5 ms·

Can anyone with good robotics experience explain why these types of robots are not in wider commercial use? We have seen interesting robots like this one, from

Can anyone with good robotics experience explain why these types of robots are not in wider commercial use? We have seen interesting robots like this one, from Boston Dynamics and others but they still seem to be far from displacing humans in the workforce. It seems that these robots have similar fine motor skills to humans, enough to displace humans in more economic activities. If visual detection and response is the problem, teleoperation is always an option: hire people from low-labor cost countries to operate them remotely. So I am assuming that some kind of manufacturing costs are the reason that these robots are not taking over more human labor in advanced economies. Is that correct?

modeless 3y ago
IMO the problem is hands. I think hands are harder than legs.
- two_in_one 3y ago
  It's everything. Starting with compute unit, sensors. They _are_ getting smaller and cheaper. Then there are actuators. Small robots use servos which are not fast enough. Bigger robots, like those from Boston Dynamics, use brushless motors. Which are fast, but have limited torque. Then there is the cost. Without volume it's absurdly high. Then competitors, they can easily reproduce. For example Boston Dynamics sell it's dog sized robot for $75k, while mechanically similar Chinese are $4-10k. Then the biggest question is what are you going to do with it for this price? Special note: we already have vacuums. You cannot send it shopping alone. Any other realistic ideas?
  - cardosof 3y ago
    Thank you for the insights. Realistically, how long do you think it's going to be before small businesses (for example, retailers or small warehouses and manufacturers) start using robots like the Boston Dynamics products in their day to day workflows?
    - NalNezumi 3y ago
      Some robots, such as spot is already used in business. This one [1] is used at a power plant, and some warehouses have fully automated pipeline. When I went to a job interview for Mujin in Japan they told me they had fully automated the new Nike warehouse [1] https://youtu.be/PkW9wx7Kbws https://youtu.be/PkW9wx7Kbws
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    The big promise is that if you make it capable of the same physical feats as humans, then all you need to make it capable of doing almost any chore is software, and software is a lot easier to iterate on with huge advances right now in the form of LLMs, plus having effectively zero marginal cost once development is paid for. It'll probably do those tasks slower than a human for the foreseeable future, but that's unlikely to be a deal-breaker if it can reliably do the tasks. It's more expensive than a robot vacuum, but it can vacuum for you and prepare the house for vacuuming by moving things and putting clutter back where it belongs, something current vacuums can't do. It's more expensive than a dishwasher, but it can collect the dishes itself and then put them back into storage itself, something current dishwashers can't do. It can collect dirty laundry and put it in the washing machine, then take it out and dry it, then fold it and put it away, then get your clothes ready when you need them - a washing machine can't do that. If it's capable of doing the same tasks physically as a human, it should be able to charge itself, update itself, do some light maintenance on itself (e.g. clearing dust from sensors and feet, cleaning most of its chassis, replacing certain parts), meaning a good system shouldn't introduce more work than it's alleviating. It should be able to tidy up and mop properly, and if it gets close enough to human speed it may be able to cook - nothing commercially available can do those. It should be able to move furniture, arrange cables, and do some basic DIY tasks, maybe even 'destructive' DIY if you own your home - nothing commercially available can do that. It is very unlikely to be as efficient at any of those tasks as a purpose built, industrial-style robot specialised to a single task, but if it can do all of them to a satisfactory standard for a cheaper price than outfitting your home with every automated machine under the sun (some of which don't even exist yet, the economics for creating them aren't great, and they would take a huge amount of space in your home), then there's a value proposition there. Plus, there is also value in the visible solution being more familiar and understandable, rather than your home being filled with big cubes, rectangles, and robotic arms that infringe on your space even if they're made safe to be around humans. Basically, with current automated solutions humans form the "glue" between all existing home automation solutions, because humans are generally capable where existing solutions are specific and fragile. If that "glue" role can be performed by a humanoid robot, then it dramatically reduces the amount of housework humans have to do. As for who might buy it for the price, the obvious answer is people who are rich enough to afford it but either not rich enough to hire service staff or who don't want to employ service staff for other reasons (privacy, don't want to be personally exposed to wealth inequality, racism, fear of theft, fear of disease). Another answer is disabled people. A lot of disabled people love their support workers and have important, humane relationships with them. A lot of other disabled people (like me) love what support workers do and think it's important but are unwilling to go through the arduous process of finding someone you trust to be there when you're at your most vulnerable, or being forced to make do with one of the small proportion of support workers who don't care about their clients that much or are borderline abusive (or actually abusive). In countries with socialised or subsidised medicine, I could very easily see the case for covering humanoid robotic helpers. Already in my country various machines worth up to $8000 or even $100,000 can be covered for disabled people depending on how much it would help, the medical need for it, etc, under various different programs. These aren't small programs either, a lot of disabled people here have access to these resources. A lot of money is also allocated on an ongoing basis specifically for support workers, and for humanoid robots specifically I could see them being eligible to access those funds because of the overlap in role between them and support workers. It won't be a good solution for every disabled person, but it could be a good solution for a lot of us.
Animats 3y ago
Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations has been awful for half a century. Most industrial robots are moving to fixed positions, with maybe a little vision guidance at the end. Now that seems to be changing.
viraptor 3y ago
> Can anyone with good robotics experience explain why these types of robots are not in wider commercial use? Can't claim lots of experience, but: Consider how much is happening with these kinds of robots that's not actually related to the task. If you want a production line, a well designed arm with replaceable tool will be much more efficient. If you want a fast moving delivery robot, you want a shelf with wheels. If you want all terrain mobility, you have treads. Currently it's much easier/cheaper to get something specialised for the task you actually want done rather than building something super generic and human like. "Can it balance itself while chasing a ball" is not a problem you want to be solving, ever. Neither "how to use tools while moving sensors can see the object from extremely limited angles". Human-like robots introduce lots of issues we don't need to be solving - why build a Rube Goldberg machine if you don't need one? Every single joint/motor you don't need is extra maintenance. Every single "this thing needs to balance itself" element is wasted power. Every extra self-support processing from the sensor is unnecessary delay.
- stravant 3y ago
  I would not be so quick to say that this is an "obvious" outcome though. You could apply the same argument to computer hardware: General purpose CPUs are incredibly wasteful compared to specialized hardware (see Bitcoin mining where ASICs are many orders of magnitude faster than even GPUs), yet on the whole the value of being able to iterate in software wins out.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    I'm not sure that maps well. It's kind of true, but the universal use of CPUs does not have major downsides - you're missing the potential improvements, not losing anything. And we fully specialise where it makes financial sense (AES in CPUs), and half-specialise elsewhere (GPUs). On the other hand, a generic humanoid has lots of cost/complexity/maintenance/etc impact. An articulated arm with a tool for a given task can do things you can't generalise (think DaVinci robot precision vs auto construction high power - humanoid can't replace either) There's also massively higher market for CPUs (multiple per person, cheap) than for humanoid robots (tiny percentage per person, expensive), so the economy is different.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 3y ago
This particular kind is easy to explain an answer for - not cheap/easy/etc enough. 6 axis are quite common, and getting every more common They were always used, but are now like, not the price of a house in the bay area for a reasonable one. It's rare to need a lot beyond that for say, production line manufacturing for a wood processing plant. Everything is already in line, etc. They can lift and move things, spray finish, you name it. Most of the time is programming. The arms can be fast and accurate. Now, the more general kind of warehouse work, like people walking around shelving things, that's harder - you get into issues around size of motors, actuation accuracy, etc. In lots of cases it's easier to design a warehouse around robot capability than design robots around warehouse structure. Unless there are dramatic breakthroughs, you will see arms and such get used more and more at places with less money and lower margins (IE random metal/wood shop) well before full on bipedal/quadruped robots. Or you know, people will use the arms as novelties to smack the person who broke the build in the exact center of the back of their head with a precise amount of force. Both seem equally likely ;)
gene-h 3y ago
>fine motor skills Hardly. Most tasks we want robots to do involve using hands rather than legs. Robots are still very bad at picking stuff up and moving it around. >Teleoperation has been tried. Redwood robotics tried it, but couldn't make it work. It is still very challenging to control robots remotely and get manipulation as good as humans get. Haptics and force feedback is VERY sensitive to latency too. The current state of the art of teleoperation used in the avatar prize required complicated haptics setups. Essentially the operator needs to have a robot to get force feedback. It's not manufacturing costs, it's that robots aren't very good.
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  They are good compared to other robots, but compared to humans they are at an unbearably cute toddler-level soccer. Double their size and they might become more useful, but much more clumsy and fragile.
toast0 3y ago
To add on to what everyone else said. Effective automation usually does the job in a different way than a human. Automated burger cooking doesn't put a burger on a grill/griddle and flip it when it looks good, it cooks it from both sides at once on a conveyor with human set timing. Sewing machines have a different method than hand sewing. Printers don't generally move a pen across paper, they make a series of dots in a line (old school plotters are an exception, but modern plotters are inkjet dots in a line). Dishwashers don't scrub dishes, they just shoot recurculated hot, soapy water everywhere. Methods that would be tedious or difficult or unsafe for humans can be simple for machines, and following human methods would be difficult, imprecise, and costly. A factory environment can usually be arranged with belts or tracks to avoid carrying, and with surfaces suitable for wheels rather than requiring legs.

modeless 3y ago

IMO the problem is hands. I think hands are harder than legs.

two_in_one 3y ago
It's everything. Starting with compute unit, sensors. They _are_ getting smaller and cheaper. Then there are actuators. Small robots use servos which are not fast enough. Bigger robots, like those from Boston Dynamics, use brushless motors. Which are fast, but have limited torque. Then there is the cost. Without volume it's absurdly high. Then competitors, they can easily reproduce. For example Boston Dynamics sell it's dog sized robot for $75k, while mechanically similar Chinese are $4-10k. Then the biggest question is what are you going to do with it for this price? Special note: we already have vacuums. You cannot send it shopping alone. Any other realistic ideas?
- cardosof 3y ago
  Thank you for the insights. Realistically, how long do you think it's going to be before small businesses (for example, retailers or small warehouses and manufacturers) start using robots like the Boston Dynamics products in their day to day workflows?
  - NalNezumi 3y ago
    Some robots, such as spot is already used in business. This one [1] is used at a power plant, and some warehouses have fully automated pipeline. When I went to a job interview for Mujin in Japan they told me they had fully automated the new Nike warehouse [1] https://youtu.be/PkW9wx7Kbws https://youtu.be/PkW9wx7Kbws
- lucubratory 3y ago
  The big promise is that if you make it capable of the same physical feats as humans, then all you need to make it capable of doing almost any chore is software, and software is a lot easier to iterate on with huge advances right now in the form of LLMs, plus having effectively zero marginal cost once development is paid for. It'll probably do those tasks slower than a human for the foreseeable future, but that's unlikely to be a deal-breaker if it can reliably do the tasks. It's more expensive than a robot vacuum, but it can vacuum for you and prepare the house for vacuuming by moving things and putting clutter back where it belongs, something current vacuums can't do. It's more expensive than a dishwasher, but it can collect the dishes itself and then put them back into storage itself, something current dishwashers can't do. It can collect dirty laundry and put it in the washing machine, then take it out and dry it, then fold it and put it away, then get your clothes ready when you need them - a washing machine can't do that. If it's capable of doing the same tasks physically as a human, it should be able to charge itself, update itself, do some light maintenance on itself (e.g. clearing dust from sensors and feet, cleaning most of its chassis, replacing certain parts), meaning a good system shouldn't introduce more work than it's alleviating. It should be able to tidy up and mop properly, and if it gets close enough to human speed it may be able to cook - nothing commercially available can do those. It should be able to move furniture, arrange cables, and do some basic DIY tasks, maybe even 'destructive' DIY if you own your home - nothing commercially available can do that. It is very unlikely to be as efficient at any of those tasks as a purpose built, industrial-style robot specialised to a single task, but if it can do all of them to a satisfactory standard for a cheaper price than outfitting your home with every automated machine under the sun (some of which don't even exist yet, the economics for creating them aren't great, and they would take a huge amount of space in your home), then there's a value proposition there. Plus, there is also value in the visible solution being more familiar and understandable, rather than your home being filled with big cubes, rectangles, and robotic arms that infringe on your space even if they're made safe to be around humans. Basically, with current automated solutions humans form the "glue" between all existing home automation solutions, because humans are generally capable where existing solutions are specific and fragile. If that "glue" role can be performed by a humanoid robot, then it dramatically reduces the amount of housework humans have to do. As for who might buy it for the price, the obvious answer is people who are rich enough to afford it but either not rich enough to hire service staff or who don't want to employ service staff for other reasons (privacy, don't want to be personally exposed to wealth inequality, racism, fear of theft, fear of disease). Another answer is disabled people. A lot of disabled people love their support workers and have important, humane relationships with them. A lot of other disabled people (like me) love what support workers do and think it's important but are unwilling to go through the arduous process of finding someone you trust to be there when you're at your most vulnerable, or being forced to make do with one of the small proportion of support workers who don't care about their clients that much or are borderline abusive (or actually abusive). In countries with socialised or subsidised medicine, I could very easily see the case for covering humanoid robotic helpers. Already in my country various machines worth up to $8000 or even $100,000 can be covered for disabled people depending on how much it would help, the medical need for it, etc, under various different programs. These aren't small programs either, a lot of disabled people here have access to these resources. A lot of money is also allocated on an ongoing basis specifically for support workers, and for humanoid robots specifically I could see them being eligible to access those funds because of the overlap in role between them and support workers. It won't be a good solution for every disabled person, but it could be a good solution for a lot of us.

Animats 3y ago

Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations has been awful for half a century. Most industrial robots are moving to fixed positions, with maybe a little vision guidance at the end. Now that seems to be changing.

viraptor 3y ago

> Can anyone with good robotics experience explain why these types of robots are not in wider commercial use? Can't claim lots of experience, but: Consider how much is happening with these kinds of robots that's not actually related to the task. If you want a production line, a well designed arm with replaceable tool will be much more efficient. If you want a fast moving delivery robot, you want a shelf with wheels. If you want all terrain mobility, you have treads. Currently it's much easier/cheaper to get something specialised for the task you actually want done rather than building something super generic and human like. "Can it balance itself while chasing a ball" is not a problem you want to be solving, ever. Neither "how to use tools while moving sensors can see the object from extremely limited angles". Human-like robots introduce lots of issues we don't need to be solving - why build a Rube Goldberg machine if you don't need one? Every single joint/motor you don't need is extra maintenance. Every single "this thing needs to balance itself" element is wasted power. Every extra self-support processing from the sensor is unnecessary delay.

stravant 3y ago
I would not be so quick to say that this is an "obvious" outcome though. You could apply the same argument to computer hardware: General purpose CPUs are incredibly wasteful compared to specialized hardware (see Bitcoin mining where ASICs are many orders of magnitude faster than even GPUs), yet on the whole the value of being able to iterate in software wins out.
- viraptor 3y ago
  I'm not sure that maps well. It's kind of true, but the universal use of CPUs does not have major downsides - you're missing the potential improvements, not losing anything. And we fully specialise where it makes financial sense (AES in CPUs), and half-specialise elsewhere (GPUs). On the other hand, a generic humanoid has lots of cost/complexity/maintenance/etc impact. An articulated arm with a tool for a given task can do things you can't generalise (think DaVinci robot precision vs auto construction high power - humanoid can't replace either) There's also massively higher market for CPUs (multiple per person, cheap) than for humanoid robots (tiny percentage per person, expensive), so the economy is different.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 3y ago

This particular kind is easy to explain an answer for - not cheap/easy/etc enough. 6 axis are quite common, and getting every more common They were always used, but are now like, not the price of a house in the bay area for a reasonable one. It's rare to need a lot beyond that for say, production line manufacturing for a wood processing plant. Everything is already in line, etc. They can lift and move things, spray finish, you name it. Most of the time is programming. The arms can be fast and accurate. Now, the more general kind of warehouse work, like people walking around shelving things, that's harder - you get into issues around size of motors, actuation accuracy, etc. In lots of cases it's easier to design a warehouse around robot capability than design robots around warehouse structure. Unless there are dramatic breakthroughs, you will see arms and such get used more and more at places with less money and lower margins (IE random metal/wood shop) well before full on bipedal/quadruped robots. Or you know, people will use the arms as novelties to smack the person who broke the build in the exact center of the back of their head with a precise amount of force. Both seem equally likely ;)

gene-h 3y ago

>fine motor skills Hardly. Most tasks we want robots to do involve using hands rather than legs. Robots are still very bad at picking stuff up and moving it around. >Teleoperation has been tried. Redwood robotics tried it, but couldn't make it work. It is still very challenging to control robots remotely and get manipulation as good as humans get. Haptics and force feedback is VERY sensitive to latency too. The current state of the art of teleoperation used in the avatar prize required complicated haptics setups. Essentially the operator needs to have a robot to get force feedback. It's not manufacturing costs, it's that robots aren't very good.

ASalazarMX 3y ago
They are good compared to other robots, but compared to humans they are at an unbearably cute toddler-level soccer. Double their size and they might become more useful, but much more clumsy and fragile.

toast0 3y ago

To add on to what everyone else said. Effective automation usually does the job in a different way than a human. Automated burger cooking doesn't put a burger on a grill/griddle and flip it when it looks good, it cooks it from both sides at once on a conveyor with human set timing. Sewing machines have a different method than hand sewing. Printers don't generally move a pen across paper, they make a series of dots in a line (old school plotters are an exception, but modern plotters are inkjet dots in a line). Dishwashers don't scrub dishes, they just shoot recurculated hot, soapy water everywhere. Methods that would be tedious or difficult or unsafe for humans can be simple for machines, and following human methods would be difficult, imprecise, and costly. A factory environment can usually be arranged with belts or tracks to avoid carrying, and with surfaces suitable for wheels rather than requiring legs.