8 ms·

Why does every hype-funded general purpose robot (Tesla bot, this robot) NEED to be shaped like a human. I get that our built environment is designed for humans

Why does every hype-funded general purpose robot (Tesla bot, this robot) NEED to be shaped like a human. I get that our built environment is designed for humans, and some sci-fi loving part of me loves it. But it feels like theatrics. Boston dynamics makes utilitarian robots, that all have a seemingly purpose built design to them. Even the bipedal + 2 arms + a head robot Atlas, isn’t forced to constrain itself to human proportions. By comparison this robot seems pretty unstable. I wonder if that has to do with humans and robots being fundamentally made of different materials with very different properties. I probably answered my own question by calling it “hype-funded”.

cjs_ac 3y ago
When we talk about the 'Uncanny Valley', we talk about things that are very humanoid, but not quite humanoid enough. But the obvious target market for humanoid robots is retail and hospitality, where there's a high degree of human interaction. In that case, a lot of 'humanness' is needed to suggest to customers that 'yes, you can talk to the robot, and it will do things'. The design of this robot[0], on the other hand, is very un-human (poorly-drawn face aside), telling customers that it has a specific job that doesn't involve them. [0] https://eftm.com/2020/09/woolworths-robot-for-checking-the-shelves-and-the-isles-for-spills-85284 https://eftm.com/2020/09/woolworths-robot-for-checking-the-s...
- graypegg 3y ago
  But doesn’t that make the value in these human-y robots, simply impressing humans? I’m fine with theatrics and awe being the main purpose, but it’s really just the front end to get humans speaking to a hunk of metal without feeling weird. What difference does it make in utility if it was a screen with some 3D model talking back at you? That’s a lot easier to make feel “human”. And now you’ve freed up the design of the robot behind the scenes that actually does the task to be shaped in whatever format is useful. Is the retail space going to get similar value from the robot once the initial “oh wow robot cool” factor wears off?
- steveBK123 3y ago
  I mean Japan was a decade ahead of us there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot) I don't know that replacing $15/hr at-will labor with a $50k machine that can be vandalized/stolen/etc is going to have a great cost-benefit for most US retailers...
voidhorse 3y ago
This x1000. My sense is that because of the historical development of how we talked about AI in constant comparison to human intelligence, along with sci-fi dreams, there's been a long-standing implicit value assumption that we necessarily want robots that emulate humans, but I'm highly skeptical this is actually desirable. It's quite plausible that robots that are just robots and don't waste effort on human emulation are actually far more beneficial societally speaking.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  I would think of robots as tools. And in that sense, over time humans tools have gotten more advanced and specialized. Think about the various power tools & garden/yard tools a median DIY homeowner accumulates today vs 50 years ago. So to me, robots make more sense in purpose driven forms than in some humanoid replica attempt. The humanoid walking form factor is far harder to accomplish, and in many senses possibly less useful.
  - leksak 3y ago
    I think what a lot of people want, again influenced by sci-fi, is a general-purpose robot that can do everything a human can do and preferably other things beyond that. One form factor that can do everything we do is obviously the way we humans look hence the inclination to design robots that look like us as well. I could have multiple robots, one for vacuuming, one for doing the dishes, one for gardening, cleaning, renovating, etc. But, if I had one to do all of it any of the purpose-driven forms is likely to fail while the humanoid one _could_ succeed.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      Humanoid robots strike me as a FSD/AGI level of overshoot. Sure a humanoid robot that actually worked would be able to accomplish everything a human could physically because of the way interior spaces are designed. But focussing on that deliverable may miss a lot of available use case solutions. For example robotic vacuums and lawn mowers have been around, pretty cheap, and pretty good for some time. There's lots of home chores that a wheeled robovac with telescoping arms & really good vision could accomplish very well (empty/load dishwasher to/from sink/cabinets, light kitchen work, dusting, sweeping, etc). To deliver this in humanoid form you need to solve all the same vision/arm articulation problems, PLUS all the self balancing/walking/look&feel stuff of a humanoid. There's actually stuff a robot could do better than me if it had a telescoping arm instead of being humanoid look&feel focussed (dusting / reaching high places etc). To me it conflates 2 problems and overcomplicates to focus on the humanoid form factor at this stage. And look at the evolution of some tools - cars do not really look like horse drawn carriages for example. Helicopters don't look like flying cars.
steveBK123 3y ago
Yes, at the current state of tech.. I would say "does it look very humanoid" as a good litmus test for "not a real product".
martythemaniak 3y ago
> I probably answered my own question by calling it “hype-based”. No, I think you answered your question here: > I get that our built environment is designed for humans I don't want a purpose built robot that does one task extremely well, I want a general purpose robot that does a huge variety of tasks well-enough. Make me a coffee, then do laundry, then rake some leaves. Coffee served in the wrong mug? Clothes laid flat and not folded because it can't actually fold? Random leaves still on the ground? It's fine, it's good enough! It still saved me a bunch of time. Remember, these are aimed at car-level prices. $30k for a machine that lasts 10 years means you're paying $10/day, you do not have to be very good to earn your keep at that price.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Sure, its an interesting goal but it does not seem anywhere near a this-decade deliverable. I'm also less convinced about having all my chores done half-a**sed for $30k up front cost. A $30k investment every 10 years is either going to cost the buyer interest when they finance the purchase, or foregone returns/interest if they keep the lump sum invested. So the true cost is more like $45k. Further, it's now a device you own and are responsible for maintenance/charging/etc I am sure. So now we are talking I dunno, maybe $50k. And at that price .. $30-50k per decade, you could outsource a subset of your chores to specialists to do 100% of the job, and leave yourself with the subset you don't mind. $3k is in the ballpark for an annual yard work budget even in HCOL areas. For $5k annually you could probably outsource your laundry entirely with some light housecleaning. Or you know, find the neighborhood teen (or your own) and see how many $20s it takes to get them to clear your driveway / do your yardwork.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Efficiency wins out over sci fi coolness, every time. You’re totally right IMO. When it comes to most tasks, I normally care about the task being done, and done to some acceptable level of quality. Hiring someone gives me that for a fraction of the cost, so sorry robots, but it looks like humans are taking your yard work jobs.
  - turnsout 3y ago
skepticATX 3y ago
Because current AI leaders have read way too much science fiction, and it's constrained their thinking. This is exactly why so many people expect ChatGPT to turn into The Terminator.
amelius 3y ago
Perhaps because they can reuse the robots for a thousand types of tasks so they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time? Also much cheaper that way.
- graypegg 3y ago
  You’re conflating what I’m saying about human-styled robots, and the reality of humanoid robots. We’ve been making bipedal, two armed, dexterous robots for a while now, to varying levels of success. They don’t tend to obsess over the slick human look though, since it makes wobbly unbalanced machines, like the one in this video. Compare to Boston dynamics atlas [0], whose balance and dexterity is almost a bit scary. Is that run a result after many failed runs, yes. Is this video from Figure the result after many failed runs, I would also assume yes. I am much more impressed by what Atlas does though. [0] https://youtu.be/-e1_QhJ1EhQ https://youtu.be/-e1_QhJ1EhQ
progbits 3y ago
+1 but even Boston Dynamics stuff is too fancy and animal shaped. Here is a great example of utilitarian robot design that looks much cheaper and more efficient than bi/quadrupeds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7AcAWWxyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7AcAWWxyI
- Armisael16 3y ago
  Boston Dynamics is trying to produce for the military market. The field doesn’t generally have huge expanses of well-maintained concrete to drive on.
Ekaros 3y ago
4 legs better than 2... Or maybe tracks. And why only 2 hands? Why human like grips? And not chuck with changeable tools? Humans are pretty bad design, you could make something simpler and more efficient. And probably not trade too much surface area.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Humans are a pretty good design for a multi-cellular organism that uses energy as efficiently as possible to breed as much as possible. Definitely not the most profitable venture for a robotics company though, unless they’re in the robot porn industry.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Aren't humans rather inefficient? Long gestation cycle with more complications than many other species. The offspring require long time to be self-reliant at any level. And time to puberty is also significant... Seems like that even for breeding we could do lot better...
    - graypegg 3y ago
      Yeah to be fair, any bacterium has us beat on fecundity and energy waste!
amelius 3y ago
One reason could be that they train the robot by looking at a human. Then they point a camera at the robot when they perform the task. So if the robot looks like a human, then it is easier to copy the movements of the human. Perhaps. Just guessing. I haven't read the article because I dislike the format.
- graypegg 3y ago
  I didn’t think of that point! That’s worth mentioning. I wish we knew more about the video training method they mention.
electrondood 3y ago
Boston Dynamics basically just makes proof-of-concept robots, and then they pre-code demos for videos. If you have a non-humanoid robot, like a Kuka arm, it's a "sharp tool" which is overfit to one specific range of tasks. It's never going to be able to do anything else, and if you wanted to add other tasks, you'd have to overhaul it or create some adapter. A humanoid robot basically needs no adapter for any common task, in that every common task is already performed by humans, who all have the same components. The benefit is that the range of tasks available to the form factor is massive, versus a Boston Dynamics robot that just picks up and moves packages and can only do that. If the humanoid robot is not only far cheaper, but it can do that tasks, and thousands of others, then that's the better form factor..

cjs_ac 3y ago

When we talk about the 'Uncanny Valley', we talk about things that are very humanoid, but not quite humanoid enough. But the obvious target market for humanoid robots is retail and hospitality, where there's a high degree of human interaction. In that case, a lot of 'humanness' is needed to suggest to customers that 'yes, you can talk to the robot, and it will do things'. The design of this robot[0], on the other hand, is very un-human (poorly-drawn face aside), telling customers that it has a specific job that doesn't involve them. [0] https://eftm.com/2020/09/woolworths-robot-for-checking-the-shelves-and-the-isles-for-spills-85284 https://eftm.com/2020/09/woolworths-robot-for-checking-the-s...

graypegg 3y ago
But doesn’t that make the value in these human-y robots, simply impressing humans? I’m fine with theatrics and awe being the main purpose, but it’s really just the front end to get humans speaking to a hunk of metal without feeling weird. What difference does it make in utility if it was a screen with some 3D model talking back at you? That’s a lot easier to make feel “human”. And now you’ve freed up the design of the robot behind the scenes that actually does the task to be shaped in whatever format is useful. Is the retail space going to get similar value from the robot once the initial “oh wow robot cool” factor wears off?
steveBK123 3y ago
I mean Japan was a decade ahead of us there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot) I don't know that replacing $15/hr at-will labor with a $50k machine that can be vandalized/stolen/etc is going to have a great cost-benefit for most US retailers...

voidhorse 3y ago

This x1000. My sense is that because of the historical development of how we talked about AI in constant comparison to human intelligence, along with sci-fi dreams, there's been a long-standing implicit value assumption that we necessarily want robots that emulate humans, but I'm highly skeptical this is actually desirable. It's quite plausible that robots that are just robots and don't waste effort on human emulation are actually far more beneficial societally speaking.

steveBK123 3y ago
I would think of robots as tools. And in that sense, over time humans tools have gotten more advanced and specialized. Think about the various power tools & garden/yard tools a median DIY homeowner accumulates today vs 50 years ago. So to me, robots make more sense in purpose driven forms than in some humanoid replica attempt. The humanoid walking form factor is far harder to accomplish, and in many senses possibly less useful.
- leksak 3y ago
  I think what a lot of people want, again influenced by sci-fi, is a general-purpose robot that can do everything a human can do and preferably other things beyond that. One form factor that can do everything we do is obviously the way we humans look hence the inclination to design robots that look like us as well. I could have multiple robots, one for vacuuming, one for doing the dishes, one for gardening, cleaning, renovating, etc. But, if I had one to do all of it any of the purpose-driven forms is likely to fail while the humanoid one _could_ succeed.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Humanoid robots strike me as a FSD/AGI level of overshoot. Sure a humanoid robot that actually worked would be able to accomplish everything a human could physically because of the way interior spaces are designed. But focussing on that deliverable may miss a lot of available use case solutions. For example robotic vacuums and lawn mowers have been around, pretty cheap, and pretty good for some time. There's lots of home chores that a wheeled robovac with telescoping arms & really good vision could accomplish very well (empty/load dishwasher to/from sink/cabinets, light kitchen work, dusting, sweeping, etc). To deliver this in humanoid form you need to solve all the same vision/arm articulation problems, PLUS all the self balancing/walking/look&feel stuff of a humanoid. There's actually stuff a robot could do better than me if it had a telescoping arm instead of being humanoid look&feel focussed (dusting / reaching high places etc). To me it conflates 2 problems and overcomplicates to focus on the humanoid form factor at this stage. And look at the evolution of some tools - cars do not really look like horse drawn carriages for example. Helicopters don't look like flying cars.

steveBK123 3y ago

Yes, at the current state of tech.. I would say "does it look very humanoid" as a good litmus test for "not a real product".

martythemaniak 3y ago

> I probably answered my own question by calling it “hype-based”. No, I think you answered your question here: > I get that our built environment is designed for humans I don't want a purpose built robot that does one task extremely well, I want a general purpose robot that does a huge variety of tasks well-enough. Make me a coffee, then do laundry, then rake some leaves. Coffee served in the wrong mug? Clothes laid flat and not folded because it can't actually fold? Random leaves still on the ground? It's fine, it's good enough! It still saved me a bunch of time. Remember, these are aimed at car-level prices. $30k for a machine that lasts 10 years means you're paying $10/day, you do not have to be very good to earn your keep at that price.

steveBK123 3y ago
Sure, its an interesting goal but it does not seem anywhere near a this-decade deliverable. I'm also less convinced about having all my chores done half-a**sed for $30k up front cost. A $30k investment every 10 years is either going to cost the buyer interest when they finance the purchase, or foregone returns/interest if they keep the lump sum invested. So the true cost is more like $45k. Further, it's now a device you own and are responsible for maintenance/charging/etc I am sure. So now we are talking I dunno, maybe $50k. And at that price .. $30-50k per decade, you could outsource a subset of your chores to specialists to do 100% of the job, and leave yourself with the subset you don't mind. $3k is in the ballpark for an annual yard work budget even in HCOL areas. For $5k annually you could probably outsource your laundry entirely with some light housecleaning. Or you know, find the neighborhood teen (or your own) and see how many $20s it takes to get them to clear your driveway / do your yardwork.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Efficiency wins out over sci fi coolness, every time. You’re totally right IMO. When it comes to most tasks, I normally care about the task being done, and done to some acceptable level of quality. Hiring someone gives me that for a fraction of the cost, so sorry robots, but it looks like humans are taking your yard work jobs.
- turnsout 3y ago

skepticATX 3y ago

Because current AI leaders have read way too much science fiction, and it's constrained their thinking. This is exactly why so many people expect ChatGPT to turn into The Terminator.

amelius 3y ago

Perhaps because they can reuse the robots for a thousand types of tasks so they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time? Also much cheaper that way.

graypegg 3y ago
You’re conflating what I’m saying about human-styled robots, and the reality of humanoid robots. We’ve been making bipedal, two armed, dexterous robots for a while now, to varying levels of success. They don’t tend to obsess over the slick human look though, since it makes wobbly unbalanced machines, like the one in this video. Compare to Boston dynamics atlas [0], whose balance and dexterity is almost a bit scary. Is that run a result after many failed runs, yes. Is this video from Figure the result after many failed runs, I would also assume yes. I am much more impressed by what Atlas does though. [0] https://youtu.be/-e1_QhJ1EhQ https://youtu.be/-e1_QhJ1EhQ

progbits 3y ago

+1 but even Boston Dynamics stuff is too fancy and animal shaped. Here is a great example of utilitarian robot design that looks much cheaper and more efficient than bi/quadrupeds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7AcAWWxyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7AcAWWxyI

Armisael16 3y ago
Boston Dynamics is trying to produce for the military market. The field doesn’t generally have huge expanses of well-maintained concrete to drive on.

Ekaros 3y ago

4 legs better than 2... Or maybe tracks. And why only 2 hands? Why human like grips? And not chuck with changeable tools? Humans are pretty bad design, you could make something simpler and more efficient. And probably not trade too much surface area.

graypegg 3y ago
Humans are a pretty good design for a multi-cellular organism that uses energy as efficiently as possible to breed as much as possible. Definitely not the most profitable venture for a robotics company though, unless they’re in the robot porn industry.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Aren't humans rather inefficient? Long gestation cycle with more complications than many other species. The offspring require long time to be self-reliant at any level. And time to puberty is also significant... Seems like that even for breeding we could do lot better...
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Yeah to be fair, any bacterium has us beat on fecundity and energy waste!

amelius 3y ago

One reason could be that they train the robot by looking at a human. Then they point a camera at the robot when they perform the task. So if the robot looks like a human, then it is easier to copy the movements of the human. Perhaps. Just guessing. I haven't read the article because I dislike the format.

graypegg 3y ago
I didn’t think of that point! That’s worth mentioning. I wish we knew more about the video training method they mention.

electrondood 3y ago

Boston Dynamics basically just makes proof-of-concept robots, and then they pre-code demos for videos. If you have a non-humanoid robot, like a Kuka arm, it's a "sharp tool" which is overfit to one specific range of tasks. It's never going to be able to do anything else, and if you wanted to add other tasks, you'd have to overhaul it or create some adapter. A humanoid robot basically needs no adapter for any common task, in that every common task is already performed by humans, who all have the same components. The benefit is that the range of tasks available to the form factor is massive, versus a Boston Dynamics robot that just picks up and moves packages and can only do that. If the humanoid robot is not only far cheaper, but it can do that tasks, and thousands of others, then that's the better form factor..