3 ms·

It is when the world was made to interface with us. We can't use robots for everything if they aren't emulating us, because we would have to adapt everything fo

by hootz 6mo ago

It is when the world was made to interface with us. We can't use robots for everything if they aren't emulating us, because we would have to adapt everything for the non-humanlike robots.

tootie 6mo ago
We build our living spaces against the constraints of the human form, but that still doesn't imply the human form is optimal for anything. There's no reason a robot traveling over smooth surface should have legs instead of wheels or treads. There's no reason to have a head. Some kind of arm is a common design feature, but certainly no reason to have two. No reason to be symmetrical. A domestic robot may be constrained in terms of scale (ie see things at counter height) but not shape.
- hgoel 6mo ago
  Really, the requirements are for the robot to move in predictable ways (if something looks like an arm, it ought to move like an arm, etc), and to have enough strength to be useful for difficult/tiring tasks while somehow also not being dangerous if something does go wrong.
- famouswaffles 6mo ago
  >We build our living spaces against the constraints of the human form, but that still doesn't imply the human form is optimal for anything. We build just about everything we expect to interact with against the constraints of the human form, not just living spaces. And yes we because we built those spaces for the human body, the human body is by definition the optimal choice. >There's no reason a robot traveling over smooth surface should have legs instead of wheels or treads. There's a reason. The robot becomes useless for any surface that isn't smooth. What's it going to do about stairs ? You're not going to make a bespoke solution that generalizes for us better than 'feet that work'. Do you think it's better to built a million different complex robot bodies for every situation ? That defeats the purpose of being general purpose.
  - tootie 6mo ago
    When we built self-driving cars, did we put a humanoid robot in the driver's seat? No. We put sensors on the car's perimeter and plugged in to the existing electronics. Forget "fits in human spaces" and think about an actual task you'd trust a robot to do for you before it's battery runs out. And who says you need one generalist? I have 5 different automated kitchen machines right now and they are all various types of rectangular prisms. I have a robot floor cleaner and it's a disc on wheels. I'd sooner have a kitchen robot that's on a rail bolted to the ceiling and connected to mains power. This is a terribly contrived demo and not really realistic, but it illustrates my point. It's a bathroom-cleaning robot and it's kinda what I described. R2D2 with arms coming out of it's head. It's roughly human-scaled, but not at all humanoid. https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/1q9y5wh/toilet_cleaning_robot/ https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/1q9y5wh/toilet_cl...
    - famouswaffles 6mo ago
      [dead]
- hootz 6mo ago
  The human form is not optimal, but it is general. When we want a general AI for all kinds of work, we can look to humans as inspiration, as we can do all the kinds of work we need, even if it is not optimal. Of course, optimal robots will be useful, like ultimate roombas for cleaning floors or something like that, they will work better than humanoid robots for sure.

by hootz 6mo ago

It is when the world was made to interface with us. We can't use robots for everything if they aren't emulating us, because we would have to adapt everything for the non-humanlike robots.

tootie 6mo ago

We build our living spaces against the constraints of the human form, but that still doesn't imply the human form is optimal for anything. There's no reason a robot traveling over smooth surface should have legs instead of wheels or treads. There's no reason to have a head. Some kind of arm is a common design feature, but certainly no reason to have two. No reason to be symmetrical. A domestic robot may be constrained in terms of scale (ie see things at counter height) but not shape.

hgoel 6mo ago
Really, the requirements are for the robot to move in predictable ways (if something looks like an arm, it ought to move like an arm, etc), and to have enough strength to be useful for difficult/tiring tasks while somehow also not being dangerous if something does go wrong.
famouswaffles 6mo ago
>We build our living spaces against the constraints of the human form, but that still doesn't imply the human form is optimal for anything. We build just about everything we expect to interact with against the constraints of the human form, not just living spaces. And yes we because we built those spaces for the human body, the human body is by definition the optimal choice. >There's no reason a robot traveling over smooth surface should have legs instead of wheels or treads. There's a reason. The robot becomes useless for any surface that isn't smooth. What's it going to do about stairs ? You're not going to make a bespoke solution that generalizes for us better than 'feet that work'. Do you think it's better to built a million different complex robot bodies for every situation ? That defeats the purpose of being general purpose.
- tootie 6mo ago
  When we built self-driving cars, did we put a humanoid robot in the driver's seat? No. We put sensors on the car's perimeter and plugged in to the existing electronics. Forget "fits in human spaces" and think about an actual task you'd trust a robot to do for you before it's battery runs out. And who says you need one generalist? I have 5 different automated kitchen machines right now and they are all various types of rectangular prisms. I have a robot floor cleaner and it's a disc on wheels. I'd sooner have a kitchen robot that's on a rail bolted to the ceiling and connected to mains power. This is a terribly contrived demo and not really realistic, but it illustrates my point. It's a bathroom-cleaning robot and it's kinda what I described. R2D2 with arms coming out of it's head. It's roughly human-scaled, but not at all humanoid. https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/1q9y5wh/toilet_cleaning_robot/ https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/1q9y5wh/toilet_cl...
  - famouswaffles 6mo ago
    [dead]
hootz 6mo ago
The human form is not optimal, but it is general. When we want a general AI for all kinds of work, we can look to humans as inspiration, as we can do all the kinds of work we need, even if it is not optimal. Of course, optimal robots will be useful, like ultimate roombas for cleaning floors or something like that, they will work better than humanoid robots for sure.