3 ms·

The purpose of building humanoid robots is actually very simple: we want machines to feel lively and familiar. We are not the best creatures at performing ever

The purpose of building humanoid robots is actually very simple: we want machines to feel lively and familiar. We are not the best creatures at performing every possible job, yet we are so interested in building humanoid robots. Instead, we could build specialized robots for each job and create ways for them to integrate seamlessly into an ecosystem that includes humans and other robots. A cooking robot, for example, doesn't necessarily need to look humanoid. It could be a completely autonomous kitchen with no hands at all, while another robot could have some kind of interface or mechanism that allows it to integrate with and interact with the kitchen. I appreciate that the site also shows examples of this approach. But even then, we keep building humanoid robots because, deep down, they feel more alive. Seeing something that looks like a person working gives us a strange sense of joy and satisfaction. Funny how much of robotics is driven not just by what is practical, but by what feels alive to us.

hahajk 20d ago
You didn't counter with a non-humanoid design, your counter example is "many specialized robots" instead of one. What many want is a generalized robot that can do tasks the manufacturer never thought of, in an environment that already exists rather than adapting the kitchen to support the robot. The success of LLMs in generalized work over individual apps (the software equivalent of your counter example) has made people impatient for general robots.
- watwut 20d ago
  Who are those "many" and how many of them actually exist? > The success of LLMs in generalized work over individual apps (the software equivalent of your counter example) has made people impatient for general robots. LLM seems to be the most hated technology for the last 30 years. Heavily forced from top, pushed on people whether they like it or not. And also the one that is supposed to make us all unemployed, obsolete and unable to buy basic necessities. If one believes what AI labs claim.
kmmlng 20d ago
I think it's more than that for two reasons: 1) Humanoid robots are general-purpose, which is great in domains where it's not economical to design specialized robots and 2) they are also drop-in replacements for humans. If you have a kitchen already, you can just drop in a humanoid robot without having to redesign your whole kitchen, which makes adoption much easier.
schnitzelstoat 20d ago
What sort of robot would you need to load and unload a dishwasher, collecting and storing the crockery etc.? What sort of robot would you need to load and unload the laundry, fold and store the clothes? The biggest reason for humanoid robots is that they will need to function in environments designed for humans and used by humans, sometimes even alongside the robots. This is very different to something like a factory or even a warehouse, that can be designed to be used almost exclusively by the robots.
- Vishal_Max 20d ago
  [dead]
- imtringued 20d ago
  >What sort of robot would you need to load and unload a dishwasher, collecting and storing the crockery etc.? What sort of robot would you need to load and unload the laundry, fold and store the clothes? https://www.inceptivemind.com/toyota-gantry-robot-hangs-ceiling-perform-household-chores/15543/ https://www.inceptivemind.com/toyota-gantry-robot-hangs-ceil... You might now counter that legs are easy and a solved problem, sure, I won't deny that, but the point is that you should try to think out of the box.
imtringued 20d ago
Correct, when you think about it, all the "world is designed for humans" statements inherently assume that humans are still needed for the specific task to be automated. For example, we bolt robot arms on tables, so that the work space is at a comfortable height for humans, but if the robot arm had the exact same intuition and intelligence as a human, you could just install it onto the floor. Suddenly the entire rationale, the table, which is the representative stand-in for "the world was designed for humans" is gone. It's not that we necessarily need a specialized machine, it's that a generalized machine doesn't have to be humanoid.
dbspin 20d ago
The practical isn't being given due consideration here. We spend the enormous majority of our time in the built environment. Every single aspect of our homes and cities (from the size of doorways to the level of countertops) are designed around median human size and form. It's ludicrous to suggest these will change to accommodate the need of personal service robots - which already face a host of barriers to adoption, from privacy to cost to reliability etc. If there ever are to be general purpose domestic robots, they will absolutely be 'humaniform' to use Azimov's terminology. Sure a large hotel or hospital or facility can adapt itself to the shape and needs of more specialised machines, but we're not doing that in our homes. Nor are we likely to return to a jetson's vision of dozens of separate functionally distinct machines in the home. We've been doing precisely the opposite for decades - moving more distinct functions to combined devices as housing gets smaller and more expensive.
huurtehoog 19d ago
We have cooking robots thought. They're the production lines of deep frozen meals and the microwave ovens. We have automated large chunks of the economy already. I don't thing building humanoid robots is gonna drive a major further increase in automation. For one, I don't think we have the technology for it. Servo motors is not it. The human hand has 20+ degrees of freedom. We're not gonna build a great robotic hand with step motors.

hahajk 20d ago

You didn't counter with a non-humanoid design, your counter example is "many specialized robots" instead of one. What many want is a generalized robot that can do tasks the manufacturer never thought of, in an environment that already exists rather than adapting the kitchen to support the robot. The success of LLMs in generalized work over individual apps (the software equivalent of your counter example) has made people impatient for general robots.

watwut 20d ago
Who are those "many" and how many of them actually exist? > The success of LLMs in generalized work over individual apps (the software equivalent of your counter example) has made people impatient for general robots. LLM seems to be the most hated technology for the last 30 years. Heavily forced from top, pushed on people whether they like it or not. And also the one that is supposed to make us all unemployed, obsolete and unable to buy basic necessities. If one believes what AI labs claim.

kmmlng 20d ago

I think it's more than that for two reasons: 1) Humanoid robots are general-purpose, which is great in domains where it's not economical to design specialized robots and 2) they are also drop-in replacements for humans. If you have a kitchen already, you can just drop in a humanoid robot without having to redesign your whole kitchen, which makes adoption much easier.

schnitzelstoat 20d ago

What sort of robot would you need to load and unload a dishwasher, collecting and storing the crockery etc.? What sort of robot would you need to load and unload the laundry, fold and store the clothes? The biggest reason for humanoid robots is that they will need to function in environments designed for humans and used by humans, sometimes even alongside the robots. This is very different to something like a factory or even a warehouse, that can be designed to be used almost exclusively by the robots.

Vishal_Max 20d ago
[dead]
imtringued 20d ago
>What sort of robot would you need to load and unload a dishwasher, collecting and storing the crockery etc.? What sort of robot would you need to load and unload the laundry, fold and store the clothes? https://www.inceptivemind.com/toyota-gantry-robot-hangs-ceiling-perform-household-chores/15543/ https://www.inceptivemind.com/toyota-gantry-robot-hangs-ceil... You might now counter that legs are easy and a solved problem, sure, I won't deny that, but the point is that you should try to think out of the box.

imtringued 20d ago

Correct, when you think about it, all the "world is designed for humans" statements inherently assume that humans are still needed for the specific task to be automated. For example, we bolt robot arms on tables, so that the work space is at a comfortable height for humans, but if the robot arm had the exact same intuition and intelligence as a human, you could just install it onto the floor. Suddenly the entire rationale, the table, which is the representative stand-in for "the world was designed for humans" is gone. It's not that we necessarily need a specialized machine, it's that a generalized machine doesn't have to be humanoid.

dbspin 20d ago

The practical isn't being given due consideration here. We spend the enormous majority of our time in the built environment. Every single aspect of our homes and cities (from the size of doorways to the level of countertops) are designed around median human size and form. It's ludicrous to suggest these will change to accommodate the need of personal service robots - which already face a host of barriers to adoption, from privacy to cost to reliability etc. If there ever are to be general purpose domestic robots, they will absolutely be 'humaniform' to use Azimov's terminology. Sure a large hotel or hospital or facility can adapt itself to the shape and needs of more specialised machines, but we're not doing that in our homes. Nor are we likely to return to a jetson's vision of dozens of separate functionally distinct machines in the home. We've been doing precisely the opposite for decades - moving more distinct functions to combined devices as housing gets smaller and more expensive.

huurtehoog 19d ago

We have cooking robots thought. They're the production lines of deep frozen meals and the microwave ovens. We have automated large chunks of the economy already. I don't thing building humanoid robots is gonna drive a major further increase in automation. For one, I don't think we have the technology for it. Servo motors is not it. The human hand has 20+ degrees of freedom. We're not gonna build a great robotic hand with step motors.