Business
Commentary: A leading roboticist punctures the hype about self-driving cars, AI chatbots and humanoid robots
It may come to your attention that we are inundated with technological hype. Self-driving cars, human-like robots and AI chatbots all have been the subject of sometimes outlandishly exaggerated predictions and promises.
So we should be thankful for Rodney Brooks, an Australian-born technologist who has made it one of his missions in life to deflate the hyperbole about these and other supposedly world-changing technologies offered by promoters, marketers and true believers.
As I’ve written before, Brooks is nothing like a Luddite. Quite the contrary: He was a co-founder of IRobot, the maker of the Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner, though he stepped down as the company’s chief technology officer in 2008 and left its board in 2011. He’s a co-founder and chief technology officer of RobustAI, which makes robots for factories and warehouses, and former director of computer science and artificial intelligence labs at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Having ideas is easy. Turning them into reality is hard. Turning them into being deployed at scale is even harder.
— Rodney Brooks
In 2018, Brooks published a post of dated predictions about the course of major technologies and promised to revisit them annually for 32 years, when he would be 95. He focused on technologies that were then — and still are — the cynosures of public discussion, including self-driving cars, human space travel, AI bots and humanoid robots.
“Having ideas is easy,” he wrote in that introductory post. “Turning them into reality is hard. Turning them into being deployed at scale is even harder.”
Brooks slotted his predictions into three pigeonholes: NIML, for “not in my lifetime,” NET, for “no earlier than” some specified date, and “by some [specified] date.”
On Jan. 1 he published his eighth annual predictions scorecard. He found that over the years “my predictions held up pretty well, though overall I was a little too optimistic.”
For example in 2018 he predicted “a robot that can provide physical assistance to the elderly over multiple tasks [e.g., getting into and out of bed, washing, using the toilet, etc.]” wouldn’t appear earlier than 2028; as of New Year’s Day, he writes, “no general purpose solution is in sight.”
The first “permanent” human colony on Mars would come no earlier than 2036, he wrote then, which he now calls “way too optimistic.” He now envisions a human landing on Mars no earlier than 2040, and the settlement no earlier than 2050.
A robot that seems “as intelligent, as attentive, and as faithful, as a dog” — no earlier than 2048, he conjectured in 2018. “This is so much harder than most people imagine it to be,” he writes now. “Many think we are already there; I say we are not at all there.” His verdict on a robot that has “any real idea about its own existence, or the existence of humans in the way that a 6-year-old understands humans” — “Not in my lifetime.”
Brooks points out that one way high-tech promoters finesse their exaggerated promises is through subtle redefinition. That has been the case with “self-driving cars,” he writes. Originally the term referred to “any sort of car that could operate without a driver on board, and without a remote driver offering control inputs … where no person needed to drive, but simply communicated to the car where it should take them.”
Waymo, the largest purveyor of self-driven transport, says on its website that its robotaxis are “the embodiment of fully autonomous technology that is always in control from pickup to destination.” Passengers “can sit in the back seat, relax, and enjoy the ride with the Waymo Driver getting them to their destination safely.”
Brooks challenges this claim. One hole in the fabric of full autonomy, he observes, became clear Dec. 20, when a power blackout blanketing San Francisco stranded much of Waymo’s robotaxi fleet on the streets. Waymos, which can read traffic lights, clogged intersections because traffic lights went dark.
The company later acknowledged its vehicles occasionally “require a confirmation check” from humans when they encounter blacked-out traffic signals or other confounding situations. The Dec. 20 blackout, Waymo said, “created a concentrated spike in these requests,” resulting in “a backlog that, in some cases, led to response delays contributing to congestion on already-overwhelmed streets.”
It’s also known that Waymo pays humans to physically deal with vehicles immobilized by — for example — a passenger’s failure to fully close a car door when exiting. They can be summoned via the third-party app Honk, which chiefly is used by tow truck operators to find stranded customers.
“Current generation Waymos need a lot of human help to operate as they do, from people in the remote operations center to intervene and provide human advice for when something goes wrong, to Honk gig workers scampering around the city,” Brooks observes.
Waymo told me its claim of “fully autonomous” operation is based on the fact that the onboard technology is always in control of its vehicles. In confusing situations the car will call on Waymo’s “fleet response” team of humans, asking them to choose which of several optional paths is the best one. “Control of the vehicle is always with the Waymo Driver” — that is, the onboard technology, spokesman Mark Lewis told me. “A human cannot tele-operate a Waymo vehicle.”
As a pioneering robot designer, Brooks is particularly skeptical about the tech industry’s fascination with humanoid robots. He writes from experience: In 1998 he was building humanoid robots with his graduate students at MIT. Back then he asserted that people would be naturally comfortable with “robots with humanoid form that act like humans; the interface is hardwired in our brains,” and that “humans and robots can cooperate on tasks in close quarters in ways heretofore imaginable only in science fiction.”
Since then it has become clear that general-purpose robots that look and act like humans are chimerical. In fact in many contexts they’re dangerous. Among the unsolved problems in robot design is that no one has created a robot with “human-like dexterity,” he writes. Robotics companies promoting their designs haven’t shown that their proposed products have “multi-fingered dexterity where humans can and do grasp things that are unseen, and grasp and simultaneously manipulate multiple small objects with one hand.”
Two-legged robots have a tendency to fall over and “need human intervention to get back up,” like tortoises fallen on their backs. Because they’re heavy and unstable, they are “currently unsafe for humans to be close to when they are walking.”
(Brooks doesn’t mention this, but even in the 1960s the creators of “The Jetsons” understood that domestic robots wouldn’t rely on legs — their robot maid, Rosie, tooled around their household on wheels, a perception that came as second nature to animators 60 years ago but seems to have been forgotten by today’s engineers.)
As Brooks observes, “even children aged 3 or 4 can navigate around cluttered houses without damaging them. … By age 4 they can open doors with door handles and mechanisms they have never seen before, and safely close those doors behind them. They can do this when they enter a particular house for the first time. They can wander around and up and down and find their way.
“But wait, you say, ‘I’ve seen them dance and somersault, and even bounce off walls.’ Yes, you have seen humanoid robot theater. “
Brooks’ experience with artificial intelligence gives him important insights into the shortcomings of today’s crop of large language models — that’s the technology underlying contemporary chatbots — what they can and can’t do, and why.
“The underlying mechanism for Large Language Models does not answer questions directly,” he writes. “Instead, it gives something that sounds like an answer to the question. That is very different from saying something that is accurate. What they have learned is not facts about the world but instead a probability distribution of what word is most likely to come next given the question and the words so far produced in response. Thus the results of using them, uncaged, is lots and lots of confabulations that sound like real things, whether they are or not.”
The solution is not to “train” LLM bots with more and more data, in the hope that eventually they will have databases large enough to make their fabrications unnecessary. Brooks thinks this is the wrong approach. The better option is to purpose-build LLMs to fulfill specific needs in specific fields. Bots specialized for software coding, for instance, or hardware design.
“We need guardrails around LLMs to make them useful, and that is where there will be lot of action over the next 10 years,” he writes. “They cannot be simply released into the wild as they come straight from training. … More training doesn’t make things better necessarily. Boxing things in does.”
Brooks’ all-encompassing theme is that we tend to overestimate what new technologies can do and underestimate how long it takes for any new technology to scale up to usefulness. The hardest problems are almost always the last ones to be solved; people tend to think that new technologies will continue to develop at the speed that they did in their earliest stages.
That’s why the march to full self-driving cars has stalled. It’s one thing to equip cars with lane-change warnings or cruise control that can adjust to the presence of a slower car in front; the road to Level 5 autonomy as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers — in which the vehicle can drive itself in all conditions without a human ever required to take the wheel — may be decades away at least. No Level 5 vehicles are in general use today.
Believing the claims of technology promoters that one or another nirvana is just around the corner is a mug’s game. “It always takes longer than you think,” Brooks wrote in his original prediction post. “It just does.”
Robotaxis could be turning into robocops.
A self-driving Waymo reported two teens to San Mateo, Calif., police on Monday after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle.
According to a social media post from the San Mateo Police Department, officers detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived.
“Parents do you know where your teens are?” the San Mateo Police Department wrote on Facebook following the incident. “Waymo does!”
Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez out the windows. Orbeez are small, water-absorbing beads sold at toy stores.
“Toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye,” the Police Department said. “The simple handling of them can cause fear in [passersby].” “
A video posted on Facebook shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised.
Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones that may be used in an emergency or to “promote safety and security,” according to Waymo’s online support page.
The cameras are also used to ensure the vehicles are clean and to help find lost items, according to the support page.
The company said it does not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals.
“In more urgent circumstances, support may access live video during a trip,” the Waymo page said.
The San Mateo Police Department’s Facebook post has garnered nearly 60 comments, with one user accusing Waymo of “snitching.”
“At least they got a designated driver?!” one user commented.
Business
Commentary: How right-wing anti-transgender attacks led to a Supreme Court ruling upholding sex discrimination
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s June 30 opinion upholding state laws barring transgender girls from women’s and girl’s sports teams looks like a victory for women’s rights.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh certainly presents itself that way. “Females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” He also asserted that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
The ruling applied to prohibitions enacted in Idaho and West Virginia against “biological” males’ participation on women’s teams in public schools. Federal judges in both states overturned the bans. The Supreme Court majority restored them. The ruling essentially upholds similar bans enacted in 25 other states.
There was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let alone any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, demolishing the Supreme Court’s argument in favor of banning transgender girls from girl’s sports
Kavanaugh, like Donald Trump and others in the anti-transgender camp, maintained that one’s gender is an immutable fact of life, established even before birth.
Anything else, Trump stated in an executive order he issued on inauguration day 2025, could only be the product of “gender ideology extremism.” The U.S., his order stated, recognizes “two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” That’s a “biological truth,” he declared.
In his own version of this overconfident and factually insupportable conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote: “As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”
Science recognizes that some people are “born with sex traits that don’t fit into typical male or female patterns,” to cite a discussion on the Cleveland Clinic web page on the topic “intersex.” The condition “may involve chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs or genitals.”
From a psychological standpoint, medical science recognizes “gender dysphoria” as a real condition often requiring counseling and medical intervention such as the use of puberty blockers and hormones to stave off the development of secondary sex characteristics until the condition can be resolved.
No one disputes that there are physical differences between the sexes. Few would dispute that on average or even at the median, males may be bigger and more powerful than females, or that in certain contact sports the difference may be telling and on occasion dangerous.
But that’s not the same as asserting that the physical differences between males and females invariably mean that men will invariably prevail over women in all competitions or that their participation will endanger women.
The International Olympic Committee — in a policy statement Kavanaugh cited incompletely — says that in “most running and swimming events,” males have a 10% to 12% advantage over women. That’s a range that would accommodate the full spectrum of outcomes — transgender females win, cisfemales win, they tie. (The “cis” prefix denotes those living consistent with their birth gender.)
West Virginia and Idaho addressed this ambiguity by banning transgender women from all girls’ teams. So under their rules transgender girls can’t play football or soccer with cisgirls. But what’s the argument in favor of banning them from the 100-yard dash, or cross-country track, or diving, or archery?
But something else is going on here. The Supreme Court’s ruling was almost preordained, given the years-long campaign by conservatives to demonize transgender individuals as if they’re members of an alien species.
It will be recalled that during his presidential campaign, Trump spun a despicable fantasy in which children were kidnapped in school and secretly subjected to sex-change operations.
Trump’s executive order wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination. He moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.
He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered federal prison officials to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., has blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)
I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still gestating, that the goal was to show that “one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”
Last year, the Supreme Court struck its first blow against transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee law banning transgender care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. Similar laws have been enacted in 25 other states. The majority in that ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was identical to the one in the June 30 ruling — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who are the targets of this ideological campaign? They number only about 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1% of the U.S. population. About 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA School of Law.
In West Virginia, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in her dissenting opinion, “there was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let along any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.”
In endorsing the flat bans directed at transgender women in Idaho and West Virginia, Kavanaugh argued that any attempt to implement case-by-case judgments of students’ requests to join sports teams inconsistent with their biological gender would create “an enormous practical and administrability problem.”
Is that so? That wasn’t the case in Maine, where the annual K-12 population is more than 170,000. There, a committee was charged with determining whether a student’s participation in a sport consistent with their gender identity but inconsistent with their biological sex would “result in an unfair athletic advantage” or present a risk of injury to others. The committee held 56 hearings from 2013 through 2021, or an average of seven per year. During the entire time span, only four involved transgender girls. (The outcome of those hearings couldn’t be learned.)
It was Maine’s policy, one might recall, that provoked a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills at the White House last year, when Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the state unless it barred transgender students from competing on women’s sports teams. “We’ll see you in court,” Mills snapped.
Whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws genuinely protect girls from unfair competition is questionable. (The Idaho law is styled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”) In practice, the laws may subject women in public schools to “invasive sex verification procedures,” as educational expert George Theoharis of Syracuse University wrote after the court ruling.
They’re also based on a retrograde view of women as fragile creatures needing men’s protection, Theoharis wrote — “the same logic that has historically been used to justify excluding women from making their own healthcare decisions and girls from rigorous math and science; that physically demanding work is simply beyond them.” (There don’t appear to be any state laws barring transgender women from competing in men’s sports.)
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, in which she is identified only as B.P.J., is the only transgender girl who sought to join girl’s teams — track and cross-country — in the state. That was in 2021, just after West Virginia passed its law and she was about to enter sixth grade. She didn’t appear to pose any competitive risk to others on the track and cross-country teams she applied to join — her lawyers told the Supreme Court that on those no-cut teams, she “came in near the back.”
Anyway, she had not gone through male puberty, which theoretically might have endowed her with a competitive advantage, because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones.
Thanks to the court’s ruling, Sotomayor observed in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, West Virginia can deny Becky access to school sports “because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
B.P.J., Sotomayor wrote, “cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B. P. J.’s gender dysphoria.”
So whose interest was really protected by the Supreme Court?
An Orange County real estate investor accused of criminally defrauding an Arizona bank of nearly $100 million pleaded not guilty Monday and remains in custody.
Mahender Makhijani, 44, of Corona del Mar — who also was ordered by an arbitrator to pay $1.34 billion in a separate civil fraud case — was arraigned in Santa Ana federal court on two charges.
He is accused of bank fraud and making a false statement to a bank in a June 8 case involving a $100 million real estate loan made by Phoenix-based Western Alliance Bank. He was taken into custody on June 10.
Makhijani is accused of providing bogus collateral for the October 2024 loan now in default. In a civil lawsuit, Western Alliance said the outstanding balance as nearly $99 million.
Prosecutors say he falsified title insurance policies that showed the bank would have a first lien on the underlying collateral if the loan went bad, when in fact it did not.
A trial was set for August 11 before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana.
Michael Schachter, his criminal defense attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
In the civil case, an arbitrator in May ordered Makhijani to pay Laguna Beach real estate mogul Mohammad Honarkar $1.34 billion after ruling he had fraudulently induced him into a 2021 joint venture — and then wrested control and lost to creditors more than two dozen properties Honarkar had owned.
Makhijani has not been criminally charged in that case, but prosecutors alleged in an affidavit in support of the bank fraud charges that he used “force and threats” in his dealings with Honarkar and others — including taking over the landmark Hotel Laguna in 2023 that Honarkar was renovating.
Prosecutors sought to hold Makhijani without bail after his arrest.
The affidavit noted he is a legal Indian immigrant with a home and bank accounts in that country, has access to private jets and threatened to “run away” if caught in a difficult situation.
The request was denied and he was granted $500,000 bail.
However, Makhijani remains in custody after a hearing sought by prosecutors last month before Magistrate Judge Autumn Spaeth.
The judge declined to accept a $450,000 cashier’s check submitted by a Makhijani associate for the bail, finding insufficient proof the source of the funds was legitimate, according to court records.
Makhijani is not prominent outside Orange County real estate circles, but he established a thriving distressed-assets business over the last decade that attracted prominent Southern California real estate investors.
Prosecutors said it paid for a lifestyle that included two multimillion-dollar homes in Corona del Mar, a luxury apartment in Newport Beach and various luxury vehicles.
As of last month, prosecutors had not fully traced his assets, which they believe are not held in his name and some of which may be in India.
The businessman employed an array of shell companies and strawmen to sign documents on his behalf, and to stand in for him as operators of his companies, according to the affidavit.
Makhijani told an associate he took extra precautions because wanted to insulate himself from litigation and that “they were sharks in the distressed world who took advantage of people,” the affidavit stated.
-
Rhode Island6 minutes agoWhat will happen at the 2026 Rhode Island State Amateur? History.
-
South-Carolina9 minutes agoOh, Goodbye: Four-Star South Carolina RB Aiden Gibson Flips To Rutgers
-
South Dakota14 minutes agoSouth Dakota governor’s office reports helping with over 800 deportations as feds deliver funding
-
Tennessee21 minutes agoA Tennessee woman was heard screaming, ‘he’s got a gun.’ Now her husband is pleading guilty to her murder.
-
Texas24 minutes agoUS immigration officer shoots and kills man in Texas
-
Utah29 minutes agoChicago man guilty of trafficking 25 lbs of cocaine through Utah with gun, $14k in cash
-
Vermont36 minutes agoVermont Superior Court mourns Judge Dickson Corbett – Valley News
-
Virginia39 minutes agoSpotted lanternflies take flight early in Virginia due to warm temperatures
