3 ms·
>why are we bothering with the human form-factor? it's a human world. doorways, windows, cars, sidewalks, elevators > A insect-like robot or something with wh
by bengali3 12y ago
>why are we bothering with the human form-factor?
it's a human world. doorways, windows, cars, sidewalks, elevators
> A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs
task specific robots will exist and outperform for the predetermined task, but the focus is on replacing humans and being able to complete human tasks, whatever the future task may be.
open doors designed for a human? open a window like a human? climb a tree like a human? Check the mailbox like a human? burn a grilled cheese like a human? Do ______ like a human? rather than build for a task, build to match the form that we know can complete these tasks, and viola! you've replaced the need for a human without designing for and testing all tasks that could ever be requested of it
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoI understand your point, but a spider-like robot could run up stairs and go through windows and doors better than a human-like one. Or a four legged robot with a lot center of gravity and twice the traction. Or novel designs like the robots from Interstellar. I mean, our drones aren't in the shape of men using gliders.
- repsilat 12y ago> I mean, our drones aren't in the shape of men using gliders. They are in the shape of manned aeroplanes, though -- they need to land on carriers and runways, they need to refuel, and they sometimes need to have weapons mounted on them. I agree that we can generally improve on the human form in some cases -- "eyes at the front of a head with limited rotation" is an easy fix, for example -- but most things are going to be loaded with tradeoffs, not just functionally but in how their public use might become accepted.