4 ms·
> You clearly need both? I don't think you "need" either. It's just a conversation about what the market will reward. > Humanoid robots would just replace the
by gretch 3y ago
> You clearly need both?
I don't think you "need" either. It's just a conversation about what the market will reward.
> Humanoid robots would just replace the work that humans are doing assuming they have access to the specialized robots.
Or, there won't be any replacement and the majority of people in domestic households just keep doing that little remainder part because it's not really a big deal.
This all holds perfectly with the flying car analogy -> ground cars are pretty much fine. We could try way harder to make them flying-grade at a consumer level, or we can just keep driving road cars (or taking public transit) and be happy. That's the fundamental thing that 60s futurists missed when envisioning the future.
- alooPotato 3y agoMan that’s such a downer.
- gretch 3y agoI guess that's one way to look at it. Are you down that there's no flying cars? I'm pretty happy with it tbh. edit: btw, I'd like to add that from a design perspective, humans kind of have a crappy form, which is perhaps one of the reason that rarely does one design something which ends up humanoid. E.g. something with wheels can usually move farther with less energy (or even something like tank treads if rough terrain)
- alooPotato 3y agono. but flying cars aren't a really good solution for a bunch of reasons. a humanoid robot, i think, is a good solution for a bunch of problems. the comparison is kind of useless and doesn't really help us.
- notTooFarGone 3y agoa humanoid robot is a clunky solution to all problems. You'll always have more specialized equipment that just does the job better. The "all purpose very complex" mediocre solution is not something that will stick in my opinion.