Hacker News Reader

That's the point being made. It's transformed robotics research, yes, but it both remains to see whether it will have a truly transformative effect on the field as experienced by people outside academia (I think this is quite probable) and more pointedly when.

I think this is an opinion borne out of weariness with constant promises that amazing robots are right around the corner (as they have been for 20 odd years now). For anyone who is close to the front line, I think the resounding consensus is clear - this time is different, unbelievably different, and capability development is going to accelerate dramatically.

I think it's impossible to spend a lot of time with these models without believing robotics is fundamentally about to transform. Even the most sophisticated versions of robotic logic pre-LLM/VLM feel utterly trivial compared to what even rudimentary applications of these large models can accomplish.

> have transformed robotics

When questioned:

> believing robotics is fundamentally about to transform

These are not even remotely the same thing. Something that has happened already and is verifiable fact is not the same thing as your opinion, even if your opinion is based on a lot of sound arguments and reasoning.

Very tiresome to read so many claims of fact based on opinion of what will happen in the future.

The discussion was about whether robotics was about to transform or not. And obviously it is because of how much basic robotics workloads improve with these models.

Really not that hard.

> have transformed robotics

> about to transform

Apparently even english tenses are too hard, let alone anything else. Bald faced lie, to claim what you think might happen in the future has already happened in the past. No matter "what the discussion was about", or what arguments you bring to support your estimation of the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com