This is a real issue. If a robot is fully AI powered and doing what it does fully autonomously, then it has a very different risk profile compared to a teleoperated robot.
For example, you can be fairly certain that given the current state of AI tech, an AI powered robot has no innate desire to creep on your kids, while a teleoperated robot could very well be operated remotely by a pedophile who is watching your kids through the robot cameras, or attempting to interact with them in some way using the robot itself.
If you are allowing this robot device to exist in your home, around your valuables, and around the people you care for, then whether these robots operate fully autonomously, or whether a human operator is connecting via the robot is an extremely significant difference, that has very large safety consequences.
Think of everyone. Unless your roboots are weak as a kitten, they are a danger to humans if allowed to be close. Robots that are sold for real money to do real work don't walk around and are strong enough to crush a human like a bug. Or if they're built for dexterity, their hands aren't human-like. Zero surgical robots have human-like hands, and for very good reasons.
Can all the extremely smart people developing humanoid robots be wrong? Wrong question: can all of the investors in those companies be wrong? Hell to the yes.
I had exactly the same experience. I was in a public school full of assholes and teachers that couldn't care less about any bullying taking place. Those few years were probably the worse years of my life.
I grew significantly and became a different person when I was moved to a different school.
I still think it taught me a lot about the world and how people really are. I really lost a lot of faith in humanity in those few years and still see the world as cynical in which all people are in it for themselves.
Did it make me stronger? Maybe. But also I wish I could see the world more positively as a lot of people that have been shielded from those experiences seem to do.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I grew up near a Mormon family whom exclusively homeschooled their children. Their 'homeschooling' mostly consisted of using the older children to assist and babysit the younger children as they had about ten or so children, and naturally could not equally provide schooling for such a wide range of needs.
They were a nice family, but when I was in community college I had a chance to talk with one of the eldest who was there getting her GED. Last I recall, she held some resentment towards her parents because she was held back fairly significantly by her upbringing. Well, except for the fact that they were wealthy which helps smooth some of the problems.
The recent version of FSD in my Tesla is pretty amazing. Press "Start FSD" when in my driveway, and 20 minutes later it arrives at my destination and parks, without any input from me the entire time. I was skeptical too about FSD for a while but I'm starting to believe. These days I pretty much only disengage it when I'm impatient that it's being too polite. Unsupervised isn't far off!
You're describing the 99% problem—getting 99% there is relatively easy, but once you do, you find out that you have the remaining 99% of work left to do.
This illusion is partially why Musk has been promising self-driving to be available at the end of $current_year+1 for years.
It's cool your car can drive itself. Now do it again, but fall asleep at the wheel. What's that? You're not willing to? That's exactly the core of the issue—it's not sufficient for the car to be able to drive itself most of the time, it must do so safely every single time, no matter what.
My experience as well. SSRI and other similar drugs for anxiety remove a strong signal to your brain and bring other issues or signal.
But the issue is that nobody wants to really look at the cause. We are all trying to treat the symptoms with those quick-fix pills.
The cause is deep in our society. We are too stressed, lost touch with each others, work on meaningless jobs (or downright negative jobs for society.. if you work at Meta or TikTok, yes your job is in fact a negative for society).
I have also been on a journey for the last 5 years on working on myself and bringing those things back in my life and I have been feeling better than ever:
- A lot of outdoor time and exercise.
- Take the time to build a community of friends that genuinely care for each other
- Work on some projects that you feel help humanity and each other (or volunteer).
- Build things you are proud of. Build a legacy
All of those removed almost all anxiety and depression. It is not an easy journey but I'm shocked how few people even consider making those changes
How do you know an anxiety pill is treating symptoms only? What if the cause is physiological, and the pill treats that? It is entirely possible to sit in your therapist's office and mutually shrug because neither of you can find an underlying reason for your anxiety. Sometimes anxiety just is.
I had severe anxiety/depression and majorly recovered from the anxiety component through a year of dilligent transcendental meditation. It changes the brain structure and neurochemistry.
I was on medication during that period and it complemented my practice, provided a stable base to apply meditation and other recovery protocols.
I had panic attacks every morning before school. God, I hated school. Mainly because of the other kids, and when I was older, because of both the kids and the teachers. I remember telling my IT teacher I am using Linux (I forgot why I told her) and she was very condescending. I have a lot of other stories but yeah, school was an anxiety-inducing nightmare.
Often the cause is things that most people can handle, without being able to easily wield the tools to handle them. Having a pill that dulls the symptoms gives space to learn and become adept at the tools
Beyond obvious tumors/lesions/clots/abnormalities, we are not even close to being able to identify the cause of organic anxiety or mood disorders even if we wanted to.
We can say certain behaviors, experiences, illnesses and some genetic identifiers can trigger the conditions, but not the underlying cause. We can say things like some therapy and medication can help with the illness, but not the cause.
Not to trivialize therapy, but for many illnesses, not just mental, a portion of it can be described as ways of learning to live with the illness, not necessarily treating the underlying cause.
> Not to trivialize therapy, but for many illnesses, not just mental, a portion of it can be described as ways of learning to live with the illness, not necessarily treating the underlying cause.
Yeah, I feel like it's fair to describe the cognitive behavioral model. We're not necessarily looking for the cause of these thoughts and beliefs, tho they may come up, we're simply going to challenge them at face value and reinterpret the situation.
Not that I agree or disagree with the underlying claim but a call to "credentialism" to dismiss someone's opinion is not as strong in 2025 as you think it is.
The last few years have been a proof that even the "experts" are following strong political or personal ideology.
Also we don't live in the 18th century anymore. A lot of knowledge (especially around medicine) is open to the world. People can read papers, understand research etc.
In this area, having credentials makes a difference. Experts matter.
Few if any non-medical people can read medical papers and make sense of what they say. There is simply far too much context to evaluate such papers, especially in the cases of complex medical conditions.
I have had a lot of Spinal and sleep issues. I have read almost all new literature on this niche subject and I have brought to my spine doctor some new therapy and treatments they had literally no idea about. Those treatments have changed my life.
As an engineer I read a lot of deep technical paper as my day job. Medical papers are comparatively relatively simple. The most complex part being usually the statistical data analysis.
We have pushed to a whole generation of people that only the "experts" can have opinion on some fields.
I encourage everyone to read papers and have opinions on some of those subjects.
We are in 2025. That type of gatekeeping needs to go away. AI if anything, is going to really help with this as well.
It's also good to work with your doctors (as you seem to have done), have a discussion, and mutually agree on a plan of treatment.
Experts don't know everything. But they probably know some things you don't, and can think of questions you might not to have even thought to ask. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". Experience matters.
There's also a lot of people out there without an academic background that don't know how to properly read journal papers. It's common to see folks do a quick search on PubMed, cherry-pick a single paper they agree with, and treat it as gospel - even if there's no evidence of repeatability. These skills are not something that many people outside STEM are exposed to.
Cherrypicking is bad, but worse is reading a paper and thinking you understand what it says, when you don't actually understand what it says. Or thinking that a paper and its data can be observed neutrally as a factual and accurate statement for what work was actually done.
My experience in journal club- basically, a group of grad students who all read a paper and then discuss it in person- taught me that most papers are just outright wrong for technical reasons. I'd say about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 papers passes all the basic tests, and even the ones that do pass can have significant problems. For example, there is an increasing recognition that many papers in biology and medicine have fake data, or manipulated data, or corrupted data, or incorrectly labelled data. I know folks who've read papers and convinced themselvs the paper is good, when later the paper was retracted because the authors copied a few gels into the wrong columns...
By extending your statement you are essentially saying that the credentialed experts have a monopoly on knowledge in their fields? As anyone else reading a paper probably think he understands but actually doesn't? What a weird take.
The knowledge is out there. Yes there are a ton of bogus papers and a ton of bad research. Not everyone got the critical knowledge to figure this out but I also don't think this is only reserved to the "experts". They are also subject to groupthink and other political pressure to think a specific way.
At the end of the day, do your best own research and work with your "expert" to agree on a solution.
Pushing back on people reading paper is an anti-intellectual take (to use the same wording as another poster below).
But is that really what you are seeing in this HN comment thread? People who seem very well researched in the biochemicals and meta studies of Prozac? I don’t. :)
> We have pushed to a whole generation of people that only the "experts" can have opinion on some fields. I encourage everyone to read papers and have opinions on some of those subjects.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on something as a non-expert, as long as those opinions are not acted upon or relied upon as a source of reliable information. Read papers, watch YouTube, browse WebMD, satisfy your curiosity--knock yourself out. But don't undergo treatment without working with an actual expert! I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I have played KSP and have formed various opinions about it. But nobody should be listening to me for advice on how to launch a rocket.
We need gatekeeping for a reason, especially in the medical field which is rife with miracle cures, snake oil, herbal remedies, detoxes, homeopathy, and other forms of quackery.
Believing my "research" is better than my specialist's education is a path back to the dark ages.
> Believing my "research" is better than my specialist's education is a path back to the dark ages.
Doing your research should not be in competition with your specialist's education. It should be complementary as yet another source of information.
I'm not saying experts are wrong but I also don't think they are particularly always right. They are human and they have strong groupthink. They will agree and disagree with some takes based on their personal or political beliefs.
> Believing my "research" is better than my specialist's education
If you get rid of the scare quotes, you can spend 10x or 100x as long as your doctor when researching something specific enough. That has many advantages, even without the training.
This just reads as Dunning Kruger-esque to me. You think that because you know how to read a technical paper in engineering, you're as or more competent than a doctor.
Yes, experts are wrong all the time, they have the disability of being human, but this seems like an extremely anti-intellectual take.
sorry but your take seems to be the anti-intellectual here.
You seem to think that the educated class got a monopoly on knowledge on that field, yet after that claim to know that experts are wrong all the time.
The anti-intellectual take is to give up on trying to understand as much as you can in a field because you don't have the right credentials to do so. Yes, medical papers are not that complicated to read.
That doesn't make you more competent than your doctor. But it probably makes you a better advocate for yourself than your doctor is.
My point is: Don't discount yourself reading papers and doing your own research. Then work with your "credentialed experts" to come to an agreement. Don't ever think that the "experts" got your best interest at heart.
Nobody who seriously read and understood the literature in a given field would issue a blanket dismissal of all the experts in that field. My experience is that reading papers and research leads one to understand WHY the professionals get it wrong - because you start to understand the nuances.
I'm not saying you issued such a dismissal, but the comment that started this thread did so.
I don't have a problem with reading papers and doing research, and I never once claimed that the "educated class" has or should have a monopoly on a field. You wouldn't know this, but for the first ten years of my career as a software person I was as a college dropout; I certainly am not someone who is going to get all hot and bothered about people having letters after their names.
That said, I have a tough time believing that spending an hour on Sci-Hub makes you better at diagnosis, yourself or otherwise, than someone who spent a decade being educated with decades of practicing. Thinking that you know better than trained experts because you have an understanding of the very beginning of a field is overwhelmingly tempting but is generally not based in reality. Usually the people who have actually been trained in the field know more about the field than a random person who read a few papers that they thought were "comparatively relatively simple".
I read papers all the time, usually formal methods, but sometimes other fields like medicine, and I will sometimes leave the medical paper thinking that it's "easier" than what I study, but I think that's just Dunning Kruger. I know more about formal methods, so I know a lot more about what I don't know, and thus I feel like it's harder. I don't know a ton about medicine, and since I don't know what I don't know it can feel like I know everything, and I have to fight this urge.
By all means, read about research in whatever ailment you have, I'm not really trying to discourage that, but I feel like dismissing experts in the field is almost the definition of "anti-intellectualism". If you find a study that you think is promising, bring it to your doctor. Hell, bring it to a dozen doctors, multiple opinions isn't a bad thing.
I just don't like the general "don't trust experts" thing that seems to be flying around certain circles now.
Ya, well i was diagnosed with a serious genetic condition by my doctor. I found out i was misdiagnosed based on information from the support group for the condition. If I hadn't, I would have had unnecessary surgery.
> People can read papers, understand research etc.
Then he should cite the papers, point out the research, etc. Rather than dismissing the entire discipline and all its practitioners with a wave of the "common-sense mental illness isn't real" wand.
Hmm sure, but there must similarly be things that are denied right?
I lived in both systems. In a single payer system, the state essentially decide what is allowed and what is not. And with the state as a single payer, they also go back and forth on price with the hospitals.
It still is a better system overall but there is no places where you can just spend as much as you want on healthcare without some type of centralized supervision.
Yes, in Australia what and how much of it a doctor can prescribe is tightly regulated. Many medications require a specialist referral and approval. Any medical procedure requires a specialist to sign off on it.
That and there is often a 'gap' that needs to be covered for GP and specialist services, although that tends to be balanced out by much cheaper prescription costs. (Prescriptions in Canada for example easily cost 2X as much).
However, Australia has a two-tier system where you can buy private insurance cover that can cover the costs of gaps and allow you access to private hospitals. This insurance is much cheaper than the equivalent US versions.
It's not a dichotomy between single payer and US-style private insurance. You can have public healthcare that isn't single payer - that describes a good half of Europe, for example.
There are tests, proceedures etc that are 'denied' coverage by Medicare(universal health coverage) but you can try get your private health insurance to cover it, or just pay out of pocket, unless it's the doctor refusing the request as not medically necessary.
I had a test recommended once that was not covered, but my Dr explained this in advance and the cash price to me was $110. There are no 'surprise' denials after the fact.
It's absolutely fine (and required even) that single payer public healthcare doesn't cover every conceivable thing under the sun. It should cover the most common, easily scaled and mass produced items.
For the remainder, the patient should be told and know what to expect price wise - private or self-paid etc. And this also allows competition between entities offering this thing that's not covered.
Having opaque and unknown pricing (until after you've done it) is basically a form of highway robbery.
In Britain the national health service is a single payer and there are some things it won't fund, but you are still free to take out health insurance or be a self pay customer and go to a private doctor or private hospital.
In my experience, its not so much what the NHS won't fund but getting access to what it does fund in a timely fashion.
Of course there is dentistry, which is a complete nightmare... people trying to do their own extractions with a pair of pliers is the sort of thing you used to associated with the US but I've actually met some people who have tried that due to how poor NHS dental services are and how expensive private treatments are.
Weirdly enough the US is actually amazing for dentistry.
With any insurance you get 2 cleanings every year fully included and most routine fillings are almost completely covered. Easy to find appointments everywhere
My experience in Europe has been that it is super difficult to schedule anything. Waiting time of multiple months for new patients.
Yes, my (private) dental insurance in the UK is similar. If you go private then no real problem getting treatment as soon as you need it (I got an appointment in the same day recently when I broke part of a tooth).
As a European that lived in the US for a long time, a big difference is that there is also a lot of "European Conformism". You don't want to be seen as the weird one protesting things if nobody else does it. It's just easier to go with the flow and accept things.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
reply