This is just weird
I looked it up thinking there had to be more to this that just isn’t pictured here. We’re missing context or something
I can find nothing.
This guy literally thinks people have roommates to make their bed for them?
Even thinking people have roommates to help with chores, instead of bills, why the fuck would he think the main chore we need help with is “making my bed”?
Like I’m going to bring somebody else into my house so they can make my bed for me? My bed? That’s weird as fuck
Maybe he thinks roommates is what poor people call their maids?
Though I’d happily make my potential roommates bed every morning instead of paying rent.
People need roommates because they don’t make enough money to live on their own. He concludes that the reason they don’t have enough money is because they aren’t working hard enough for him because they have to do so many domestic chores. This robot promises to free you from the “profitless” enterprise of doing things that aren’t making money for him.
I get that, and while that’s super out of touch with pretty much everything, to me, that’s the least weird thing about this
Lets go with his logic and pretend we do need roommates for chores.
Out of all of the chores he thinks I need help with he thinks it’s making my bed? Not dishes, or cleaning, or shopping… making my bed? And not even my own bed, he thinks I have a roommate who comes into my room and makes my bed for me?
He thinks we all have strangers living in our houses to make our beds for us?
Yeah it’s stupid as hell that this man thinks we have roommates as maids instead of people to help pay bills, but it’s even more stupid that he thinks the #1 chore that we would need these people for is bed making. And now that there’s a robot that can make your bed for you, that’s it? That’s the end of roommates?
I don’t need a robot to cook for me or clean for me or anything else? Bed making is the end game?
WTF is wrong with this man. This is all so fucking weird
I get that
I don’t think you got it.
They’re saying the guy thinks you have roommates because you can’t afford rent, not because you need someone to do chores. You make your own bed in his world, but making the bed and other domestic chores are so time consuming that you cannot work enough to make enough money to not have a roommate.
That is, he thinks if you don’t have chores then you can work more, earn more, afford no roommate.
It’s super out of touch as you said, but he’s not suggesting roommates do your bed.
He thinks maids are housemates.
Tell me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid without telling me that the only person willing to live with you is your live-in maid.
Maybe he thinks house maids is spelled housemates 😄
I can’t tell when his first name ends and second name begins.
Aren’t those types of robots mostly remotely controlled?
In most demos, yes. Though they have managed to do things that vaguely seem correct, in very specific tasks in very controlled environments and often showing a behavior you wouldn’t want.
Like for example, they got it trained to pull out a dish rack and put a dish in, and push the rack back in. Then a human pulls out the rack and the robot pushes it back in. Which they like to show as it responding to the environment, but in real life the human wanted to do something with the rack, why would the robot incessantly keeping it from being out be desired?
Another one where it could pick up clothes, so long as the clothes were within a set square meter and the background was solid white.
The remote control is the mechanism to try to train them to work independently, but it is a tall order. To get the relatively more straightforward movement of operating a car, they took millions of miles of data to feed it. These robots are aiming for far more intricate work and have a severe lack of access to training data.
Further, imagine any task that becomes very difficult just by putting on gloves. Congratulations, there’s a task machine learning can’t help with, because they don’t have tactile in the input loop.
These robots are aiming for far more intricate work and have a severe lack of access to training data.
I’ll bet that all the data being harvested by smart glasses is now going to train those models. Basically it provides a first-person view of someone doing stuff with their hands all day, walking around, talking, etc.
Problem is that is too indirect. Imagine trying to do that intricate work on sight alone. Like trying to do stuff with numb hands. Without tactile feedback, we are useless in a lot of these tasks. But the tactile feedback is not instrumented. To the extent that machine learning works, it needs to have all the inputs and outputs instrumented, and feeling is left out.
We can see something done and have an explanation and internalize it and then ‘get a feel for it’ later. But AI doesn’t currently feature this ability to really translate that sort of instruction to an entirely different set of sensation.
Interesting issue regarding the gloves situation. However I might add that gloves are often used for safety whereas a robot might not need that safety. For example, pulling weeds.
Though, I think you’re getting at something subtle. It’s not about tasks which require gloves. It’s about any theoretical task which would become harder if you happened to do it with gloves on.
That’s a lot of tasks when you think about it. For starters, I use my fingers in a kind of “friction test” to make sure I’ve fully cleaned a dish of any oil. If my finger slides, it needs another scrub.
It’s not about the machinery struggling with gloves, it’s just the difficulty of capturing the data when a human really needs to touch/feel.
Like that ‘friction test’, the point is when they use machine learning, they want to feed all the inputs and outputs from the human operator. They don’t have a good way of capturing ‘feel’ (you can have a camera to capture what eyes see, you can have microphones to capture what the human hears). Similar on human inputs, for a car, they can instrument the pedals and steering and they pretty much got it all. If a human hand is doing something, well, if the human is local they might be able to make a glove to capture all that, but our sense of feeling can be fouled so easily that trying to instrument it tends to ruin it. If the human is remote then you can just get controller style inputs.
Yeah, this should be researched. How would you produce an analog signal to represent touch semantics?
You ever heard of that paper, *what the frog eye tells the frog brain” (Or something like that) ? It covers what’s effectively semantic information, not bits of data, getting sent over the central nerve. Edges, flashes, …
I wonder what the skin might tell the brain.
I also wonder if there would be a way to bounce a static field, or something, off the surface… maybe vibrate the material, etc, to approximate these sort of details.
AI = Actual Indians
Yes but you’re not supposed to know that
No they’re pretty open about it. And that’s why a lot of people think it’s too creepy to try it.
The rich lack the empathy to care that you can’t “afford” something. They think everything is a choice. The homeless chose to be homeless as much as they chose to be rich. Fucking delusional evil people!
It’s funny how the most valid part of Christianity, that rich people are the most evil, is the part modern “Christians” reject the most.
Well, very few people like to be told they’re the villain…
99.999% of Christians are not wealthy
No, but their preachers all talk Prosperity Gospel at them. And a preacher wouldn’t lie about the word of God!
We are the collection of all of “our” choices.
Even the ones we made before we were born by people we’ll never meet lol
They genuinely believe their familial history and it being the reason they’re rich or privileged enough to become wealthy is their own doing, that they actively participated in creating that opportunity and they’ll call themselves a rags to riches success story for investing a small inheritance or loan of a million dollars into hundreds of millions, saying it was all grind and sheer willpower. They think everyone who didn’t do that is dumber than they are, and then they’ll tell you all about their neat ideas on how scientists and experts are wrong and how all their boys at the private country club told them the real truth about health and economics and women and the poor and anyone who doesn’t believe it is a sucker and deserves it.
We have failed, as a society, to educate them that there is any other truth to this
It’s the same as divine right of kings and queens
That it’s God’s will that they are the monarch, they are not bound by normies laws etc, and everything they do is blessed by God.
Just choose to be born healthy to a rich family. DUH
I’m not that old and I can’t stress this enough, when I was a kid if you had a roommate it meant you were gay.
Rent when I was growing up was about $5-800 a month for a nice 1 or 2 bedroom unit, those same units are now renting for $2,750 and $3,750 and I’m 33.
I’m old but I’ve always been broke enough to understand this was a joke?
It really wasn’t though where I used to live, rent was cheap enough people legitimately wondered what was wrong with you if you had a roommate and weren’t in a minimum wage job.
Damn how old are you. My coworker is in his 60s and talks about how rent was too high so he had to lease an apartment with roommates in NYC in the 80s
Cities are expensive, who would have guessed. I’m 33 and rent was $5-800 where I grew up, it’s now up to $2750-3750 for 1-2 bedroom apartments.
Wow dude, that’s the gayest shit I’ve heard all day 🙄
Fun fact before Julius Caesar froze the rent in Rome for a year, it was actually getting to the point of abject absurdity to the point folks were splitting rent 4 ways minimum in some neighborhoods. Must’ve been able to smell the gayness apon stepping foot into that city, maybe that’s why Caesar crossed the Rubicon he wanted to get rid of the smell.
Just because I have roommates doesn’t mean I’m gay!
…I mean, I am gay. But NOT because I have ROOMMATES
- Romans, probably
If your a top it ain’t gay.
- Romans, this is an actual social norm in ancient Rome. I’m not shit posting.
That’s a lot to pay for rent, but I guess US rent just hits different.
People report facts here and get downvoted.
Yes but downvotes counts up to the downvoters iq level. Sometimes they get a hundred but not often.
Translation: “Some humans have negative iq”
Some humans have a sense of humor too. :)
Because they aren’t facts… Just because you weren’t aware of poor people existing before the present era doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
What do you think tenement housing is, a gay housing project?
Because it’s not a fact lmao. The commenter is only 33. At no point in their life has having roommates meant you were gay. Maybe another 20+ years before them, and if you were a man in your 30s or older with a roommate. But that’s because the assumption is generally that if you’re living with someone in your 30s, 9 times out of 10 they’re your partner. Most people find a long-term partner by then that they live with.
Was not expecting this to be so unpopular but legitimately when I was growing up there were open mic nights and jazz clubs filled with musicians taking turns. People had weird exotic hobbies or fun cars they would drive on the weekend. There were artists and art galleries and little bookstores and microbreweries and hobby shops for anything you could imagine.
Now they have all closed, the jazz clubs bulldozed and paved over for parking lots, and no one does anything but work and be angry.
I remember a time growing up that people were paid enough to actually live and I refuse to let that die
Dude, you’re talking about 2010 like it’s ancient history, and I’ve got shirts that old. Everything you’re describing still exists, but I’m sorry if your town’s fun bar closed.
In 2010 things were already way too expensive, I’m talking like 2000-2005. I’m not saying that stuff doesn’t exist, I’m saying a lot more people used to be able to afford to do things.
In 2000, you were 7 years old and had no clue what anyone was paying for rent, much less how cool was open mic night at the local. Your parents could afford to do things and shielded you from what they cost. Or sitcom families could do things and you’re remembering Will & Grace.
I mean, yes: shit’s expensive today, but heterosexual people had roommates in 2000, in 1990, 1980, even in 1960. In 1980, it was scandalous to have a roommate of the opposite gender.
I have a special needs sister and my parents were so excited I was “normal” they made me help out and I grew up pretty quick.
I definitely was middle class, I started taking drum lessons early on and actually enrolled at the mason gross school of music at Rutgers when I was 11 and had been playing with jazz combos at those open mic nights since I was 10 or so. When I was 13 I did percussion with my teacher and others for a production of the H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan at a few different theaters in NJ. I auditioned at Juilliard when I was 16 but didn’t get a scholarship and realized I couldn’t make it in music the way I wanted to because I wasn’t good enough.
So I was taught how to budget very early on because there was a chance I was going to need to know how to do it myself, and all of the people I interacted with were in there 30’s and 40’s because I couldn’t relate to the kids in school.
So yea, I knew when shit started getting ridiculously expensive because suddenly everyone I knew was a struggling artist or had to stop and get a “real” job because they couldn’t pay their bills.
I know I work my ass off yet can’t afford to do much
Where was this?
In the suburbs in the middle of NJ. There were enough good Union jobs that even without a degree you could make enough money to live pretty comfortably, and the only notable thing about the area was that you could get to NYC or Philadelphia in about an hour and a half or so by train
I am that old and this is patently false. Sharing a flat was a way to reduce expenses for my generation and generations before me. More common in urban areas. Also for women was often safer than living alone.
I could be wrong but I charitably suspect they were referring to the term “roommate” rather than the actual practice.
Good to be charitable but they said not a joke later in this thread.
oh well screw them then.
Yeah, and from my understanding there was an implication for people who had one after a certain age, that’s more related to the idea of “why aren’t you married yet”. There was definitely a suspicion when two 40 year olds have been roommates for 20 years and attend social and family events together, rather than two 28 year olds who met via an ad for a roommate in the newspaper a few years ago and are still trying to get ahead in the city.
I don’t get who is downvoting this and why. Bunch of homophones.
Yeah, shockingly some things were a lot better.
Bunch of homophones.
I think you meant homophobes? Though that doesn’t really make any sense either…
The only time having a roommate implied you were gay is if you were an older person belonging to the gentry who chose to live with someone else if you didn’t need to.
It’s not like people were looking at tenement housing and saying, oh yeah “that’s the big building where we store all the gays”.
People have always had roommates, they just aren’t typically the class of people represented in fictional stories of the time.
LMAO was this influenced by people pushing back on the “just gals being pals” trope and being like, “No Gladys they are lovers it’s okay to say that”?
Like, yeah. Your great aunt Abigail who was always so bad with money that she and her best friend lived together in a one bedroom apartment for 45 years despite always taking vacations to Vermont and the third largest Greek island to celebrate their favorite poet was almost certainly gay. Maybe. There might be a clue.
But actual literal platonic roommates have existed for a long time. Like, it’s relatively recent that people started to practice living exclusively with romantic partners and family.
Yeah, I was just curious about Keilik’s world view in particular and how it led to them having this perception. They explained in another response that in their experience people could afford to live alone so it appeared to be a choice to live together (and then assumed it was romantic versus for other benefits like to platonic companionship/safety etc.)
But actual literal platonic roommates have existed for a long time. Like, it’s relatively recent that people started to practice living exclusively with romantic partners and family.
My instinct is to think that housing practices depend so much on social and cultural norms so it seems like this needs some really specific context to be true but then I catch myself realizing I have no idea what you mean about recent so I am in fact a clown for jumping to conclusions about your meaning 😅
To be clear, I was most echoing and agreeing with you, and I just had a sudden mental image of the world’s least subtle gal-pal-lesbian that I wanted to put out there.
And yeah, my “recent” is a pretty long horizon. It was in roughly the 1700s that we started to see people living less in arrangements that we would be willing to call “roommates” in the west. Largely driven by factors relating to industrialization making it so people who lived in proximity were less likely to work in proximity, and making it more feasible to sustain and manage redundant living situations. It was still common though, since the financial perks hit unevenly. Increasing urbanization pushed towards denser living, while doing more to move families into private housing. Hence the apartment with 40 steelworkers in bunk beds image, and the apartment next door with a pair of siblings, their spouses and children and maybe a grandparent.
This trend continues across a lot of cultures, although the specific arrangements vary. Industrialization being the turning point. Although the soviets had a more unique twist as a result of picking up entire rural communities and dropping them in low cost buildings. You get a lot of the communal living type arrangements we saw through history but stuck in an oddly modern setting, with maybe two unrelated families, a handful of singles and a few couples all sharing an apartment with one kitchen, a complicated bathroom and a bedroom breakdown roughly what we’d expect now.One way or another, people throughout history have tended to want to live near family, which included friends, liked having a roof, and usually didn’t bother building more cooking tools than they needed. The specific forms have changed, but the social nature of humans is pretty consistent.
Rich people think roommates are servants
Omg they were roommates!
If the purpose of a roommate was to make your bed for you, wouldn’t that just make a roommate ouroboros where you each make each other’s beds? After all, you are your roommate’s roommate…
Real roomates sleep in the same bed!
Not in rich world.
In rich world there is a title difference between property owner and roommate. These are not equals, but a superior and subservient class.
A property owner provides housing and charges the roommate money and/or labor for the privilege of living on the property. Why take on a roommate if free labor is available?
Does the robot pay the rent?
No it costs $20,000. Then costs $400/month for the premium Roommate plan. Also you pay with your private data
For that much I better be able to fuck it.
That’s in the premium subscription.
The robot that you can fuck just killed the “need a girlfriend” argument.
Or boyfriend. 😏
Why is my roommate making my bed?
Because people exist to be exploited by you. What other value could another person possibly have,?
Why isn’t mine?!!!
I refuse to believe that there’s a bipedal robot that can make my bed, with out ridiculous specific programming.
We don’t use the P work anymore, it’s been replaced with “AI”
There’s not. These ridiculous things can barely walk or fill a glass of water outside of highly controlled settings.
There is, it is just controlled by a human operator. XD
Is there video evidence of one of these robots making a bed? I don’t even care if it’s fully cherry-picked; I’d be impressed just to see it happen mechanically. Tucking the fitted sheet around the corners is not a simple task.
Instead of sharing rent with a roommate, people will now not want to save money and actually pay more by purchasing a robot.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
Aside from the affordability thing…
Do rich people think we make each others beds? Tuck each other in for the night?
we should
Only if I can get a cup of warm milk and a story as well
of course bro, you deserve it, I also have mini marshmallows
Normalize tucking in the homies and kissing them goodnight.
Normalize roomie cuddles. It’s a lonely world.
Bros don’t let Bros get sexually frustrated
Did you even think this through?
If I tuck them in, they will have to get out of bed to tuck me in. It’s going to create and endless cycle where we are up all night kissing each other.
A better solution is to simply share the same bed and kiss in it.
They also think that art is about coming up with a great idea, nothing else, that’s why they’re pushing for the prompt machines.
They’re confusing utility value with artistic value.
and give each other forehead kisses? 👉👈😅
They think homeowners have roommates to get labor from them. The same way they have servants who cook and clean for them. To them, the idea of not being able to afford housing is literally inconceivable. It’s not even on their radar, because they’ve never had to worry about it before. The only reasons they can think that someone would have a roommate is for convenience.
Oh man, my cousin had a classmate that was shocked and confused when she learned that not everyone had, or could afford, a yacht. To her, that was just something everyone had, because they weren’t that expensive.
Yeah, man. Right after we shave the bread and bean and dole it out.
That’s not how you spell “maid”, mate.
Let me translate this through process from rich asshole to regular human:
- People need roommates because they cannot afford to live on their own.
- The reason they cannot afford to live on their own is because they aren’t working enough hours (to make him more money.
- The reason they aren’t working enough hours is because they have to spend too much time engaged in activities that aren’t work.
- A robot frees them of having to do things that aren’t work.
- Thefore a domestic robot will make his workers do more work and achieve their purpose of working and paying all their bills.
They just forgot the part where the people that need roommates don’t have money to buy a robot, or pay the subscription for the robot, or the “don’t kill me in my sleep” premium upgrade for said robot subscription.
Well you see, if we increase costs to a point where you need to work 100+ hours a week just to survive then you’ll have to buy the robot just to do it.
The model is probably that you have to rent or finance the robot or something so that it just costs you productivity instead of a big up-front cost.
I needed that explanation
Thank you. It’s actually quite reasonable when you put it that way.
He will also make money renting domestic robots to his workers and take the cost off their paychecks while also spying on them at home and selling that data to other companies.
Wait, are we sure hes not making fun of the purchaser? Like, “You obviously dont need a roommate to lower expenses if you can afford a robot that makes your bed”? Thus killing the argument?
Am i missing something here? To me, this reads “people lazy, thats why poor” not “roommates exist as glorified trad wives”?
Avocado Toast!
“You obviously dont need a roommate to lower expenses if you can afford a robot that makes your bed”
Yeah I think that’s what he has to be saying and just worded it poorly. The only way any of this makes any bit of sense is if he’s saying “If you have enough money to have your own personal robot, then you probably aren’t so broke that you need a roommate to cover half the rent.”
Wait, were roommates supposed to be making our beds?
That’s it! I’m calling my old roommate to tell her what a bitch she was for only making her own bed.
What’s even funnier is that the video of the robot making the bed was AI generated. This bed making robot doesn’t even exist, yet guy has to shame people having roommates? :D
