4 ms·

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

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.

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.