4 ms·
What is the point of humanoid “general” robots then? We already have pretty reliable ways to make and train humans. Humans are cheaper and better than robots.
by somewhatgoated 6mo ago
What is the point of humanoid “general” robots then?
We already have pretty reliable ways to make and train humans.
Humans are cheaper and better than robots.
I could imagine robots for some specialised tasks where you don’t want to use a human for eg security reasons, but you don’t need general purpose robots for that
- nemomarx 6mo agoIf robots ever do get cheaper than humans for it, though?
- shermantanktop 6mo agoIn natural ecosystems, nobody beats the apex predator directly, and nobody beats the hyperspecialized niche critter at their own game. The new species has some advantage that’s different than what is there. If a humanoid robot is slower dumber human that is expensive, requires power, can’t get wet, falls over, and doesn’t understand stairs. Is not sleeping and being radiation tolerant enough of an advantage to be worth it?
- pear01 6mo agoYou forgot a big one in your description of the hypothetical advantages: No free will
- cindyllm 6mo ago[dead]
- Dylan16807 6mo agoThe nature comparison doesn't work on a fundamental level because you're only getting a fraction of the human's power based on how much they're happy to sell.
- imtringued 6mo agoThey already are, the problem with humanoid robots is that people think that adding legs to the robot will somehow fundamentally make it more intelligent. People see a robot arm attached to a stationary platform and understand it requires integration work to perform a single task. But when those same people see a humanoid robot, they think they can just talk to it like a real human and it will do what you told it to do. They don't think about the fact that the humanoid robot has to be programmed exactly the same way the stationary robot arm has to be programmed and that programming the legs in addition to the arms is a much more challenging problem.
- bobthepanda 6mo agoRobots can be optimized for tasks and if they are, their benefits are greater. When cars replaced the horse, it was because they didn’t poop, and because a car designed only for transport would not suddenly have a heart attack and stop working.
- tomtomistaken 6mo agoFunnily enough, cars have their own way of pooping and dying of a heart attack.
- bobthepanda 6mo agoIt’s far less frequent, is at least recoverable, and of course there’s no immediate public sanitation issue the way poop and dead horses attract flies and disease.
- tintor 6mo agoCars can stop working suddenly in many many ways, for many reasons.
- bobthepanda 6mo agoBut at far less frequency and severity than a temperamental horse. In Manhattan in 1900, 400 horses would die a day, and a rotting horse carcass is a far bigger sanitation problem than a broken down car, which you can tow and fix up.
- somewhatgoated 5mo agoI thought it’s more because they go hundreds times faster than horses and don’t need rest, so you don’t need to change horses all the time on long journeys. Plus you can easily haul tons of stuff
- semi-extrinsic 6mo agoRobots are good at things that are "simple" but where human precision is not good enough, or where people would get bored and make mistakes.
- jamesrcole 6mo agotechnology gets cheaper over time. If they were always going to cost the amount they do now, you might have a point. But they'll eventually get much cheaper.