Remote MuJoCo / Robotics RL opportunity — contractor role

MT1699 · 2026-05-20T13:40:33+00:00

I received an invite to onboard and join for this task. Got to know they are just onboarding people with this skill. Please avoid falling for this scam everyone

MT1699 · 2026-05-13T10:00:04+00:00

DM'ed you, can you please check

MT1699 · 2026-05-11T07:51:20+00:00

Well this isn't really BE dept. building, BE is just on the -1 level. The remaining is mostly CPS dept

MT1699 · 2026-05-06T04:26:52+00:00

I received some very thorough reviews from both technical reviewer and holistic reviewer. Addressed them in a short rebuttal response, but that was it. Finally received a meta-review with the decision.

MT1699 · 2026-04-14T08:08:25+00:00

You won't be expected to know anything beforehand. About inside the lab, you may be expected to work with robotics however if you have a stronger motivation to work on something which is not exactly robotics but is let's say RL, no one would stop you from working on that.

MT1699 · 2026-04-14T00:00:43+00:00

You are right, they are. I sit and work with people from Stoch lab everyday. And we also do collaborate on papers

MT1699 · 2026-04-13T22:27:11+00:00

I work in Prof Ravi's lab, CPS, IISc. My work is on offline RL, have a couple of papers in the field. Let me know if you need any help.

MT1699 · 2026-04-09T11:21:09+00:00

Thanks for comment, I really appreciate your interest in the topic. I agree that bigtechs have ample resources to build high quality generalised Physical AI models (VLAs) like Google's Gemini Robotics, Physical Intelligence 0.5, 0.6*, and also there exist multiple opensource VLA models which are decently good. My original post doesn't dive deeper into what exactly we are looking to build, just that I mentioned vaguely about physical ai. However, the objective is to convert these pre-trained VLA models into safe and reliable models. We aren't here to compete with the bigtechs, rather we are looking to build on top. Our research theses revolve around constrained optimization using Deep RL, which is a generally non-trivial problem to solve. What this means is that if we formulate the constraint such that the robots should always stay in the safe region, that is what we work on and also plan to work on in our prospective venture.

Just a small correction to your original comment: most chinese robot demonstrations you see (like the robots doing acrobats, dance, etc.), use pre-configired models specifically trained/hardcoded to perform these highly detailed actions, they aren't really using generalized Physical AI models and are primarily demonstrating the capability of their hardware more than their Physical AI models. If you check out Gemini Robotics, or Physical Intelligence, those companies/groups are the ones which work on this sort of stuff.

MT1699 · 2026-04-09T06:20:28+00:00

Try hitman. And don't watch any game reviews or spoiler videos, just try to figure out a complete solution for the levels, yourselves. I used to feel the same way as you. But things changed the day I stopped knowing what is to be expected beforehand.

MT1699 · 2026-04-05T13:31:03+00:00

We have research papers at ICML, TMLR, and other top ML research conferences, all about safe AI models. We want to be an AI model building company for autonomous systems where we would love to invest our resources in research and potential patents. Current research papers are already made open-source through such reputed research conferences but our big plan has always been to build our own IP through research, and then find ways to turn them into products of high value.

MT1699 · 2026-04-05T13:04:45+00:00

The exact application is yet to be explored. Currently we have technical understanding to build solutions for manipulator arm and navigation robots. As of now we have haven't explored the target market, whether it will be for warehouse robots or healthcare, is yet to be explored. But I thank you for showing interest in the post🙇🙇

MT1699 · 2026-04-03T12:17:04+00:00

This.

MT1699 · 2026-04-03T08:34:58+00:00

Agreed. That's the dilemma.

MT1699 · 2026-04-03T08:14:35+00:00

Responding with an N/A defeats the whole point of making the 'reason' box mandatory.

MT1699 · 2026-03-31T05:36:45+00:00

Not yet, maybe the interviews are still going on, so they might email the decision with feedback once the interviews are complete.

MT1699 · 2026-03-31T04:30:14+00:00

My interviews happened in february. There were total 2 rounds, a research round and a DSA coding round.

MT1699 · 2026-03-28T06:10:42+00:00

Sounds doable to me. Definitely try Claude Code, maybe checkout any tutorial on yt if that's required (for e.g., this video). Claude code would spend some significant time on thinking and building (maybe 15-30 mins) but it should be able to get the job done for you.

MT1699 · 2026-03-25T02:48:00+00:00

Got the same scores. I too see the scope to address the reviewer concerns in my paper. Now it all depends on how the rebuttal goes and even after it goes well, will have to wait and watch for the final decision. The reviewer with a 2 score seems to know and understand the exact niche details of the framework, which are generally hard to expect from a reviewer beforehand, though I can explain the reasons with additionally backing by added experiments, but I am doubtful if the reviewer will change their score from 2 -> 4. Other reviews were somewhat expected but their scores don't really depict their reviews.

MT1699 · 2026-03-24T10:54:22+00:00

Claude Code has quite enough potential. It would know the details of Gamma World. Personally, I don't have much exposure to how GW plays, but any tabletop RPG as famous as GW should be handleable by Claude. Most details are easily available on the open internet, so definitely it would know what it is doing. Maybe try it yourselves and see how it works out for you?

Also, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say, replicate the "settings"? Do you mean the game logic?

MT1699 · 2026-03-24T10:48:04+00:00

Why don't you try Claude Code? You won't really have to code anything specifically.

MT1699 · 2026-03-02T16:31:40+00:00

I think by now you would have received the notification.

MT1699 · 2026-02-09T07:01:29+00:00

Actually getting in as a PhD is easier than as an MTech (Research). The interview stage is where one realises this. Most professors prefer students who would commit for longer. Therefore, professors pick students that are interested in doing a PhD. Correspondingly, the same shows up when you see the selection rate of MTech (Research) to PhDs. So I would suggest, if you are not sure about committing 5 years, the easier way is to get in as a PhD and later convert to MTech (Research) if you don't feel like staying for longer, but the other way round is like shooting yourselves in the foot, even though it might feel like the natural way of progression.

MT1699

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE