HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
GT-RIPL
Awesome-LLM-Robotics
AI & Machine Learning2023–2023
GT-RIPL / Awesome-LLM-Robotics

Awesome-LLM-Robotics

A comprehensive list of papers using large language/multi-modal models for Robotics/RL, including papers, codes, and related websites

3Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
4.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A comprehensive list of papers using large language/multi-modal models for Robotics/RL, including papers, codes, and related websites

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by day5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-11-14 16:19:15 UTC to 2023-12-09 06:55:32 UTC.

01232023-11-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsNov 142023-11-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-25 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsNov 262023-11-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsDec 9

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Nov 142023-11-14 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-15 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 152023-11-15 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 162023-11-16 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 172023-11-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-18 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 182023-11-18 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 192023-11-19 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC303
Nov 202023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 212023-11-21 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 222023-11-22 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 232023-11-23 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 242023-11-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-25 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 252023-11-25 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 262023-11-26 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 272023-11-27 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 282023-11-28 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-29 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 292023-11-29 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-30 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 302023-11-30 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 12023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 22023-12-02 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 32023-12-03 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-04 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 42023-12-04 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 52023-12-05 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 62023-12-06 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 72023-12-07 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 82023-12-08 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-09 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 92023-12-09 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-10 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

5 sources
> All we have to do for any of these is… implement them. An idea isn't a solution. I don't know what you are even talking about. Until we are actually solving these problems in a substantial way we have nothing but hope, we don't know that anything will pan out. > Can too. There is no 100% automated lab. Tools being controlled by a computer doesn't mean they are loaded, prepared and most importantly maintained by humans. And Science requires different types of labs, I just watched a documentary about the making of the new Malaria vaccine, and how challenging it was to produce the ~cup of vaccine needed for clinical trials vs producing enough for validation was fascinating. > Irrelevant no it's not. We are so far from 100% automation of anything. Some human being has to install and maintain literally everything in every factory. Nobody is
Read the rest
making self maintaining bots, much less ones that can do everything. > So incredibly and wildly false Comparing human seamstresses to even the latest crop of Robotic fabric handlers(that haven't seen mass market penetration best I can tell, so are still unproven in my book) is like comparing OSMO to a construction worker. It's not false. That video, which I watched with interest, is not convincing at all, having seen more traditional jeans making places. > Most of the problems with manufacturing these days are specifically the human part of it. Because the human part is by far the hardest. > do actually follow that link I gave you before https://github.com/GT-RIPL/Awesome-LLM-Robotics Ok and? nice Gish Gallop I guess?
In Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team
> Nah, I've been waiting for this since Adobe released Content Aware Fill over a decade ago. If you were expecting Photoshop, an image manipulator, to produce a website, which is a mixture of HTML (text) and images, on the basis of a combination of a prompt and an example image… then you were more disconnected from the state of AI research at that time than you're accusing me of being now. > We are destroying the biosphere quickly. Have you seen a reef lately? Globally we still rely on our biosphere for food. We haven't solved this problem. If we can't feed everyone it's not inhabitable. There are many known solutions, both to the destruction and the pollution, and indeed to feeding people in closed systems. All we have to do for any of these is… implement them. >> lots of people out there get benefits from the things that cause all the v
Read the rest
arious kinds of pollution > Hence we need lots of breakthroughs to replace these old technologies, whether they be fishing or cancer treatments. The "breakthroughs" are in the past, we've already got them — we just need to do them. >> AI can easily follow the scientific method, > It can't interact with the world so it can't perform science. Can too, so you're wrong. In fact, most science these days involves tools that are controlled by computers, so it would be less wrong (but still a bit wrong) to say that humans can't do science. > Boston Dynamics has teams of human beings making robots, which are largely preprogrammed. Irrelevant. Also, do actually follow that link I gave you before: https://github.com/GT-RIPL/Awesome-LLM-Robotics > Making stuff in real life is really hard even with humans. Most of the problems with manufacturing these days are specifically the human part of it. Computer memory used to be hand-knitted, we don't do that for modern computers and for good reason. > We are so far away from needing to worry about this sort of AI safety. I mean, we haven't solved robotic fabric handling yet, it's why we still have sweatshops sewing our clothes. Simultaneously irrelevant (lots of research doesn't involve fabric handling), and false. So incredibly and wildly false that when I searched for examples, I got a page of sponsored adverts for different fabric handling robots before the content. Here's the first non-sponsored search result, a corporate video from a year ago, so unlikely to be state-of-the-art today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JjUnKpsJRM (They're specifically about re-shoring sewing away from sweatshops).
In Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team
> You mean a complete hypothetical outside of scifi? 18 months ago, so was having an AI make even so much as a toy website by drawing a sketch on a sheet of paper, taking a photo, captioning it "make me a website that looks like this", and pressing the "go" button. > Our planet is actually, not hypothetically, becoming uninhabitable due to pollutiom. I am so tired of ML people thinking they are god and have created something of infinite power. The hubris. So much irony there. No, the planet is not becoming uninhabitable. Bits of it are, and this is bad, and this is leading to mass migration which is causing political drama. Lots of people out there get benefits from the things that cause all the various kinds of pollution, from hyper-local things like littering and fly tipping to global things like CO2 and CFCs, and the arguments they use
Read the rest
are sometimes the same ones you just used — things like "I am so tired of these Greta Thunberg people thinking humans can change the environment. The hubris." Also, no, nobody thinks we've already created a machine god. We think we might, eventually, with a lot of concerted effort, be able to make something that's somewhat better at every cognitive task than any human, but not only do even the most optimistic estimates place that several years away, but quite a lot of people are already going "that has so many ways it can go wrong, let's not do that". Finally, one of the ways it can go wrong is basically hyper-capitalism: an AI tasked with making as much money as possible, doesn't necessarily come with the sort of mind that we have which feels shame and embarrassment when their face is put on an effigy and burned by people that would like their environment to not be polluted. > The birds eye view is that we need tons of major breakthroughs to allow us to overcome this climate disaster while also figuring out how to make 8 Billion+ comfortable and happy without turning the earth into a toxic waste dump, and we need this ASAP. This nonsense about AI safety is going to have a negative net affect on the lives of Billions of people, by slowing down the progress thay could be made. Nah, don't need a single breakthrough, we've got sufficient known solutions to solve it all already even if there's not a single new idea. Just building out the existing research-level tech for storage and renewables is more than good enough for energy and transport, similarly there already exists solutions for other domains. Also, AI isn't just LLMs and non-LLM AIs do actually help with this kind of research, it's just not exciting to the general public because 50 pages of "here's how we Navier-Stoked ourselves a new turbine design" will have most people's eyes glaze over. Unfortunately, and directly relevant to your concerns about pollution, the fact AI means more than LLMs also means that last year a team working on using AI to test chemicals for safety before they get manufactured… found 40,000 new chemical weapons in 6 hours by flipping a sign from "find safe" to "find unsafe": https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-... > Science requires the scientific method, which requires physical embodiment, trial and error, and disciplined observation and measurment. Yes. > AI has 0 ability to do any of that, we don't even have online learning(I think that's the term, where the model learns from its usage) in any of these large models. False, all false. AI can easily follow the scientific method, and indeed AI is basically just applied statistics so it does this by default and the hard part is to give it heuristics so it doesn't have to on things we are literally born knowing, like faces. Likewise, trial and error: that's what almost every model is doing almost all the time during their training. Only the most trivial ones can have weights calculated directly. Also, physical embodiment is a huge field all by itself. Tesla's cars and robots, Boston Dynamics — and, surprisingly, there's even a lot of research connecting robots to LLMs: https://github.com/GT-RIPL/Awesome-LLM-Robotics Finally, "online learning" is only one of many ways to update models from usage; ChatGPT does something (not necessarily online learning but it could be) with the signals from the thumbs up/down and regenerate buttons to update either the model or the RLHF layer in response to them. Even the opposite of online learning, offline learning (AKA batch learning), can update models in response to new data. The term you were probably after is "incremental learning" (which can be implemented in either a batched or online fashion), and one way you can tell that an LLM (OpenAI or other) is doing this by watching the version number change over time.
In Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team
Ah, you wrote unclearly, it sounded like you were asserting that no system was an LLM rather than no driving system. So while your claim is still false, I will accept that it isn't tautologically so. Likewise, I am demonstrating that the actual definition you're using here is poor due to the consequence of it ruling out Stephen Hawking, and that goal means that the reason why he couldn't do things is unimportant: you still ruled him out with your standard. Transformer models are surprisingly capable in multiple domains, so although ChatGPT hasn't got relatively many examples of labeled motor control input/output sequences and corresponding feedback values, this was my first search result for "llm robot control": https://github.com/GT-RIPL/Awesome-LLM-Robotics (note several are mentioning specifically ChatGPT).
In Levels of AGI: Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.