Physical And Agentic AI Is Coming
Some interesting questions are coming up in the world of artificial intelligence that have to do with the combination of physical environments and agentic AI.
First of all, that term, agentic AI, is only a couple of years old. But it's taking hold in a big way – in enterprise, and government, and elsewhere.
The key is this, though – if the AI agents can do things, how do they have the access to do those things?
If it's digital tasks, the LLM has to be supported by APIs and connective tissue, like a Model Context Protocol or something else.
But what if it's physical?
In a recent panel at Imagination in Action in April, my colleague, Daniela Rus, director of the MIT CSAIL lab, talked to a number of experts about how this would work in both the public and private sectors.
'The bridge is when we can take AI's ability to understand text, images and other online data about the physical, world to make real-world machines intelligent,' Rus said. 'And now, if you can get a machine to understand a high-level goal, break it down into sub-components, and execute some of the sub-goals by itself, you end up with agentic AI.'
So what did panelists center on? Here are a few major ideas that came out of the discussion on how AI can work more humanly in the physical world where humans live.
In exploring what makes humans different from machines, there was the idea that people do things on a personal basis, which differentiates them from the herd. So the AI will have to learn not to follow a consensus-based model all of the time. That's a key bit of difference, what you might call a 'foible' that makes humans special - so in the enterprise world, it may not be a foible at all, but a value add.
'What you do not want is consensus regression to the mean information, like generally accepted ways of doing things,' said panelist Emrecan Dogan. 'This is not how, as humans, we create value. We create value by taking a subjective approach, taking the path that is very personal, very subjective, very idiosyncratic. We are not always right, but when we are right, this is how we create value.'
As for government, panelist Col. Tucker Hamilton talked about electronic warfare, and stressed the importance of a human in the loop.
'I think we want to embed (HITL) so that a human is still in control,' he said. I think we need… explainability, traceability, and that goes along with governability as well. And I think we want to be able to favor adaptability to perfection.'
You have to reason, you have to think and understand,' added panelist Jonas Diezun.
Another way to think about this is that the programs have to be just the right amount of deterministic guidance.
'They don't always repeat,' Dogan said of these tools. 'They don't behave exactly the same way the second, third, fourth time you run it. So I think the big (idea) is the right blend of determinism that you can embed along with the stochasticity. So I think the truly powerful agents will convey some expression of deterministic behavior, but then the stochastic upside of AI models.
Some other components of this have to do, simply, with infrastructure.
'Sensors, we're gathering information off of a sensor multi-modal (program), like sensor gathering,' Hamilton said. 'How do we summarize that information? How do we make sure that one sensor is fused with another sensor? How do we have pipelines that we can get that information to, in order to have someone just assess that, like sensor information, let alone how do we adopt flight autonomy?'
In other words, all of those real-world pieces have to be connected the right way for the system to work in physical space, and not just digitally.
Finally, Rus asked each panelist their timeline for AI taking over most human tasks. The lower numbers represent when these panelists think that the simple tasks can be adopted by AI. The second number is a projection of when AI would take over the more complex tasks. The verdict?
'Quarters, not years.'
I thought all of this was very instructive in showing some of what we have to contend with as we anticipate the rest of the AI revolution.
It's been a long time coming, but the exponential curve of the technology is finally here, and likely to be integrated into our worlds quickly almost suddenly. Job displacement is an enormous concern. So is the potential for runaway systems that could do more harm than good. Let's continue to be vigilant as 2025 rolls on.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Washington Post
17 hours ago
- Washington Post
Little-known cells might be key to human brain's massive memory
A new model of memory — and a little-heralded type of brain cell — might explain why the human brain has such a huge storage capacity, researchers reported in the journal PNAS in May. The study looks at astrocytes, star-shaped cells that interact with neurons in the brain. The brain contains billions of astrocytes, and scientists have long known they play a part in cleaning up molecules within brain synapses, the junctions where neurons come together. More recent research, though, suggests that astrocytes do more. The new model suggests the astrocytes could also be used for computation, coordinating with neurons and connecting synapses in networks. These complex connections might allow the brain to encode memories in dense networks that expand the brain's capacity beyond its neurons alone, the researchers write. 'This makes neuron-astrocyte networks an exciting candidate for biological 'hardware' implementing Dense Associative Memory,' they add. The model runs counter to the prevailing theory that memory storage occurs in synapses, and implies that the brain is capable of storing even more memories than once thought possible. The researchers also describe how the theory could be validated in the lab. 'We hope that one of the consequences of this work could be that experimentalists would consider this idea seriously and perform some experiments testing this hypothesis,' said Dmitry Krotov, a research staff member at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and IBM Research and the paper's senior author, in a news release. The model could also be used as a 'fresh source of inspiration' for future artificial intelligence technology, the researchers conclude.
Forbes
17 hours ago
- Forbes
Prosthetics Startups' Biggest Market Isn't Humans. They're Building Hands For Robots Instead.
Aadeel Akhtar, the founder of Psyonic, has a PhD from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champain. Matt Carney was good at building robots — he just didn't want to. While earning his PhD at MIT, he'd spent years studying mechanical engineering and biomechatronics in service of developing bionic prosthetics that could help people who'd lost limbs. He hoped to build robotic legs that could pick up on the phantom signals sent by a body's muscles or function autonomously so it could move naturally, unlike the plastic, unmoving prostheses that are common now. But as he began talking to venture capitalists about funding a company that would develop these so-called bionics, he quickly discovered that the market didn't want robotic devices that could replace human limbs, it wanted robots that could replace human beings, the sort of humanoids championed by sci fi laureates like Isaac Asimov and self-appointed tech visionaries like Elon Musk. Investors cautioned him against venturing into the cost-heavy medical world and regularly asked if he might be more interested in building humanoids or exoskeleton suits. Even trusted experts building bionic limbs told him the technology currently available wasn't advanced enough to be truly helpful. Without a breakthrough in AI, let alone an addressable market, building futuristic robot body parts wasn't something investors would bankroll. So Carney looked elsewhere, taking a job as chief engineer at Persona AI, an early-stage contender in the field of humanoid robotics that has raised $27 million in funding. It's facing off against much larger startups like Boston Dynamics, Foundation Robotics and Figure AI, which have achieved valuations greater than $1 billion for their human-like bots. Then there's the elephant in the room: Musk's Tesla, which the world's richest man has pivoted toward building humanoid robots, with the idea that they'll generate trillions in revenue for the company and someday outnumber humans. Musk has touted a lofty vision of the future where he sees these robots as a catch-all method for labor, posting on X about replacing surgeons, being a 'personal C-3PO or R2-D2' to perform the bidding of an owner, and, of course, driving a car. Much of the tech world seems sold on them, too. The Information reported Wednesday that Amazon will begin testing out package delivery with humanoids. Speaking onstage at an event in late May for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen said that humanoid robotics provide a solution to regaining manufacturing dominance in the United States, with these robots performing tedious tasks such as installing screws on an assembly line. Carney plans to return to the prosthetics space one day. But he isn't the only entrepreneur who originally wanted to focus on building so-called bionic limbs to help real people, and instead have been pushed to follow the money: why not build for robots too? Take San Diego-based Psyonic, which officially launched in 2021 solely as a prosthetics company, building a waterproof robotic hand with built-in sensors to register touch sensations (alongside perks like the ability to charge a cell phone). Psyonic found some early traction, with Medicare covering the cost of its hands for patients. It was last valued at $65 million in 2024 and has raised a total of $8 million, according to PitchBook. Not long after launching, CEO and founder Aadeel Akhtar started to realize that there could be an entirely new market for his startup's hands, signing on Meta as an early robotics customer for an AI project. By 2023, humanoid robotics were booming, and demand skyrocketed. Now, the majority of Psyonic's business comes from selling its hands to manufacturing firms and robotics companies like Apptronik, which has raised more than $400 million to build humanoid, general purpose robots. The robotics side of his business 'is growing exponentially right now,' Akhtar told Forbes, later adding, 'The big draw there is being able to have one generalized robot do many tasks as opposed to activity specific robots.' Shifting toward catering to humanoid robotics startups comes with advantages. The hundreds of millions being poured into the space is helping commoditize the cost of the core technologies — the actuators, sensors, control methods and carrying capabilities needed to build both humanoid robots and bionic limbs. Akhtar said the shift has helped it further develop its prosthetics technology, and lower its prices. For San Antonio-based Alt-Bionics founder and CEO Ryan Saavedra, who was inspired to build inexpensive robotic hands after his hand was injured in a rock climbing accident, Apptronik is also a major customer. Now, the company sells more robotic hands than prosthetics to 'tier one humanoid companies.' It's a form of 'cross-pollination,' Saavedra said. And Leeds, England-based COVVI, which makes prosthetic hands with the ability to move individual fingers, recently launched a robotic hand tailormade for humanoid robots. 'Every humanoid robot needs robotic arms and legs,' said Connor Glass, the CEO and founder of Phantom Neuro, which is developing a non-invasive implant that enables a person to control a prosthetic device and works closely with prosthetics companies. 'Now [startups] are able to pivot in a way, and try to generate revenue by working with these humanoid robot companies.' It looks like a savvy business move. A Goldman Sachs report from 2024 projects that the total addressable market for humanoid robots will reach $38 billion by 2035. It projects that millions of general purpose human-shaped robots will be produced by then, with a 40% reduction in costs. (Right now, they're often prohibitively expensive; Apptronik is targeting a $50,000 price tag but hasn't reached this unit price, and Boston Dynamics' Atlas robot reportedly costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.) By contrast, there are only 5.6 million U.S. citizens with limb loss or limb difference, according to the Amputee Coalition. That makes this a very small market, and one that's accessed through the U.S. healthcare system. It can take years and millions of dollars to get a more advanced product through the FDA or navigate a complicated insurance system. Robots don't have such hurdles. Not all prosthetics startups are going after this new opportunity. Joel Gibbard, who cofounded Bristol, U.K.-based Open Bionics in 2014 and has raised $18 million to date, has decided to stay focused on making its 3D-printed bionic arms for humans, not robots. 'Everyone in this space is probably having those ideas, thinking about it as a growth opportunity,' Gibbard said. 'I don't know if we've made the right judgment, but I can tell you that we've made a conscious decision.' Bionics needs a watershed moment to get investors' attention, said Tyler Hayes, founder of Atom Limbs, which is building a complex AI-powered arm. 'A company is going to need to demonstrate a pretty significant breakthrough, as the public would see it, for bionic limbs to get that kind of traction,' he said. Building robot limbs for bots is far from a sure bet. Ken Goldberg, the cofounder of robotics firms Ambi Robotics and Jacobi Robotics and a University of California-Berkeley professor, told Forbes that while advances in humanoid robotics are possible in the (very) long term, the timeline and hype surrounding them are exaggerated. Videos promoting these humanoids' capabilities are often misleading, and there's always a wizard behind the curtain, he said. 'Robots are getting very good at locomotion, walking, and so there are all these robots out there that look like humans, walk like humans, and people think 'Well then, they are humans',' he said. 'Manipulation, the hands, is where the challenge is.' (That's why his company, Ambi Robotics, is building purpose-built AI-powered robots that can grip and sort packages, while his newer startup, Jacobi Robotics, is developing purpose-built robots for moving items on and off industrial pallets.) Simple tasks like folding a box or clothes, anything that requires dexterity, are challenging and harder than an activity like walking. It's no wonder humanoid startups are looking toward bionic prosthetics for help. 'We're nowhere near being able to automate those things,' Goldberg said. 'Hands on a robot is a surprisingly big leap.'
