The cynical-but-likely-accurate take is that researching language modeling has a higher ROI and lower risk than researching robotics.
Also, regular ML researchers sit at tables with laptops. Robotics people need electronics labs and electronics technicians, machine shops and machinists, test tracks and test track staff...
If you have to build stuff, and you're not in a place that builds stuff on a regular basis, it takes way too long to get stuff built.
I wonder why they don't invest in establishing the competency for robotics. The potential return might seem enormous, though their choices might signify that they don't agree.
Or maybe they just aren't willing to leave their comfort zone. 'Software will eat the world' is a convenient idea for people who want to stay in that comfort zone.
Reinforcement learning can work quite well if you produce the hardware, so that your simulation model perfectly matches the real-world deployment system. On the other hand, training purely on virtual data has never really worked for us because the real world is always messier/dirtier than even your most realistic CGI simulations. And nobody wants an AI that cannot deal with everyday stuff like fog, water, shiny floors, rain, and dust.
In my opinion, most recent AI breakthroughs have come from restating the problem in a way that you can brute-force it with ever-increasing compute power and ever-larger data sets. "end to end trainable" is the magic keyword here. That means the keys to the future are in better data set creation. And the cheapest way to collect lots of data about how the world works is to send a robot and let it play, just like how kids learn.
Given that, unless they want to commercialise fruit picking or warehouse robots, it seems sensible.
How successful do you think attempts to monetize this will be? Apart from Kiva at Amazon, I'm not even sure most shelf-moving robots are profitable enterprises (GreyOrange, Berkshire Grey, etcetera). I'm very skeptical of more general purpose warehouse robots such as you see from Covariance, Fetch, etcetera. I don't really know too much about fruit-picking other than grokking how hard it would be and how little it would pay.
To be clear, I'm not saying these companies make no money or have no customers. But it's not clear to me that any of them are profitable or likely will be soon, and robots are very expensive. I'm happy to learn why I'm wrong and these companies/technologies are further ahead than I realize.
One of the reasons ML-based AI is pretty dumb still is possibly that this autonomous exploration side of AI is largely ignored.
It all seems to tie back into what Judea Pearl talks about in his "book of Why" (how you can't model intelligence without modelling learning of causal inference) or what Jeff Hawkins explores with his "reference frames of reference frames of the world" 1000 brains theory.
It seems madisonmay didn't read the article either, or they would have known that the podcast they were referring to was the exact source used by the article.