3 ms·

> 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

> 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
  Bipedal robots will be a common thing in industrial/commercial settings within the decade. There is just such a huge financial incentive to create bipedal robots to take over human tasks. $100k for a robot that can work in a warehouse and lasts 10 years working 24/7 is far less than what you’d have to pay two shifts of minimum wage workers.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Again, my point I made in other parts of thread - B2B use cases, yes. B2C use cases, no. Factories have been designed since the days of Henry Ford's assembly line to treat humans like robots. We have increasingly automated/mechanized the assembly line, introducing robotics of various sorts. So sure, a limited-functionality bipedal robot that costs less than high cost union labor, doesn't go on strike, doesn't take smoke breaks, and doesn't need to eat/rest/sleep is attractive. But as a general purpose home assistant / personal housekeeper we are far far away, and especially for anything remotely affordable even for FAANG types.
- martythemaniak 3y ago
  I've been very squeezed for time the last couple of years and have tried to buy my way out of this situation, which is one of the reasons I'm so bullish on humanoid house robots. I hired landscapers one year for over $3K, they did well but they came once a month. It was way too expensive for what they did. I tried hiring a guy on an ad-hoc basis, he did a bunch of half-assed work for $30/hr, then disappeared leaving a bunch of garbage in my yard. Cleaners are available for an $25+/hr on freelance sites. I have someone coming in right now for $30/hr, and they're ok, but they only do 4-5hr chunks and so the house has to get noticeably dirty for them to be worth it. No one will come for 1hr/day and do laundry, they have transit overheard, scheduling, etc. Snow clearing is $300+ per season, but they don't show up for anything less than 3", which happens only ~5 times per season, and they'll only do it within 24hrs (ie, you're not going to get your snow cleared when you need it, because everyone needs their snow cleared after a huge snowfall, you might actually be stuck in your house). I spent a bunch of time finding a student do clear snow and he came once and then ghosted me. I could keep ranting, but the point is simple: the reality is people are hard to find, more expensive and less reliable than your post implies. There is a lot of overhead and the end result is that a bunch of work that should get done, simply does not get done. A $30,000 10 year mortgage at 6% is $11/day, $4000/year. Charging costs are negligible, like a couple of cents per day. My EV moves 2000kg 100km for $1.50, moving clothes and brushes around the house is nowhere near that. Any competitive company will also provide regular OTA updates that makes your robot more capable over time. The bar for these humanoids to succeed is very low.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    The bar for humanoids to succeed may seem low, but think about how we are like 10 years into "FSD next year for sure". In that case, the car already exists! All the computer needs to do is steer/brake an existing automative frame using vision & compute. A humanoid robot needs to essentially deliver the navigation ability that FSD has failed to do, as well as a new robotic humanoid frame. The frame hardware & nav software needs to navigate tighter spaces, with tighter precision (fractions of inches rather than feet) in closer contact with flesh&bloods easily damaged humans (within inches of us rather than multiple feet away on a sidewalk). Think about yard work. Even a half decent yard service has a half dozen bladed tools they wield around your yard. What is your risk appetite for a robot to wield those autonomously around children/pets/neighbors/wildlife/you. Most industrial robots disable themselves if humans are anywhere nearby and a lot of accidents happen when that system fails. It is going to take a lot of confidence to put robots into homes.
graypegg 3y ago
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m more so pushing back on the added cost and complexity of human elements NOT required by the built environment, or are even detrimental to it even acting like a human. There are not many tasks that require a neck for example. Or a whole head really. This robot feels like it’s designed with a shape in mind first. The dexterity and wobblyness is actually pretty unimpressive in this example, compared to Atlas, which absolutely feels closer to the full range of human dexterity and physical ability. Atlas is still general purpose. It’s just built with human tasks in mind first, rather than a human shape.
- cosgrove 3y ago
  >but I’m more so pushing back on the added cost and complexity of human elements NOT required by the built environment Am I understanding you correctly that you would want something that still had cameras at head height, but simply didn't have the head form factor? And perhaps had 4 arms for some tasks that it would benefit from instead of being limited to two arms? If so, how many environments are you going to build robots for? And how does your total overall build cost increase with each different model you build? Doesn't matter if it's simper in the end-design if getting there ends up costing you as much as it would to build a general purpose design in the first place.
- martythemaniak 3y ago
  I get that, but this thing in particular does not have a neck. It has a metal stand that's shaped to look like a neck, but it is a static, fixed piece of metal, it doesn't rotate, tilt, nod or anything of the sort. It's a stylistic element that's not relevant to its functionality. Atlas is a wildly overbuilt thing that's simply not relevant to majority of human tasks. Doing parkour is very impressive, but nobody needs to do backflips to clean the kitchen. The average human has far far fewer capabilities than an idealized 99.99th percentile human. The real world is accommodating of people with various disabilities and limitations, you do not need to be an olympic athlete to live a productive life.

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
Bipedal robots will be a common thing in industrial/commercial settings within the decade. There is just such a huge financial incentive to create bipedal robots to take over human tasks. $100k for a robot that can work in a warehouse and lasts 10 years working 24/7 is far less than what you’d have to pay two shifts of minimum wage workers.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Again, my point I made in other parts of thread - B2B use cases, yes. B2C use cases, no. Factories have been designed since the days of Henry Ford's assembly line to treat humans like robots. We have increasingly automated/mechanized the assembly line, introducing robotics of various sorts. So sure, a limited-functionality bipedal robot that costs less than high cost union labor, doesn't go on strike, doesn't take smoke breaks, and doesn't need to eat/rest/sleep is attractive. But as a general purpose home assistant / personal housekeeper we are far far away, and especially for anything remotely affordable even for FAANG types.
martythemaniak 3y ago
I've been very squeezed for time the last couple of years and have tried to buy my way out of this situation, which is one of the reasons I'm so bullish on humanoid house robots. I hired landscapers one year for over $3K, they did well but they came once a month. It was way too expensive for what they did. I tried hiring a guy on an ad-hoc basis, he did a bunch of half-assed work for $30/hr, then disappeared leaving a bunch of garbage in my yard. Cleaners are available for an $25+/hr on freelance sites. I have someone coming in right now for $30/hr, and they're ok, but they only do 4-5hr chunks and so the house has to get noticeably dirty for them to be worth it. No one will come for 1hr/day and do laundry, they have transit overheard, scheduling, etc. Snow clearing is $300+ per season, but they don't show up for anything less than 3", which happens only ~5 times per season, and they'll only do it within 24hrs (ie, you're not going to get your snow cleared when you need it, because everyone needs their snow cleared after a huge snowfall, you might actually be stuck in your house). I spent a bunch of time finding a student do clear snow and he came once and then ghosted me. I could keep ranting, but the point is simple: the reality is people are hard to find, more expensive and less reliable than your post implies. There is a lot of overhead and the end result is that a bunch of work that should get done, simply does not get done. A $30,000 10 year mortgage at 6% is $11/day, $4000/year. Charging costs are negligible, like a couple of cents per day. My EV moves 2000kg 100km for $1.50, moving clothes and brushes around the house is nowhere near that. Any competitive company will also provide regular OTA updates that makes your robot more capable over time. The bar for these humanoids to succeed is very low.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  The bar for humanoids to succeed may seem low, but think about how we are like 10 years into "FSD next year for sure". In that case, the car already exists! All the computer needs to do is steer/brake an existing automative frame using vision & compute. A humanoid robot needs to essentially deliver the navigation ability that FSD has failed to do, as well as a new robotic humanoid frame. The frame hardware & nav software needs to navigate tighter spaces, with tighter precision (fractions of inches rather than feet) in closer contact with flesh&bloods easily damaged humans (within inches of us rather than multiple feet away on a sidewalk). Think about yard work. Even a half decent yard service has a half dozen bladed tools they wield around your yard. What is your risk appetite for a robot to wield those autonomously around children/pets/neighbors/wildlife/you. Most industrial robots disable themselves if humans are anywhere nearby and a lot of accidents happen when that system fails. It is going to take a lot of confidence to put robots into homes.

graypegg 3y ago

I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m more so pushing back on the added cost and complexity of human elements NOT required by the built environment, or are even detrimental to it even acting like a human. There are not many tasks that require a neck for example. Or a whole head really. This robot feels like it’s designed with a shape in mind first. The dexterity and wobblyness is actually pretty unimpressive in this example, compared to Atlas, which absolutely feels closer to the full range of human dexterity and physical ability. Atlas is still general purpose. It’s just built with human tasks in mind first, rather than a human shape.

cosgrove 3y ago
>but I’m more so pushing back on the added cost and complexity of human elements NOT required by the built environment Am I understanding you correctly that you would want something that still had cameras at head height, but simply didn't have the head form factor? And perhaps had 4 arms for some tasks that it would benefit from instead of being limited to two arms? If so, how many environments are you going to build robots for? And how does your total overall build cost increase with each different model you build? Doesn't matter if it's simper in the end-design if getting there ends up costing you as much as it would to build a general purpose design in the first place.
martythemaniak 3y ago
I get that, but this thing in particular does not have a neck. It has a metal stand that's shaped to look like a neck, but it is a static, fixed piece of metal, it doesn't rotate, tilt, nod or anything of the sort. It's a stylistic element that's not relevant to its functionality. Atlas is a wildly overbuilt thing that's simply not relevant to majority of human tasks. Doing parkour is very impressive, but nobody needs to do backflips to clean the kitchen. The average human has far far fewer capabilities than an idealized 99.99th percentile human. The real world is accommodating of people with various disabilities and limitations, you do not need to be an olympic athlete to live a productive life.