5 ms·

I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my c

by sethrin 8mo ago

I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my curiosity.

al_borland 8mo ago
The business case for humanoid robots is simple... for lack of a better term, they're robot slaves. Companies or governments can buy them once, pay relatively minimal maintenance fees, and have an army of workers that don't need a salary, never take breaks, never complain, never unionize, and do things faster and more accurately than most humans ever will. Any company that can move to robots, will move to robots. Imagine the profits companies will have when they can eliminate, or drastically reduce, their single largest expense... payroll. Not only the base pay, but 401K match, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. Poof... gone.
- bovinejoni 8mo ago
  But why are they in humanoid form? Wheels are more efficient than legs, they have no need for a face. It sure does sound like vibes
  - sawjet 8mo ago
    How does a wheeled robot navigate stairs?
    - adastra22 8mo ago
      [dead]
    - amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
      The same way someone in a wheelchair does. You get rid of the stairs.
  - jdmoreira 8mo ago
    Because the world has already been built for the "human" interface
    - Capricorn2481 8mo ago
      It has? I don't think every little thing has. Do I want a robot that has to lift the couch to clean under it, or do I want a robot that can get under the couch?
- TheAceOfHearts 8mo ago
  The part that often gets left unsaid or glossed over is what the transition period looks like. At most we get some Underpants Gnomes claim about unlimited abundance without actually engaging with the substance of what happens if this technology gets built and deployed. What do you imagine the political and economic impact will be if a huge portion of the population is left without jobs and the political reality hasn't caught up to the speed with which the technology gets deployed? Oh no, but Elon Musk tells us that out of the kindness of his heart we're going to have unlimited abundance. The same man responsible for taking away aid from thousands of the poorest people in the world through DOGE's interruption of PEPFAR and USAID. With a single sentence from him, he could start saving thousands of lives without impacting his wealth in the slightest. He could do that right now.
- techdmn 8mo ago
  I agree with everything you've said. To me the next question is: If nobody has a job, who will buy all the robot-produced goods?
  - sejje 8mo ago
    Some people will have jobs, even in the most robot-heavy vision. I don't know if it's enough people to buy the goods, but robot-produced goods should bottom out on price, closing in on the actual cost of materials/energy.
    - f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
      "robot-produced goods should bottom out on price, closing in on the actual cost of materials/energy." I don't think that's really true, or rather it's variably true along a continuum for different kinds of things. Some things sell for close to the marginal cost of production, others close to what the market will bear. For two examples, flat-screen TVs seem to be on one end of the continuum, iPhones on the other. Lots of other things are at different points in between. Robots won't eliminate demand for luxury goods, which are not usually near the marginal cost of production end of the scale. I don't know what it costs Apple to make an iPhone, but if they could cut it in half while people were still willing to pay $1,000, there's no reason to think they'd lower the price.
johnfn 8mo ago
I don't understand why my question was so controversial. Oftentimes on this website I feel like everyone is tapped into some polarizing news source that I am not, and so when I ask some (to my mind) benign question it's actually a secret tripwire that everyone is super polarized on and so rather than engaging in my question they all just tell me I am a moron. But I am seriously just asking a question here. My layman's opinion is that I would happily pay a lot of money to have a robot help me around the house: fold my clothes, do the dishes, whatever dumb menial labor. That seems like a business case to me, unless someone is going to tell me I'm the only one in the world who could want that (but I doubt it). OP said: > Humanoid robots? Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes. I can't make sense of this. Are you really telling me you wouldn't pay any amount of money to do menial housework? If not, why not?
- adastra22 8mo ago
  No, I wouldn’t. For one, I don’t spend a lot of time doing housework. Just organize your life better. Beyond that, the cost would not be small. Based on current designs, operating costs would be thousands of dollars per month. I would not pay that. It would require a cloud controlled robot with cameras in my home. Why in the world would I want that. Finally, I already have dishwashers and laundry machines.
  - sejje 8mo ago
    Why thousands per month? Why would cloud connectivity be required? (I'm almost certain you're right, the big makers will require cloud--but that's not a requirement of the tech, is it?)
    - adastra22 8mo ago
      There is insufficient compute to operate these things locally in dynamic environments. The models for doing that kind of robotics inference are running on racks of H200’s.
  - johnfn 8mo ago
    > Just organize your life better. Do you really think this is a viable solution to families with kids?

by sethrin 8mo ago

I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my curiosity.

al_borland 8mo ago

The business case for humanoid robots is simple... for lack of a better term, they're robot slaves. Companies or governments can buy them once, pay relatively minimal maintenance fees, and have an army of workers that don't need a salary, never take breaks, never complain, never unionize, and do things faster and more accurately than most humans ever will. Any company that can move to robots, will move to robots. Imagine the profits companies will have when they can eliminate, or drastically reduce, their single largest expense... payroll. Not only the base pay, but 401K match, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. Poof... gone.

bovinejoni 8mo ago
But why are they in humanoid form? Wheels are more efficient than legs, they have no need for a face. It sure does sound like vibes
- sawjet 8mo ago
  How does a wheeled robot navigate stairs?
  - adastra22 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
    The same way someone in a wheelchair does. You get rid of the stairs.
- jdmoreira 8mo ago
  Because the world has already been built for the "human" interface
  - Capricorn2481 8mo ago
    It has? I don't think every little thing has. Do I want a robot that has to lift the couch to clean under it, or do I want a robot that can get under the couch?
TheAceOfHearts 8mo ago
The part that often gets left unsaid or glossed over is what the transition period looks like. At most we get some Underpants Gnomes claim about unlimited abundance without actually engaging with the substance of what happens if this technology gets built and deployed. What do you imagine the political and economic impact will be if a huge portion of the population is left without jobs and the political reality hasn't caught up to the speed with which the technology gets deployed? Oh no, but Elon Musk tells us that out of the kindness of his heart we're going to have unlimited abundance. The same man responsible for taking away aid from thousands of the poorest people in the world through DOGE's interruption of PEPFAR and USAID. With a single sentence from him, he could start saving thousands of lives without impacting his wealth in the slightest. He could do that right now.
techdmn 8mo ago
I agree with everything you've said. To me the next question is: If nobody has a job, who will buy all the robot-produced goods?
- sejje 8mo ago
  Some people will have jobs, even in the most robot-heavy vision. I don't know if it's enough people to buy the goods, but robot-produced goods should bottom out on price, closing in on the actual cost of materials/energy.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
    "robot-produced goods should bottom out on price, closing in on the actual cost of materials/energy." I don't think that's really true, or rather it's variably true along a continuum for different kinds of things. Some things sell for close to the marginal cost of production, others close to what the market will bear. For two examples, flat-screen TVs seem to be on one end of the continuum, iPhones on the other. Lots of other things are at different points in between. Robots won't eliminate demand for luxury goods, which are not usually near the marginal cost of production end of the scale. I don't know what it costs Apple to make an iPhone, but if they could cut it in half while people were still willing to pay $1,000, there's no reason to think they'd lower the price.

johnfn 8mo ago

I don't understand why my question was so controversial. Oftentimes on this website I feel like everyone is tapped into some polarizing news source that I am not, and so when I ask some (to my mind) benign question it's actually a secret tripwire that everyone is super polarized on and so rather than engaging in my question they all just tell me I am a moron. But I am seriously just asking a question here. My layman's opinion is that I would happily pay a lot of money to have a robot help me around the house: fold my clothes, do the dishes, whatever dumb menial labor. That seems like a business case to me, unless someone is going to tell me I'm the only one in the world who could want that (but I doubt it). OP said: > Humanoid robots? Ain’t nobody made the business case for that. It is pure vibes. I can't make sense of this. Are you really telling me you wouldn't pay any amount of money to do menial housework? If not, why not?

adastra22 8mo ago
No, I wouldn’t. For one, I don’t spend a lot of time doing housework. Just organize your life better. Beyond that, the cost would not be small. Based on current designs, operating costs would be thousands of dollars per month. I would not pay that. It would require a cloud controlled robot with cameras in my home. Why in the world would I want that. Finally, I already have dishwashers and laundry machines.
- sejje 8mo ago
  Why thousands per month? Why would cloud connectivity be required? (I'm almost certain you're right, the big makers will require cloud--but that's not a requirement of the tech, is it?)
  - adastra22 8mo ago
    There is insufficient compute to operate these things locally in dynamic environments. The models for doing that kind of robotics inference are running on racks of H200’s.
- johnfn 8mo ago
  > Just organize your life better. Do you really think this is a viable solution to families with kids?