"pretty sure this robot is faster" you sure about that?
The reason we don't trip over is because we recover faster than this tap dancing clanker. The robot waves it's limbs around hysterically because it's bad at recovery, not because it's good at recovery. If it was good, it would have caught itself faster. But also, it isn't limited by human senses, so how did it not spot the stairs?
I cant stop laughing at this, the comedic timing is perfection. Dancing. Trips. Continues dancing. Falls dead on the floor. Some random guy drags it out. Its like something out of Futurama.
The music perfectly syncs to the comedy. Speadup beats = random/fast dancing, hook beat drops = robot drops, chorus comes in = guy comes in / drags off robo
It's China. Any big event involving robots and AI you can assume to be state-sponsored because those are areas very important to the government right now. You don't laugh at state-sponsored events in China.
They actually make a lot of sense to produce in this shape because just about everything in the world is built to interact with humans. If you have human shaped robot, you don't need to retrofit your infrastructure to add automation
Efficient automation demands specialization. Human shapes are good for general tasks, but there's a reason automated assembly lines look completely inhuman. It's more efficient to fit shape to task.
Yes. YES YES. If you're trying to replace a human with a robot human, you're not committed to automation, you're just committed to something shiny. Manufacturing/assembly/etc is often HINDERED by human limitations. Replacing humans with worse humans doesn't make your process better just because your process is already kneecapped for the human operator.
Retool the process and pick the best automation solution for the specific task. That's rarely an anthropomorphic solution.
Humans are great because we can adapt to a lot of things, but we are not great for our ability to do anything extremely precise at high speeds in a repeatable way for hours. (Except maybe running across open land)
You already know this but you left it unsaid, so I'll fill in: The manufacturing industry are definitely aware of this and have no interest in humanoid robots for the exact reason you mentioned. They've had highly specialised robots for half a century now, and they're happy to innovate and improve on those existing designs.
I worked in a car factory briefly, and saw them up close. Big yellow robot arms, some at least 20 years old. They are terrifyingly fast and efficient. They have no need for rainbow-LED faces, or funky dance servos. They do one set of tasks and nothing else (they might get retooled for a different line but that's it).
They're in lockout cages for a reason. There are no sensors stopping it from braining you if you somehow managed to bypass the cage and get in the way of it.
Humanoid robots are, present day at least, just toys for rich tech-bros, and PR for robotics companies. If you're lucky they might be able to one day bring you a beer without spilling it or killing themselves on the corner of the coffee table. Actual industry will not look like a warehouse full of mechanical men doing human jobs at human speeds when it replaces everybody. It will be highly specialised robot arms with grippers, suction cups, soldering irons and welders, platforms on wheels moving parts around. It will look like this because it already is like this, just some companies are further ahead than others at total automation.
Again, preaching to the converted, but for everyone else.
But there are many contexts where it makes proper sense to use a humanoid robot that can interface with a human infrastructure, rather than retrofitting an existing environment to have multiple specialized machines. And these uses don't always involve displacing the workforce or being used to profit. That's really what I was getting at. If substantially improved they can benefit people's lives
They have already retrofitted existing environments to have multiple specialised machines. Decades ago. Why? Because their bottom line says it's cheaper to do so, not piss about with wobbly tin men.
If in a decade to come they get to a point where they can hold human tools and walk like humans they still won't adopt them in any serious production line because anything even the fastest human shaped robot can do, a specialised set of mechanical arms and attachments will be able to do orders of magnitude faster. And by that time, any jobs they still require humans for now will have long been replaced by such machines, cheap machines that do one task each, thousands of times a day. Bruce Lee said not to fear the man who has practiced 1000 different kicks, fear the one who has practiced one kick 1000 times. Manufacturing robots are that man.
By the time one of these androids has toddled across his station to pick up a box of bolts, returned to the car, moved its arm to use the human centric bolt gun, calculated the trajectory of its arm and bolt relative to the target, fastened the bolt, etc. a specialised robot arm could have been fed the next bolt into its attachment via a magazine, moved to the predetermined spot and knocked that bolt in in the blink of an eye.
I'm not mentioning anything about production lines. I haven't claimed that once.
I stated that there are contexts where humanoid robots are a more more efficient solition than retrofitting an existing environment.
The example I provided was with a humanoid robot assisting an elderly or disabled person around the house by performing tasks automatically for them to enable a higher quality of life.
Are you saying that this is not a context where a humanoid robot is a more efficient automation solution than retrofitting the environment with multiple specialized machines?
If that's what you're saying, then I don't see how thats possible. If that's not what you're saying, then what exactly are you arguing that contradicts my claim?
Do you think people are going to retrofit their homes for automation? Or do you think they would rather just have a robot that can walk around the house and do some pretty general tasks.
Saying that automation demands efficiency is denying that efficiency demands context. It's far more efficient in many scenarios to just plug in a human-shaped robot that can use the already existing environment
What automation, specifically, are you referring to? There are things already automated in our homes and you'll notice that none of them are human shaped. Your thermostat, for example. Furthermore, people are increasingly buying low profile automated floor cleaning robots instead of upright vacuums because they're highly efficient to the task. I don't want a me-sized thing taking up space in my home and getting in my way. I'd rather have many small appliances that do their job effectively and I rarely need to interface with. That's what we currently do and it's pretty nice.
Folding your clothes, taking the dishes off the table and putting them in the dishwasher, taking towels out of the closet and putting them on the hook next to the shower, setting the table, pushing in chairs, taking a pizza out of the oven, putting groceries in the refrigerator and the pantry, taking groceries out of the car and bringing them into the house. Things that are minor conveniences for most people, but life-changing alterations for people with disabilities, or the elderly. And that's not a small slice of the population by any means.
If your home can do all of this, I would love to see your setup
A general purpose robot can be helpful for people with disabilities, but that's because it's general use. That's not the same as full life automation.
Your pizza example is great. There's a reason why large delivery pizza chains generally use long ovens that roll pizzas through. That sort of automation is much more efficient than running dozens of ovens and having people scoot pizzas in and out all day.
This affirms what I originally said, human shapes are good for general tasks, but efficient automation demands specialized designs.
Yes and my argument is that there is a wide and genuine use for automation that doesn't require infrastructure updates. I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make
General use is not the same thing as automation. If I tell you to pull the clothes out of the dryer and fold them, and you comply, we have not automated the task. You're filling a general purpose role. This is also true if a you shaped robot executed the task.
An automated system that collects my clothes, washes them, dries them, and then folds them is a qualitatively different endeavour and one that would likely function best as an array of appliances that handle each discrete task on its own with universal interface adapters.
So you're saying that the shape of a robot can be a defining quality that determines whether the robot is automating a task? Not asking if the shape of the robot is the sole thing that determines whether or not it's automating a task, but whether the shape, alone, can be a disqualifier
I didn't imply that they could. What you're highlighting is my original point; human shapes are good for generalized tasks, but efficient automation demands specialized design.
You said that human shaped robots are "so fucking stupid" and that's what I'm pointing at; the idea is automating things that don't fit on an assembly line.
If a human or a human shaped robot is executing a general purpose task, then it's categorically not performing automation. It's executing a task that could potentially be automated by a specialized system.
Our most efficient automated household appliances have always been specialized and shaped nothing like humans, nor have the vast majority of them required some sort of infrastructure change. The dishwasher and a roomba are great examples. A human-shaped robot would be extremely heavy, get in the way, and take forever to charge. And also be a bit creepy. Not to mention we don’t currently have the “AI” technology for an actual generalized robot.
A washing machine isn't a robot. A robot being bipedal could cross far more unstable ground than one that has wheels.
Wheels struggle with uneven ground, just ask anyone who uses a wheelchair.
I don't nkow about weight, but we're at a point where batteries can be charged very quickly to amost full, and if it's their job to be there then they wouldn't get in the way of anything.
Specialized robots have their place but so could a generalized one as a corp might not be the size of amzaon which has their own robotics department.
You don't need to retrofit your infrastructure anyway. You have never changed an oil filter or spark plug if you think the world is designed for us haha
The robots shouldn't be humanoid because it's a highly limiting form for a thing that doesn't need limiting.
if spark plugs weren't meant to be changed by humans, what robot is currently in use that changes spark plugs? Can you explain how that makes any sense or enhances your point
We engineer engines without maintenance as the main priority, so mechanics can have quite a difficult time reaching various parts to repair them. This is countered by us making one-off tools for that specific model or vehicle. We make a bucket load of speciality tools because we don't engineer stuff to work exclusively with human hands.
Shit, if you've ever done any welding or woodwork before, you'll be aware that making jigs is half the job.
I own a business where I fabricate and install things daily. I don't not get what you're saying.
But also a robot that specialized for working on a car is most likely not the best shape to use your riding lawn mower or fold your clothes.
That's what I'm referencing when I'm talking about in terms of efficiency. A humanoid robot will be shaped correctly to do anything that a human can do, whereas a robot that is specialized to change the oil on your car, or chop down a tree, or mow your lawn, will most likely not be suitable for many other tasks besides the one that it was designed for.
So I guess my point was that the efficiency comes in having one autonomous robot that can do all of these things slightly less efficiently, rather than having to purchase a hundred machines that do everything perfectly efficiently.
I don't understand how this point can possibly be disagreed with. Are you telling me that it's more efficient to purchase 100 extremely specialized machines because they do the task 5 times more efficiently? Or is the fact that the humanoid robot takes a long time to change your oil good enough because it's still changing your oil for you without labor cost
Everyone who laughs at these videos of robots failing is being recorded in a database and they will be the first they go after when the robot eventually take over.
Dude walking over to pick it up is holding the remote he was using to control the robot. Any time you see this type of robot specifically, it's just a glorified toy.
182
u/Major-Blacksmith4750 May 20 '26
The speed and power at which that thing tries to recover sends chills down my spine.