotics-is-hard

▲

rurban 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Didn't you follow the robotics advances in the Ukrainian - Russian battlefield? There is now a death zone of 50km, only controlled by drones and automatic weapons.

▲

rcxdude an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The drones are obviously very important but they only work in the context of everything else on and around the battlefield, especially people. You aren't holding the line with drones alone, and on the whole they are not autonomous.

▲

rurban 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

They are holding the lines with drones alone nowadays. That's why it's called the deathzone, no humans survive. Some drones have FPV operators, some weapons use AI only already.

	▲	rcxdude 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think that's accurate. What I've seen described is actually a surprisingly porous line: The Russians are often behind the Ukrainians and vice-versa, but it doesn't result in a break due to the transparency of the battlefield and the risk of getting killed if spotted, as well as the improvements in getting supplies to units behind 'enemy lines'. Drones shape this a lot but there's still a lot of people on the battlefield.

▲

kakacik 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> There is now a death zone of 50km, only controlled by drones and automatic weapons.

If there would be such 50km death zone, front line would not move a nanometer in a year, would it. You yourself contradict above in your next post. No need for being too dramatic, facts are enough here.

In reality, frontline is moving constantly albeit by small chunks, russians are advancing a bit, getting beating elsewhere and so on. Automated drones are helping, but bulk of destruction is still handled by human drone operators as it should be.

▲

frrt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s because being 99.9999% good isn’t better than 98% + human does the rest + human is liable for screw ups - highly important in edge case scenario’s. It’s more economical. Technology can only generalise+verify so much.

E.g automobile production - humans do the QA / touches.