4 ms·

Why humanoid? Surely there must be a superior physical form factor than one mimicking human anatomy. Is it just supposed to be more psychologically acceptable?

Retric 3mo ago
Human spaces are built for humans. Outdoors cars and quad coppers are a great form but constrained by stars, doors, and low ceiling makes them a poor fit. Alternatively a 2 foot tall or a 20 foot tall humanoid robots aren’t particularly useful. But a good enough 5-6 foot tall humanoid robot can be swapped into an assembly line wherever a human is currently working without redesigning that workspace.
redorb 3mo ago
There are just a few reasons - humanoid make sense, mostly for multi purpose tasks - where if you want a robot to be multi-job, do almost everything a human can do at work -- If you want a weld you need a 1 arm robot, if a robot to weld, then stack, then push parts on a cart across the factory - then sweep up, then etc.. etc.. perhaps a humanoid is alright. There will definitely be too many people comfortable with ownership / master relationship with a humanoid robot that will do their bidding.
- jayd16 3mo ago
  I understand the argument but its honestly ridiculous in my eyes. How about a set of arms that can reach into dishwasher and stack dishes and a washer/dryer to fold laundry... Except even without solving the bipedal movement, that doesn't exist at a consumer price point. Why are we pretending the hardest version of this is close to existing?
  - Schiendelman 3mo ago
    It doesn't need to be at a consumer price point first, it needs to replace a human at an existing warehouse or manufacturing role first, and that's achievable in the next two years at this point. When you have arms that can reach into the dishwasher, you're also going to want them to put away your dishes. And so suddenly they need to get up high. And you're not going to have a SECOND set of arms at your washer/dryer to fold laundry, you're just going to buy a second DLC for your existing robot. And it needs to get between those places, so if you have stairs, wheels don't cut it. You need a bipedal robot very quickly.
    - jayd16 3mo ago
      Why not buy a second set of arms instead of legs or just a set a wheels?
      - Schiendelman 3mo ago
        I feel like if I write two paragraphs, nobody reads the second one...
        rkomorn 3mo ago
        Maybe they're asking what your argument against buying a second set of arms is, rather than suggesting it as a solution?
        Schiendelman 3mo ago
        Totally, and they ask why not wheels... I think the key is that none of our actual home use cases can be done with just arms. You don't need your folded clothes sitting in front of your washer and dryer, and a set of arms can't handle folding sheets.
        jayd16 3mo ago
        Why not? I would love to have a set of arms that could flip the laundry from the washer to the dryer and then take it out of the dryer and fold it and put it in the basket.
        Schiendelman 3mo ago
        I understand that particular use case sounds cool! I really do. And then you want them to put away your dishes, and they can't, even though it's just a software update, because they're across the house. And they're BIG, so you don't have room to store two anyway. And they were $20,000, so...
- adrian_b 3mo ago
  For multi-purpose tasks, human hands and arms are excellent, but only 2 are too few for many tasks. Humans very frequently need to have specialized gripping tools in order to accomplish tasks that cannot be done with only 2 arms, or they must work in pairs. A good mobile multi-purpose robot should have 3 arms, or 4 arms for symmetry. Human legs are normally not necessary. A mobile robot would just need some means to raise and lower its wheels, so that it could step when ascending or descending stairs. A human head is not useful. The place for the "brain" of a robot is in its "chest", because robots do not have the limitations of living beings, where the very slow propagation speed of the nervous signals forces the nervous systems to be concentrated in the proximity of the main sense organs. Instead of a head, one should have a couple of mobile arms with video cameras at their end, somewhat like the mobile stalks of crab eyes. Of the components of a human, only the hands and arms are models useful to imitate. Cephalopod-like arms would be even more versatile than human-like arms, but it is likely that they would be much more expensive at similar performances. Having the size of a human and human-like hands and arms is good for working in environments designed for humans, but having the shape of a human has no purpose.
password54321 3mo ago
A lot of training data being collected is coming from people. You have companies paying people to do chores while recording themselves.
goretghh 3mo ago
Because it's what Elon and China say that matters. There are exceptions but Korea is not the land of creativity. At all.
newsclues 3mo ago
Because you can use existing physical equipment with automation, until it’s ready for a full replacement
ElFitz 3mo ago
> Why humanoid? Surely there must be a superior physical form factor than one mimicking human anatomy. There probably (certainly) is. But if you want to build a multi-purpose platform, you’ll soon be faced with a dumb challenge: nearly all interfaces (door knobs, taps, electric switches, cutlery, sponges, every single button out there, pillow cases, wrenches, hammers, signs…) are made for humans. Placed at human hand level. At human eye level. Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies. So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it or them, betting that the easiest way to build a single multi-purpose platform able to do most things (and not n platforms for n+ use cases) is to borrow the shape most things are made for wouldn’t surprise me. Plus, you get a wider market. And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job.
- numpad0 3mo ago
  Those require a hand on a stick. The stick isn't so interesting. Humanoid robots are the stick part, and actually not THAT interesting.
  - ElFitz 3mo ago
    Never said it was interesting. Just that it’s easier to sell tech that fits your customers' environments than to get customers to overhaul their environment to fit the unproven tech you want to sell them.
- imtringued 3mo ago
  Most fixed infrastructure like switches and buttons that can be operated with a single hand are amenable to any robot with at least one hand. We've had Sawyer demonstrations operating tools clearly designed for humans for more then a decade ago and Mobile Aloha had demonstrations showing how it can operate the switches of an elevator just fine. None of these are humanoid robots. The moment you have mobile tools, whats the point in forcing the robot to hold them using a human hand? You can put them on a tool changer now or have a gripper that works for the specific task. Why does a robot need to hold a wrench using a humanoid hand? >Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies. Uhm, now we're getting into stupid territory. All of those environments have flat floors. Flat floors are not an environment that are exclusively built to accommodate human bodies... The flat floor is designed for ultimate flexibility. It can be used for anything. Furniture, wheelchairs, wheeled robots, furniture on rolls, animals, and also humans. All of the environments you've listed should preferrably be wheelchair accessible for disabled people (in terms of locomotion at least). >So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it Is this some kind of joke? Factories already make heavy use of UGVs and stationary robot arms and build custom end effectors for them. It's also an extreme strawman to suggest that wireless/electronic interfaces require finding a "superior form-factor" to the point that it feels insulting. There's also often an easy wheelchair accessible equivalent. E.g. a button to activate the electronic door opener at wheelchair level can still be at a comfortable height for standing people. >And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job. So solve the impossible (come on you know it's hyperbole) first, only then can you build a simpler system. I think its incredibly unreasonable to suggest that you need to solve every single problem ever encountered in human existence to be allowed to solve one much simpler problem.
a_wild_dandan 3mo ago
Backward compatibility with current meatspace tooling.
numpad0 3mo ago
It's just Internet hype.
m4rtink 3mo ago
Tentacles & shoggothbots pave the way to the future!

Retric 3mo ago

Human spaces are built for humans. Outdoors cars and quad coppers are a great form but constrained by stars, doors, and low ceiling makes them a poor fit. Alternatively a 2 foot tall or a 20 foot tall humanoid robots aren’t particularly useful. But a good enough 5-6 foot tall humanoid robot can be swapped into an assembly line wherever a human is currently working without redesigning that workspace.

redorb 3mo ago

There are just a few reasons - humanoid make sense, mostly for multi purpose tasks - where if you want a robot to be multi-job, do almost everything a human can do at work -- If you want a weld you need a 1 arm robot, if a robot to weld, then stack, then push parts on a cart across the factory - then sweep up, then etc.. etc.. perhaps a humanoid is alright. There will definitely be too many people comfortable with ownership / master relationship with a humanoid robot that will do their bidding.

jayd16 3mo ago
I understand the argument but its honestly ridiculous in my eyes. How about a set of arms that can reach into dishwasher and stack dishes and a washer/dryer to fold laundry... Except even without solving the bipedal movement, that doesn't exist at a consumer price point. Why are we pretending the hardest version of this is close to existing?
- Schiendelman 3mo ago
  It doesn't need to be at a consumer price point first, it needs to replace a human at an existing warehouse or manufacturing role first, and that's achievable in the next two years at this point. When you have arms that can reach into the dishwasher, you're also going to want them to put away your dishes. And so suddenly they need to get up high. And you're not going to have a SECOND set of arms at your washer/dryer to fold laundry, you're just going to buy a second DLC for your existing robot. And it needs to get between those places, so if you have stairs, wheels don't cut it. You need a bipedal robot very quickly.
  - jayd16 3mo ago
    Why not buy a second set of arms instead of legs or just a set a wheels?
    - Schiendelman 3mo ago
      I feel like if I write two paragraphs, nobody reads the second one...
      - rkomorn 3mo ago
        Maybe they're asking what your argument against buying a second set of arms is, rather than suggesting it as a solution?
        Schiendelman 3mo ago
        Totally, and they ask why not wheels... I think the key is that none of our actual home use cases can be done with just arms. You don't need your folded clothes sitting in front of your washer and dryer, and a set of arms can't handle folding sheets.
        jayd16 3mo ago
        Why not? I would love to have a set of arms that could flip the laundry from the washer to the dryer and then take it out of the dryer and fold it and put it in the basket.
        Schiendelman 3mo ago
        I understand that particular use case sounds cool! I really do. And then you want them to put away your dishes, and they can't, even though it's just a software update, because they're across the house. And they're BIG, so you don't have room to store two anyway. And they were $20,000, so...
adrian_b 3mo ago
For multi-purpose tasks, human hands and arms are excellent, but only 2 are too few for many tasks. Humans very frequently need to have specialized gripping tools in order to accomplish tasks that cannot be done with only 2 arms, or they must work in pairs. A good mobile multi-purpose robot should have 3 arms, or 4 arms for symmetry. Human legs are normally not necessary. A mobile robot would just need some means to raise and lower its wheels, so that it could step when ascending or descending stairs. A human head is not useful. The place for the "brain" of a robot is in its "chest", because robots do not have the limitations of living beings, where the very slow propagation speed of the nervous signals forces the nervous systems to be concentrated in the proximity of the main sense organs. Instead of a head, one should have a couple of mobile arms with video cameras at their end, somewhat like the mobile stalks of crab eyes. Of the components of a human, only the hands and arms are models useful to imitate. Cephalopod-like arms would be even more versatile than human-like arms, but it is likely that they would be much more expensive at similar performances. Having the size of a human and human-like hands and arms is good for working in environments designed for humans, but having the shape of a human has no purpose.

password54321 3mo ago

A lot of training data being collected is coming from people. You have companies paying people to do chores while recording themselves.

goretghh 3mo ago

Because it's what Elon and China say that matters. There are exceptions but Korea is not the land of creativity. At all.

newsclues 3mo ago

Because you can use existing physical equipment with automation, until it’s ready for a full replacement

ElFitz 3mo ago

> Why humanoid? Surely there must be a superior physical form factor than one mimicking human anatomy. There probably (certainly) is. But if you want to build a multi-purpose platform, you’ll soon be faced with a dumb challenge: nearly all interfaces (door knobs, taps, electric switches, cutlery, sponges, every single button out there, pillow cases, wrenches, hammers, signs…) are made for humans. Placed at human hand level. At human eye level. Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies. So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it or them, betting that the easiest way to build a single multi-purpose platform able to do most things (and not n platforms for n+ use cases) is to borrow the shape most things are made for wouldn’t surprise me. Plus, you get a wider market. And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job.

numpad0 3mo ago
Those require a hand on a stick. The stick isn't so interesting. Humanoid robots are the stick part, and actually not THAT interesting.
- ElFitz 3mo ago
  Never said it was interesting. Just that it’s easier to sell tech that fits your customers' environments than to get customers to overhaul their environment to fit the unproven tech you want to sell them.
imtringued 3mo ago
Most fixed infrastructure like switches and buttons that can be operated with a single hand are amenable to any robot with at least one hand. We've had Sawyer demonstrations operating tools clearly designed for humans for more then a decade ago and Mobile Aloha had demonstrations showing how it can operate the switches of an elevator just fine. None of these are humanoid robots. The moment you have mobile tools, whats the point in forcing the robot to hold them using a human hand? You can put them on a tool changer now or have a gripper that works for the specific task. Why does a robot need to hold a wrench using a humanoid hand? >Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies. Uhm, now we're getting into stupid territory. All of those environments have flat floors. Flat floors are not an environment that are exclusively built to accommodate human bodies... The flat floor is designed for ultimate flexibility. It can be used for anything. Furniture, wheelchairs, wheeled robots, furniture on rolls, animals, and also humans. All of the environments you've listed should preferrably be wheelchair accessible for disabled people (in terms of locomotion at least). >So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it Is this some kind of joke? Factories already make heavy use of UGVs and stationary robot arms and build custom end effectors for them. It's also an extreme strawman to suggest that wireless/electronic interfaces require finding a "superior form-factor" to the point that it feels insulting. There's also often an easy wheelchair accessible equivalent. E.g. a button to activate the electronic door opener at wheelchair level can still be at a comfortable height for standing people. >And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job. So solve the impossible (come on you know it's hyperbole) first, only then can you build a simpler system. I think its incredibly unreasonable to suggest that you need to solve every single problem ever encountered in human existence to be allowed to solve one much simpler problem.

a_wild_dandan 3mo ago

Backward compatibility with current meatspace tooling.

numpad0 3mo ago

It's just Internet hype.

m4rtink 3mo ago

Tentacles & shoggothbots pave the way to the future!