Hacker News Reader

Comment by qsera | Hacker News Reader

As I suspected you are fooled by this video and imagine it to be capable of much more than what is shown. This video is pretty non-marketing and is quite straight to the point. But that does not prevent you from being awed!

So What is LLM is used here for? It is used for mere translation between different robots. So it is mostly symbolic translation.

What I am talking about is to translation LLM inference directly to movements. For example, if you ask an LLM, how do I open the microwave door? It will list the steps. I am talking about a system that can go from "put the thing in the microwave", to action steps, without having to never once demonstrate it physically, and do it just from LLM inference.

In short, the way LLMs used here is not (categorically) the way I was asking about.

View on HN

https://huggingface.co/blog/lerobot-release-v060#molmoact2

Read the command line prompt: --task="pick up the red cube"

That is a straight forward task. I am talking about using an LLM to come up with a sequence of complex steps that does not have an intermediate textural representation.

So it should be something like, "put back this slipped cycle chain back on sprocket"..

Read. The. Papers.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.23705

https://www.pi.website/download/pistar06.pdf

https://www.pi.website/download/pi07.pdf

The thing literally has a diffusion "action expert" sit in the same attention system as a pre-trained VLM. And the VLM itself is ALSO trained to generate raw actions as a part of the training recipe (the first paper) - it just doesn't do it at inference time. What the "action expert" does is parallelize the action generation process - based on VLM's internal states.

It's exactly the thing you claimed to be impossible. Described in detail in a paper from 2025. What's your excuse?

I have not overlooked anything. I had imagined that this "mapping", to have any power, would also need to be handled by an LLM (action expert). But here is the problem with that. That would not be as "intelligent" as an LLM....And you can't make it as smart as the LLM because there is not a similarly huge training data on which LLMs are trained on..

The backbone of the VLA there is literally a pre-trained Gemma model. And a small one at that.

You already downgraded your claims from "LLMs are irrelevant to robotics" to a measly "you can't train a useful robotics LLM because there's not enough data". And you say that while looking at an LLM that was pre-trained on all of internet scraped and only then reused for robotics.

Both the pool of robotics-relevant data and the performance of foundation model LLMs grow over time. All the companies that are serious about robotics are serious about scaling up data collection.

I'm not going to claim that this "LLM core" approach is the best approach to AI robotics possible - but if you're betting on it failing outright, you're going to be fighting uphill.

>to a measly "you can't train a useful robotics LLM because there's not enough data"..

This was the claim from the very beginning. You should have asked why I think what I think, instead of leading with "the entire premise is wrong!"...

No, you openly, plainly went and downgraded your claim to a somewhat defensible one. It's not subtle.

Your entire premise was wrong at every point, and now you're trying to wriggle your way out of admitting it.

> No, you openly, plainly went and downgraded your claim..

Prove it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com