<story><title>OpenAI&apos;s blog post about &quot;solving the Rubik&apos;s cube&quot; and what they actually did</title><url>https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1185679169360809984</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>amayne</author><text>How is OpenAI misleading? The entire post on OpenAI is about the physics of the problem (different sized cubes, materials, etc.)&lt;p&gt;When I saw the press release I understood the demonstration was about hand dexterity and not trying to use AI to solve a Rubik’s Cube pattern. That would be overkill IMHO. You don’t need a neural net to solve it and I never thought OpenAI was trying to mislead.&lt;p&gt;Side note: One of the commenters on the Twitter thread referred to Marcus as the James Randi of AI in jest. I worked for Randi for several years handling the Million-Dollar Paranormal Challenge and investigating unusual claims. I can tell you a lot about misleading claims...</text></comment>
<story><title>OpenAI&apos;s blog post about &quot;solving the Rubik&apos;s cube&quot; and what they actually did</title><url>https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1185679169360809984</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>Animats</author><text>If they had to instrument the cube internally, that makes the result much less interesting. And if it&amp;#x27;s only succeeding 20% of the time, that&amp;#x27;s not good either.&lt;p&gt;Robot manipulation is hard. There are lots of systems that work some of the time. Few work well enough in an uncontrolled environment to be useful. Amazon is still looking for a robot picking system, and nothing works well enough yet.</text></comment>