5 ms·

All these companies are pursuing humanoids precisely because we've built the world around that "form factor" (and we evolved ourselves to fit to the world). It'

by gpt5 1y ago

All these companies are pursuing humanoids precisely because we've built the world around that "form factor" (and we evolved ourselves to fit to the world). It's a general purpose design. It's the same reason why OpenAI pursued LLMs, as they are general purpose. Yes, like LLMs, they will over-promise in the beginning. But it still make sense to pursue that form factor from an investment perspective if we think it's feasible.

rolha-capoeira 1y ago
And whether or not it actually is feasible, many are betting millions that it is, and marketing it as possible to keep the innovation machine running until we achieve it
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 1y ago
I don't know why people keep saying "the world" when they talk about extremely small subsets of human civilization. Most roads weren't designed for humans. Flat surfaces in buildings were not designed for humans. Packages were designed to be handled by suction cups. Containers were designed to be intermodal transport, not to be carried by humans. Space is practically inaccessible to most people. It's crazy how many people purposefully become ignorant of the things they see every day with their own eyes.
- DennisP 1y ago
  Roads weren't designed for humans, but vehicles generally were. I don't think we need our robots to be able to drive 70mph on highways when we've already built millions of vehicles. We've had buildings with flat surfaces for centuries, so I'm not sure of your point there. And Sears was shipping things in cardboard boxes long before warehouses had robots with suction cups.
lm28469 1y ago
Well initially we tried to build planes with flapping wings because obviously the only things flying had flapping wings
- DennisP 1y ago
  In the air we were starting from scratch. Back on the ground, I guess it's possible that some general purpose non-humanoid robot will be able to use our tools and built environment better than people, but I have a hard time imagining what that would be.
  - lm28469 1y ago
    So the point is just to allow them to use existing tools ? Essentially self imposing our own limits on them, I don't really see how that makes sense. Just look at the animal kingdom, there are a bunch of stuff that would be extremely useful, tails, extra limbs, extra joints, no separated head, longer limbs &c.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - DennisP 1y ago
      The animal kingdom also lacked built infrastructure and tools. If the environment had been full of hand tools for a hundred million years, how many animals would have evolved to use them? Some of your listed features could still work though. A humanoid robot doesn't have to have exactly the same form as humans, as long as it's close enough to use our stuff, ride around in our vehicles, etc. The alternative is to build all new infrastructure and tools that don't work for humans; I'm not sure why we would want that.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Does it NEED to? perhaps I need a special robot to clean my stairs, if there is any clutter on it, it just dumps it at the top/bottom. Then a different robot puts the clutter away. My robot vacuum/mop does a great job with floors already, so I don't need the clutter robot to handle floor cleaning. I likewise need a robot to fold my laundry, but maybe it turns the folded laundry over to the clutter robot to put away or something? The point is I don't need a general purpose robot of any form. I have various specific tasks I need done, I don't care how many robots are involved. I do care that the total is affordable. I do care that the total doesn't take up "too much" space. I do care that the job is done well. I don't want to think about any of it unless I want to think about it (sometimes it is fun to watch my robot vacuum work. Sometimes I want a specific mess cleaned up first and then go away before guests arrive). Maybe a general purpose robot is the best answer, maybe not - since I'm not [currently] designing such robots I expect those who are experts to figure out the best form - which is probably a compromise.
yardie 1y ago
The human form evolved to run long distances in wide open fields, climb trees for nutrient and protection, and create and wield tools. We have built the world to accommodate for that around us. It is not a general purpose form factor. An urbanized, general purpose robot may take an entirely different form factor than bipedal homosapien, ie. tachikomas from Ghost in the Shell: SAC.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  Will a tachikoma fit through a door? If not, that's a bad "general purpose" platform. A true "general purpose" robot should be able to walk into a space built by humans for humans and perform useful work there. That's the reason why humanoid frames are desirable.
  - yardie 1y ago
    A tachikoma is not the general purpose vehicle. It is an example of what a general purpose robot body could look like. It's job, in an anime, is a super intelligent armored tank. Humans evolved to be bipedal to see over the bushes and tall grass in the savannah. Maybe the optimal form for a robot is an elephant with prehensile trunk, or giraffe, or a frog.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    To some extent I'm willing to remodel if needed so the robot can fit. When I build/remodel my own house I only use extra wide doors so that a wheelchair can fit - I've never had someone in a wheelchair visit, but that is still something I make a requirement: does this help your robot work?
    - ACCount37 1y ago
      Maybe you are. But is the entire world willing to remodel? For the first generation of general purpose robots, which will, without a doubt, suck? Chicken and egg problem there. Nobody will adapt the environment for your robots unless your robots have proven to work really well. So your robots have to first work really well in unadapted environments.
rob74 1y ago
I think Asimov wrote something along those lines in one of his robots cycle novels (which leads us back nicely to "iRobot", er, "I, Robot"): why build a vacuum robot, a window-cleaner robot, a robot lawnmower, a robot car etc. etc. when you can build a humanoid robot which can operate all the devices designed for humans? Ok, currently it's "if you could build" rather than "when you can build", but looking at it from the science fiction writer's perspective, it makes sense...
- jajuuka 1y ago
  I think we've settled on the idea that the bipedal human form is most efficient when it's a bit naive. The vacuum robot is more optimal because it's small form allows it to reach all parts of the floor and under small spaces we usually can't get easily. We build tools to do jobs more effectively. Not just to mimic how we've done them before.

by gpt5 1y ago

rolha-capoeira 1y ago

And whether or not it actually is feasible, many are betting millions that it is, and marketing it as possible to keep the innovation machine running until we achieve it

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 1y ago

I don't know why people keep saying "the world" when they talk about extremely small subsets of human civilization. Most roads weren't designed for humans. Flat surfaces in buildings were not designed for humans. Packages were designed to be handled by suction cups. Containers were designed to be intermodal transport, not to be carried by humans. Space is practically inaccessible to most people. It's crazy how many people purposefully become ignorant of the things they see every day with their own eyes.

DennisP 1y ago
Roads weren't designed for humans, but vehicles generally were. I don't think we need our robots to be able to drive 70mph on highways when we've already built millions of vehicles. We've had buildings with flat surfaces for centuries, so I'm not sure of your point there. And Sears was shipping things in cardboard boxes long before warehouses had robots with suction cups.

lm28469 1y ago

Well initially we tried to build planes with flapping wings because obviously the only things flying had flapping wings

DennisP 1y ago
In the air we were starting from scratch. Back on the ground, I guess it's possible that some general purpose non-humanoid robot will be able to use our tools and built environment better than people, but I have a hard time imagining what that would be.
- lm28469 1y ago
  So the point is just to allow them to use existing tools ? Essentially self imposing our own limits on them, I don't really see how that makes sense. Just look at the animal kingdom, there are a bunch of stuff that would be extremely useful, tails, extra limbs, extra joints, no separated head, longer limbs &c.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - DennisP 1y ago
    The animal kingdom also lacked built infrastructure and tools. If the environment had been full of hand tools for a hundred million years, how many animals would have evolved to use them? Some of your listed features could still work though. A humanoid robot doesn't have to have exactly the same form as humans, as long as it's close enough to use our stuff, ride around in our vehicles, etc. The alternative is to build all new infrastructure and tools that don't work for humans; I'm not sure why we would want that.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Does it NEED to? perhaps I need a special robot to clean my stairs, if there is any clutter on it, it just dumps it at the top/bottom. Then a different robot puts the clutter away. My robot vacuum/mop does a great job with floors already, so I don't need the clutter robot to handle floor cleaning. I likewise need a robot to fold my laundry, but maybe it turns the folded laundry over to the clutter robot to put away or something? The point is I don't need a general purpose robot of any form. I have various specific tasks I need done, I don't care how many robots are involved. I do care that the total is affordable. I do care that the total doesn't take up "too much" space. I do care that the job is done well. I don't want to think about any of it unless I want to think about it (sometimes it is fun to watch my robot vacuum work. Sometimes I want a specific mess cleaned up first and then go away before guests arrive). Maybe a general purpose robot is the best answer, maybe not - since I'm not [currently] designing such robots I expect those who are experts to figure out the best form - which is probably a compromise.

yardie 1y ago

The human form evolved to run long distances in wide open fields, climb trees for nutrient and protection, and create and wield tools. We have built the world to accommodate for that around us. It is not a general purpose form factor. An urbanized, general purpose robot may take an entirely different form factor than bipedal homosapien, ie. tachikomas from Ghost in the Shell: SAC.

ACCount37 1y ago
Will a tachikoma fit through a door? If not, that's a bad "general purpose" platform. A true "general purpose" robot should be able to walk into a space built by humans for humans and perform useful work there. That's the reason why humanoid frames are desirable.
- yardie 1y ago
  A tachikoma is not the general purpose vehicle. It is an example of what a general purpose robot body could look like. It's job, in an anime, is a super intelligent armored tank. Humans evolved to be bipedal to see over the bushes and tall grass in the savannah. Maybe the optimal form for a robot is an elephant with prehensile trunk, or giraffe, or a frog.
- bluGill 1y ago
  To some extent I'm willing to remodel if needed so the robot can fit. When I build/remodel my own house I only use extra wide doors so that a wheelchair can fit - I've never had someone in a wheelchair visit, but that is still something I make a requirement: does this help your robot work?
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    Maybe you are. But is the entire world willing to remodel? For the first generation of general purpose robots, which will, without a doubt, suck? Chicken and egg problem there. Nobody will adapt the environment for your robots unless your robots have proven to work really well. So your robots have to first work really well in unadapted environments.

rob74 1y ago

I think Asimov wrote something along those lines in one of his robots cycle novels (which leads us back nicely to "iRobot", er, "I, Robot"): why build a vacuum robot, a window-cleaner robot, a robot lawnmower, a robot car etc. etc. when you can build a humanoid robot which can operate all the devices designed for humans? Ok, currently it's "if you could build" rather than "when you can build", but looking at it from the science fiction writer's perspective, it makes sense...

jajuuka 1y ago
I think we've settled on the idea that the bipedal human form is most efficient when it's a bit naive. The vacuum robot is more optimal because it's small form allows it to reach all parts of the floor and under small spaces we usually can't get easily. We build tools to do jobs more effectively. Not just to mimic how we've done them before.