Every time you see something that "suggests a very specific, very precise, "algorithm" taught in an imitation learning session"? Scale the imitation learning up x10, x100, x1000, and it suddenly generalizes!

I'll be honest: I don't see what you see. I don't see anything that would suggest this algorithm is so brittle there's zero transfer to "even other garbage bag strings". AI robotics isn't innately brittle like conventional robotics is. But even if you are, somehow, completely right on that? Teach a hundred "very specific algorithms" like this - and watch them fuse into a manifold of algorithms that can be applied to different problems as needed.

And that is what you need. If an algorithm for "tie a garbage bag with current generation robot hands" exists and can be learned by an AI, then the gains from getting better AI are far from exhausted. The limits of robotics are the limits of AI.

This is why every AI robotics company is saying "we need more data". They understand what they're dealing with. They looked at the scaling laws and went "robotics isn't magic, that curve applies to us too". I don't get what makes people see robotics as a special magic thing, that makes them look at the advances in robot AI and say "this is intractable" and not "this is hard". It's hard. We're getting through it though.

Before I put in the effort to reply in good faith I have to know: do you think we're going to have a conversation or are you going to fulminate and scold me like some kind of all-important authority (which I have to say you clearly are not)?

To clarify, I'm happy to have a curious and respectful exchange.