The (unspoken?) goal is to do my laundry - and all the other domestic tasks, because that’s where human satisfaction can be unleashed
Give me a moment
1. All economics / markers of value are about human happiness / satisfaction - we claim it’s money but it’s only given a value by humans who want it.
2. As soon as people get rich enough they outsource their domestic tasks - hire a maid or a cook, or buy ready meals.
3. In the western world companies over past fifty years got a free boost as women joined the labour force, and essentially companies were paying one guy the cost of a household now they pay two people the cost of household getting twice the workers for same price.
4. So most households have lost 35 hours a week, and also still have same amount of domestic duties to do
5. As we can’t give everyone a maid we might be able to give everyone a robot maid.
6. Most innovations / technologies find their way into homes - from bricks to heating to electricity we invent it and eventually find a way to make our lives more comfortable - see the point about economics is just humans liking stuff
7. I assumed that real robo maids would be a social shift - ie a different design of washing machine, people eating at other peoples houses every day, anti-dust surfaces. But this one looks … interesting
8. I know this is incredibly western middle class centric - but exactly what else are 6 billon people aiming for?
Where did the economies get a boost when women joined the labor force? In Germany the post-war economic miracle happened mostly without them.
In the beginning of the 1970s, when women did join the labor force in greater numbers, admittedly the macroeconomic conditions were bad (oil crisis), so it is hard to filter that out.
But still, mostly we have more workers, which lowers wages and leads to the creation of more bullshit jobs. To be clear, also men create and perform bullshit jobs!
Now it takes two salaries to finance a house and a family. Great progress.
At the supermarket, I boycott automated self-checkouts even if the lines are long so the nice cashiers keep their jobs.
The underlying real goal is to have sex with the robots, just as the internet was going to be the gateway to all known information but instead is for porn.
>3. In the western world companies over past fifty years got a free boost as women joined the labour force, and essentially companies were paying one guy the cost of a household now they pay two people the cost of household getting twice the workers for same price.
If demand for work is fixed, then doubling the supply of work (male + female from the same household) would in principle decrease wages (not necessarily by half). However, the supply need not be fixed. This is what I like to call the "musical chairs theory of employment". Let's say there are 2x more working age people in 2024 than in 1954, does it mean each person earns less? When immigrants come to a country, does it mean that each immigrant causes a native to become unemployed?
The evidence tells us that's not true and that there are other changes in the economy that also increase the demand for work. Check the literature of immigration effects (even major short term shocks) on unemployment and wages to see a pretty clear picture. I'm not aware of a study of what more female employment has done (my guess is that it's much more difficult to study, because it's a phenomenon that has slowly happened over decades. As an aside, this has happened in plenty of places around the world, no need to restrict yourself to the western world. Plenty of other places are relevant)
These Physical Intelligence guys are very talented, but they will never raise enough money to achieve their goals. Their problem is saying it costs $30m to develop such a technology, when it will cost at least $1b, and probably closer to $5b.
For factories and closed environments, stuff is getting good fast, but for the rest of the "real world", no robot or AI is practical without human supervision. I automate physical things for a living and have thus become convinced.
The first thing that robot will do is start a dryer that a toddler climbed into because it isn't that aware of the world around it.
And that will be the end of general purpose domestic robots.
That or knocking over candles or fucking up something else simultaneously trivial and terribly dangerous in context.
I dream the same dream of a general purpose machine, but I think it may never be possible, and if it is we're a long way out.
I recall reading many comments on HN confidently predicting that the moment a self-driving car caused an accident that killed someone, that would be the end of self-driving cars. But while they have caused accidents, and there has been resulting lawsuits and investigations by regulators, it hasn't put an end to them. And with the incoming US administration, I'm expecting far less legal and regulatory barriers to greater use of robots and automation.
How about at first if we put camera on it and then someone from overseas checks around before performoning the task? for cheap but it can make it secure.
I agree. So far I haven't seen production-ready robots doing even relatively simple agricultural tasks, such as picking tomatoes in a greenhouse and taking care of the plants. It's all done by cheap foreign labour. If that's too hard to automate, I'm not yet holding my breath for general purpose household robots either.
Admittedly the videos in this article do seem promising though, would love to see how this tech would perform in a greenhouse.
The hard problem for a laundry robot is not folding the clothes, it's getting into the laundry room.
Living in European city, space is a hard constraint. The cost of rent is 30€ per square meter per month in Paris.
Laundry rooms are small. This robot is too wide and won't be able to go through the door of my laundry room. Ironing boards are foldable for a reason : they need to be setup every time. This robot can't do it, and also can't handle the softener bottle for the washing machine.
Having 1 square meter empty table (0.5 for the table and 0.5 accessible space for the robot doing the folding) dedicated to folding is a pipe dream for most. Laundromats are there because some don't have enough space to even have a washing machine.
Laundry room are a dedicated space for humidity and ventilation reason, so they have been designed on specific location on house plans probably more than 30 years ago on average, not having in mind robot accessibility, but rather be as small as functionally possible.
Quite often for people not living in flats, but in houses, the laundry room is located in the basement with only stair or single step access.
I don't think architect and construction accessibility norm will change fast enough, specially with bipedal robots right around the corner.
The slack necessary for home robotics emergence has already been eaten multiple time due to the high cost of space.
If you scroll down, this is a general-purpose robot. It can drive around and bus the table or fold a cardboard box.
I'm not sure it can't handle the softener, and V2 will likely be able to set up the ironing board.
In terms of size, even now, it's smaller than a fridge, washing machine, dishwasher, or many other household time-saving appliances common in most houses (although not necessarily historic cities with multi-century homes not designed for them). No effort has gone into shrinking it either; perhaps with clever engineering, it can be made much smaller if it moves out of the research prototype phase.
Another question, to me, is cost. Many robots like this run around $100k, and with good reason. Can this be brought down? I hope so.
Laundromats are kind of a drag since you have to hang around nearby for almost 2 hours to do the 5 minutes of labor that the machines don't do for you. Dropping off a sack of clothes for wash & fold on the other hand is a pricey luxury. Perhaps if the laundromats could automate the whole process it would bring down the price of wash and fold and fewer people would be inclined to have washing machine at home (as you say, taking up space for a machine that is used a couple hours a week)
Alternatively you can simply attach the laundromat to a cafe or bar, turning a chore into an opportunity to relax and socialize but most of the world is not prepared for that degree of civilization.
Why would you think a laundry robot is something people who can't afford comfortable apartment with their own washing machine might use?
I think this might be eventually integrated with washing machine so that you buy one device where you put your dirty clothes in and take out clean and folded. It's not like the traditional washing machine is the expensive part that needs to be kept separate and in current form.
> The cost of rent is 30€ per square meter per month in Paris.
Only for big enough apartments. 20m² appartements do not go for under 850€, ie around 42€/m². Granted these flats are too small to even have a laundry machine, let alone a laundry folding robot.
Get it a bit better in term of precision and we have a killer lab automation tool. Labs around the world would be willing to pay 1M for a robot that can handle manual lab works and it is not like they are very difficult. Lots of labwork is based on established protocols with well defined steps. A robot that can grab things and go to town on those tubes without any programming needed is a blockbuster product to me.
Agreed, my girlfriend has a biochemistry degree and works in such a lab. It involves some physical work like collecting, preparing and inputting samples, doing basic maintenance of the machines, some analysis and then some administrative/secretarial work in feeding the results into a system or by phonecall to the doctor.
All of which can indeed be automated in my view.
I would say it really depends on where you are though. In the US it probably makes sense quite quickly. But she lives in a small EU country where salaries aren't high, and this is very much a junior position with a lot of students looking for such a job. Her position costs about 25k a year.
The NPV of a $1m investment with a 25k cashflow is negative at normal discount rates. Once you get to replace a $120k salary with a $1m robot, it does make sense.
Further I do still expect there to be some jobs in overseeing the robot (e.g. your average factory manager). That makes sense for large centralised production locations, because you can have 1 human job overseeing many robots. It doesn't necessarily make sense with many small decentralised production locations. And that's the nature of most labs, I believe due to the time sensitivity of a lot of lab work they need to be everywhere and close to customers. But maybe that will change.
Don't expect much. Even screwing a nut on a bolt is a huge problem for generic robot. Which means you will need a 'robot friendly' lab. Were all things can be done by a primitive robotic hand. Other options are making more capable hands, and completely robotic specialized labs. The first is most interesting and the way to go. When it happens it will open a lot of possibilities. Like "self-repairing" vehicles and planet stations. Just with 'technician' robot onboard.
This lab automation product already exists and the couple of startups in this space face the same headwinds as everyone else trying to sell hardware when the stuff people are essentially really paying for is software.
Also nobody’s academic lab is buying $1m startup lab equipment. A whole core for 30 research groups is buying something, but it will be a piece of equipment that directly leads to publishing, ie, something with history. That is why you don’t have the exact thing you are talking about, which exists, in labs.
Also worth mentioning that a lot of stuff in chemistry labs is toxic and even potentially deadly to humans, it would be a big win if these could be handled by robots instead.
I like that their robot is pretty simple comparing to humanoid robots so cost should be much lower. I don't get it why focusing on clothes folding though, does anyone do laundry more often than once a week? Much more useful if it can do cooking since that's something you do at least once every day.
Instead I would like to see some new innovation in laundry machines. Current technology is very basic, you heat water and keep spinning. Why not some something more similar to bigger paper printer that at the end of the day you feed your 1 shirt, roll it into a roller, sprinkle with some high pressure minimal amount of water, heating and return 30min later already perfectly ironed.
Laundry is kind of the perfect demo for advanced motion planning systems. Fabric is, for all intents and purposes, completely intractable in classic motion planning paradigms; it's wildly non-rigid, which means that predicting its behavior is the domain of highly specialized and expensive dynamics simulators, it's nearly impossible to invert the problem to ask what motions would be required to produce a given result, and it's highly continuous and resistant to discretization even if you can predict it. You can't make the "folds have zero width" assumption you always see when reasoning about origami, for example. Clothing is extreme even for fabric, given that it's not only highly non-uniform but also fragile; every shirt is a different hideous bit of floppy topology covered in strange textures with complex and unpredictable local properties and it'll start popping stitches if you look at it funny. Ruffles, zippers, pockets, drawstrings, the list goes on. On top of that, laundry is something that everyone does so it's relatable and easy to set up in a lab, and humans can intuitively evaluate performance with a glance. Despite all the attention, nobody's been able to demonstrate convincing performance on it in like seventy years of work, which makes it a more difficult task than backflips or shooting hoops or loading a truck. All of that together means that, when you have a fancy new algorithm that can handle more than some blocks on a tabletop, you pretty much always point it at the laundry.
> I don't get it why focusing on clothes folding though, does anyone do laundry more often than once a week?
Folding laundry is not the end goal here. They chose it because it’s a very challenging thing for a robot to do, requiring great manual dexterity, planning, reacting to sensory inputs etc. In other words: if your robot can do your laundry it can probably be taught to do pretty much anything else around the house.
> does anyone do laundry more often than once a week?
Once you have a nonzero amount of kids, laundry becomes a continuous process will no defined start and end.
> Much more useful if it can do cooking since that's something you do at least once every day.
Thing is, cooking is something a lot of people find deeply rewarding and humanizing (I don't, but I realize I'm an outlier here). Meanwhile, I challenge you to find anyone who thinks doing laundry is a worthwhile use of their limited time on Earth.
> I don't get it why focusing on clothes folding though, does anyone do laundry more often than once a week? Much more useful if it can do cooking since that's something you do at least once every day.
Lots of people do 3-4 loads per week. Some people don't cook at home at all. There are 8 billion people out there.
> I don't get it why focusing on clothes folding though, does anyone do laundry more often than once a week? Much more useful if it can do cooking since that's something you do at least once every day.
Because the people on the Axiom are going to need clean jumpsuits?
Seriously, laundry folding is an example of a complex task that requires considerable dexterity and sophisticated object manipulation on the robot's part, but unlike cooking it's relatively low stakes: little harm is likely to be caused to the robot, the environment, or bystanding humans if the robot screws it up. So it makes a pretty good research task that, when solved for, will make impressive demos at trade events.
> does anyone do laundry more often than once a week
I can tell you do not have children. We frequently run 2 loads per day...
Also, I challenge anyone to look at that video from 2:00 to 2:45 (which is 90 seconds IRL) and tell me with a straight face this has anything to do with "intelligence". I have seen human babies at 5 months old severely outperform this thing.
Small businesses like Cafes? They will hopefully get this to laundromats once this bot can iron, too. Not even once did I iron or fold my laundry back in university ...
I got myself this perfect clothes folding robot about 8 years ago when I decided I would not fold or iron clothes ever again. Two useless activities forever gone from my life. There's more things like this around the house but folding and ironing are 100% useless. I pick the clothes from the rack, they come kinda folded in half but I don't even try, and all get dumped into drawers. I never lack space because I'll buy clothes only upon throwing out clothes, so the bigger volume of the clothes doesn't make a difference in storage space either.
Folding laundry is a tiny chore, the real holy-grail is robotic arms that can cook 24/7. The job-market will never recover from robotic arms in every fast-food joint, restaurant, hotel, hospital, military base, cruise ship, and everywhere else that preps food. The biggest winners might be grocery stores that sell hot meals prepared from their own produce, which are then drone-delivered to the nearby homes. I'm probably being way too optimistic though.
I never thought about what we could do if instead of trying to do work in real time we slowed robots down for non time critical tasks to latencies which current transformers can deal with on real hardware.
I know very few people under 40 who fold and iron clothes, and I'm not sure I know people under 30 who own an ironing table and iron (or if they own one, it's busted, and if it's not busted, it's lost).
I think "doing the laundry" is getting obsolete faster than doing it yourself is. Kind of like people didn't give up on sewing their damages clothes by hiring a robot to do it... they gave up by throwing old clothes away and switching to fast fashion.
If this product addresses high-income people (which would probably be the case even if the price comes down from $100k to even $1k), then it still seems a lost cause for this reason.
Pretty sure that once the pre-trained models used for this are pre-trained on lots of video and get larger (2-3 orders of magnitude larger than this), things will quickly improve. This may already exist in prototype form behind closed doors. Think how LLMs have improved since gpt-2 and gpt-3. Though I imagike it in real-time and cost efficiently may be a challenge.
So we will have robots building and making corve there, while humanity focus on making smart policies through continuoys education for all and involvment in direct democracy.
Or maybe we will have private army robots under the order of some random dictator disconnected from the reality of people.
Or some mix of these. Or finally no longer any war, in a world without any human though.
Folding the laundry is “the easy part”. The actual hard part for me is putting it away. You can fold all you want but it does no good unless it gets put away into whatever closet/drawer configuration you’ve got.
There is something funny in the way it performs some of the moves in a sub-optimal manner. It reminds me of cats playing with small objects (earings on a beside table...).
This is still quite impressive.
Is my knowledge out of date, or is this a step change in robotics capabilities? Boston Dynamics robots are impressive, but this seems way beyond what their robots have been able to do.
Love to see mecanum wheels being used here. They're so much rarer to see than they should be! I go months to years between each instance of seeing them.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|1 year ago|reply
Give me a moment
1. All economics / markers of value are about human happiness / satisfaction - we claim it’s money but it’s only given a value by humans who want it.
2. As soon as people get rich enough they outsource their domestic tasks - hire a maid or a cook, or buy ready meals.
3. In the western world companies over past fifty years got a free boost as women joined the labour force, and essentially companies were paying one guy the cost of a household now they pay two people the cost of household getting twice the workers for same price.
4. So most households have lost 35 hours a week, and also still have same amount of domestic duties to do
5. As we can’t give everyone a maid we might be able to give everyone a robot maid.
6. Most innovations / technologies find their way into homes - from bricks to heating to electricity we invent it and eventually find a way to make our lives more comfortable - see the point about economics is just humans liking stuff
7. I assumed that real robo maids would be a social shift - ie a different design of washing machine, people eating at other peoples houses every day, anti-dust surfaces. But this one looks … interesting
8. I know this is incredibly western middle class centric - but exactly what else are 6 billon people aiming for?
[+] [-] ktjag|1 year ago|reply
In the beginning of the 1970s, when women did join the labor force in greater numbers, admittedly the macroeconomic conditions were bad (oil crisis), so it is hard to filter that out.
But still, mostly we have more workers, which lowers wages and leads to the creation of more bullshit jobs. To be clear, also men create and perform bullshit jobs!
Now it takes two salaries to finance a house and a family. Great progress.
At the supermarket, I boycott automated self-checkouts even if the lines are long so the nice cashiers keep their jobs.
[+] [-] vasco|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fjdjshsh|1 year ago|reply
If demand for work is fixed, then doubling the supply of work (male + female from the same household) would in principle decrease wages (not necessarily by half). However, the supply need not be fixed. This is what I like to call the "musical chairs theory of employment". Let's say there are 2x more working age people in 2024 than in 1954, does it mean each person earns less? When immigrants come to a country, does it mean that each immigrant causes a native to become unemployed?
The evidence tells us that's not true and that there are other changes in the economy that also increase the demand for work. Check the literature of immigration effects (even major short term shocks) on unemployment and wages to see a pretty clear picture. I'm not aware of a study of what more female employment has done (my guess is that it's much more difficult to study, because it's a phenomenon that has slowly happened over decades. As an aside, this has happened in plenty of places around the world, no need to restrict yourself to the western world. Plenty of other places are relevant)
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doctorpangloss|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PostOnce|1 year ago|reply
The first thing that robot will do is start a dryer that a toddler climbed into because it isn't that aware of the world around it.
And that will be the end of general purpose domestic robots.
That or knocking over candles or fucking up something else simultaneously trivial and terribly dangerous in context.
I dream the same dream of a general purpose machine, but I think it may never be possible, and if it is we're a long way out.
[+] [-] chilmers|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] moffkalast|1 year ago|reply
Like that old quote: "I love work, I can watch it all day."
[+] [-] user90131313|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rwyinuse|1 year ago|reply
Admittedly the videos in this article do seem promising though, would love to see how this tech would perform in a greenhouse.
[+] [-] valval|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] GistNoesis|1 year ago|reply
Living in European city, space is a hard constraint. The cost of rent is 30€ per square meter per month in Paris.
Laundry rooms are small. This robot is too wide and won't be able to go through the door of my laundry room. Ironing boards are foldable for a reason : they need to be setup every time. This robot can't do it, and also can't handle the softener bottle for the washing machine.
Having 1 square meter empty table (0.5 for the table and 0.5 accessible space for the robot doing the folding) dedicated to folding is a pipe dream for most. Laundromats are there because some don't have enough space to even have a washing machine.
Laundry room are a dedicated space for humidity and ventilation reason, so they have been designed on specific location on house plans probably more than 30 years ago on average, not having in mind robot accessibility, but rather be as small as functionally possible.
Quite often for people not living in flats, but in houses, the laundry room is located in the basement with only stair or single step access.
I don't think architect and construction accessibility norm will change fast enough, specially with bipedal robots right around the corner.
The slack necessary for home robotics emergence has already been eaten multiple time due to the high cost of space.
[+] [-] blagie|1 year ago|reply
I'm not sure it can't handle the softener, and V2 will likely be able to set up the ironing board.
In terms of size, even now, it's smaller than a fridge, washing machine, dishwasher, or many other household time-saving appliances common in most houses (although not necessarily historic cities with multi-century homes not designed for them). No effort has gone into shrinking it either; perhaps with clever engineering, it can be made much smaller if it moves out of the research prototype phase.
Another question, to me, is cost. Many robots like this run around $100k, and with good reason. Can this be brought down? I hope so.
[+] [-] jazzyjackson|1 year ago|reply
Alternatively you can simply attach the laundromat to a cafe or bar, turning a chore into an opportunity to relax and socialize but most of the world is not prepared for that degree of civilization.
[+] [-] scotty79|1 year ago|reply
I think this might be eventually integrated with washing machine so that you buy one device where you put your dirty clothes in and take out clean and folded. It's not like the traditional washing machine is the expensive part that needs to be kept separate and in current form.
[+] [-] plopilop|1 year ago|reply
Only for big enough apartments. 20m² appartements do not go for under 850€, ie around 42€/m². Granted these flats are too small to even have a laundry machine, let alone a laundry folding robot.
[+] [-] tomohelix|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] NoLinkToMe|1 year ago|reply
All of which can indeed be automated in my view.
I would say it really depends on where you are though. In the US it probably makes sense quite quickly. But she lives in a small EU country where salaries aren't high, and this is very much a junior position with a lot of students looking for such a job. Her position costs about 25k a year.
The NPV of a $1m investment with a 25k cashflow is negative at normal discount rates. Once you get to replace a $120k salary with a $1m robot, it does make sense.
Further I do still expect there to be some jobs in overseeing the robot (e.g. your average factory manager). That makes sense for large centralised production locations, because you can have 1 human job overseeing many robots. It doesn't necessarily make sense with many small decentralised production locations. And that's the nature of most labs, I believe due to the time sensitivity of a lot of lab work they need to be everywhere and close to customers. But maybe that will change.
[+] [-] bubaumba|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] doctorpangloss|1 year ago|reply
Also nobody’s academic lab is buying $1m startup lab equipment. A whole core for 30 research groups is buying something, but it will be a piece of equipment that directly leads to publishing, ie, something with history. That is why you don’t have the exact thing you are talking about, which exists, in labs.
[+] [-] M4v3R|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pzo|1 year ago|reply
Instead I would like to see some new innovation in laundry machines. Current technology is very basic, you heat water and keep spinning. Why not some something more similar to bigger paper printer that at the end of the day you feed your 1 shirt, roll it into a roller, sprinkle with some high pressure minimal amount of water, heating and return 30min later already perfectly ironed.
[+] [-] saulrh|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] M4v3R|1 year ago|reply
Folding laundry is not the end goal here. They chose it because it’s a very challenging thing for a robot to do, requiring great manual dexterity, planning, reacting to sensory inputs etc. In other words: if your robot can do your laundry it can probably be taught to do pretty much anything else around the house.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|1 year ago|reply
Once you have a nonzero amount of kids, laundry becomes a continuous process will no defined start and end.
> Much more useful if it can do cooking since that's something you do at least once every day.
Thing is, cooking is something a lot of people find deeply rewarding and humanizing (I don't, but I realize I'm an outlier here). Meanwhile, I challenge you to find anyone who thinks doing laundry is a worthwhile use of their limited time on Earth.
[+] [-] averageRoyalty|1 year ago|reply
Lots of people do 3-4 loads per week. Some people don't cook at home at all. There are 8 billion people out there.
[+] [-] bitwize|1 year ago|reply
Because the people on the Axiom are going to need clean jumpsuits?
Seriously, laundry folding is an example of a complex task that requires considerable dexterity and sophisticated object manipulation on the robot's part, but unlike cooking it's relatively low stakes: little harm is likely to be caused to the robot, the environment, or bystanding humans if the robot screws it up. So it makes a pretty good research task that, when solved for, will make impressive demos at trade events.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|1 year ago|reply
Yes, at least 3x per week. Young kids, toddlers, babies, workout clothes, sports clothes, work clothes, etc.
[+] [-] semi-extrinsic|1 year ago|reply
I can tell you do not have children. We frequently run 2 loads per day...
Also, I challenge anyone to look at that video from 2:00 to 2:45 (which is 90 seconds IRL) and tell me with a straight face this has anything to do with "intelligence". I have seen human babies at 5 months old severely outperform this thing.
[+] [-] rgbswan|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vasco|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] j_timberlake|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] arcastroe|1 year ago|reply
would restaurants with static menus even be relevant at that point?
[+] [-] Animats|1 year ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42011770
[+] [-] llm_trw|1 year ago|reply
I never thought about what we could do if instead of trying to do work in real time we slowed robots down for non time critical tasks to latencies which current transformers can deal with on real hardware.
[+] [-] sebastiennight|1 year ago|reply
I think "doing the laundry" is getting obsolete faster than doing it yourself is. Kind of like people didn't give up on sewing their damages clothes by hiring a robot to do it... they gave up by throwing old clothes away and switching to fast fashion.
If this product addresses high-income people (which would probably be the case even if the price comes down from $100k to even $1k), then it still seems a lost cause for this reason.
[+] [-] sawmurai|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] macrolime|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] risyachka|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] joduplessis|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] psychoslave|1 year ago|reply
Or maybe we will have private army robots under the order of some random dictator disconnected from the reality of people.
Or some mix of these. Or finally no longer any war, in a world without any human though.
What a time to be alive.
[+] [-] ribcage|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cruffle_duffle|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] d-lisp|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jonplackett|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] qnleigh|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] LoganDark|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|1 year ago|reply