Imagine the demand for a robotic maid after the first time one of them steps on a baby. Pure fantasy. It's a sign of the sociopathy of these sick people that they would prefer to interact with a robot than a maid.
Re Amazon's HQ search. I saw, many years ago, I think in the HBR, a study done on where the Fortune XXX had their HQ's and why there. The overwhelming reason? It was close to where the Chairman lived! 😀
More people should have eyes on HEBI (https://www.hebirobotics.com/). They're on the forefront of modular robot parts for bots of all shapes and sizes, none of which are humanoid.
Great article. This sentence made me laugh out loud (and I needed that):
“Weave Robotics announced it will start taking orders for its $8,000 humanoid that can fold your laundry — as long as your clothes aren’t inside out and you aren’t washing blankets or sheets.”
This a a great analysis. I'd extend it further - The humanoid wins today only because our world was built for us. What happens to the best robot shape if we rebuild the world? I modelled it with variable we can plug today, and we get a surprising middle answer.
When one has seemingly unlimited funds, with which to play unlimited games, in which to generate unlimited hype, and ultimately to replace ones funding with that of others, either via VC or IPO maneuvering . . . I suppose the conscience-less question is then . . . why not?
It's like looking at a child and being like, "There's no compelling proof points that this person will ever be able to feed themselves."
I think you're significantly underestimating the scaling effect of vast amounts of pov capture and simulated data combined with fledgling proto-world models that have been developing in just the last 12 months. That will not only unlock the proof points you've listed but humanoid navigation and interaction within real space more generally.
Hmmmm there are 5.4 billion very compelling proof points in the world (adults) that children will grow up!
The experts I spoke to were not confident that the data collection techniques we have right now will be enough to create embodied knowledge any time soon.
Touche. My poor analogy notwithstanding I think my point was clear.
However I don't find think appeals to some vague authority to be all that compelling, especially since I work in a closely related field and actively track the embodied intelligence movement, hence my initial comment.
I do appreciate this exchange though. I find that it's rather rare for authors to respond to opposing views on substack ✌️
Great post, thank you. I like tech and I've often read the glowing predictions about the wonders of humanoid robots and wondered why I don't see myself as wanting or needing one.
And then there are the robots that are performing thousands of rides every week. There are the robots delivering food to people's homes. There are the robots that are moving vehicles in parking garages. There are the robots that are moving pallets and shelves within warehouses.
But when it comes to humanoid robots I imagine many of the same criticisms in this article echo the criticisms of coding robots of just a year ago. Look where we are now. Look it's really easy to kick new technology because it's fledgling and new. I don't think we've ever had a radically new technology that didn't require vast sums of capital and that didn't waste a lot of that capital in its initial phases. There's a lot of reason to be concerned about humanoid robots but this article seems to be pessimism for pessimism's sake.
I completely agree that industrial robots (the ones moving pallets, etc) are innovative and useful. My intention is not to be pessimistic about humanoids for pessimism's sake, but to point out that there are truly no compelling proof points for why this technology makes economic sense.
I think that robotics is going to be a major industry in the next century, but you're right to point out that the timelines and strategy brought forth by tech leaders are pretty absurd. Self driving took about a decade or 2 longer than expected, and that is a much more economically friendly use case than humanoid robots
Great article! My unsolicited 2 cents: (1) One of the most important days in a person’s to life is the day they realize the adults are full of shit and have no idea what they’re doing. The second most important day is the day you realize that you’re one of the adults. (2) I bet it’s super cheap to fix a humanoid robot after your roommate from college gets wasted at the cookout and decides to fight the robot (3) You misspelled “lying to investors and shareholders” (4) Let’s be fair, does anyone really know how to fold a bedsheet? (5) I just want a robot that makes sure I get my bbq sauce at the drive thru.
Imagine the demand for a robotic maid after the first time one of them steps on a baby. Pure fantasy. It's a sign of the sociopathy of these sick people that they would prefer to interact with a robot than a maid.
It will be a very long time before any robot can be trusted to perform ANY task better than just hiring a kid to do it for 10 bucks…. Really!
Really….a VERY long time….
Re Amazon's HQ search. I saw, many years ago, I think in the HBR, a study done on where the Fortune XXX had their HQ's and why there. The overwhelming reason? It was close to where the Chairman lived! 😀
Excellent analysis. I love the NYC analogy with obsession of building robots.
love your article
YES! I called this out too in a post a while back: https://www.pghtechbeat.com/p/humanoid-robots-are-still-overrated
More people should have eyes on HEBI (https://www.hebirobotics.com/). They're on the forefront of modular robot parts for bots of all shapes and sizes, none of which are humanoid.
Great article. This sentence made me laugh out loud (and I needed that):
“Weave Robotics announced it will start taking orders for its $8,000 humanoid that can fold your laundry — as long as your clothes aren’t inside out and you aren’t washing blankets or sheets.”
This a a great analysis. I'd extend it further - The humanoid wins today only because our world was built for us. What happens to the best robot shape if we rebuild the world? I modelled it with variable we can plug today, and we get a surprising middle answer.
https://robonomist.substack.com/p/to-humanoid-or-not-to-humanoid?r=69i6vb
Robots can fix my cryogenic dilution refrigerator so yes I need two of them
When one has seemingly unlimited funds, with which to play unlimited games, in which to generate unlimited hype, and ultimately to replace ones funding with that of others, either via VC or IPO maneuvering . . . I suppose the conscience-less question is then . . . why not?
It's like looking at a child and being like, "There's no compelling proof points that this person will ever be able to feed themselves."
I think you're significantly underestimating the scaling effect of vast amounts of pov capture and simulated data combined with fledgling proto-world models that have been developing in just the last 12 months. That will not only unlock the proof points you've listed but humanoid navigation and interaction within real space more generally.
Hmmmm there are 5.4 billion very compelling proof points in the world (adults) that children will grow up!
The experts I spoke to were not confident that the data collection techniques we have right now will be enough to create embodied knowledge any time soon.
Touche. My poor analogy notwithstanding I think my point was clear.
However I don't find think appeals to some vague authority to be all that compelling, especially since I work in a closely related field and actively track the embodied intelligence movement, hence my initial comment.
I do appreciate this exchange though. I find that it's rather rare for authors to respond to opposing views on substack ✌️
Great post, thank you. I like tech and I've often read the glowing predictions about the wonders of humanoid robots and wondered why I don't see myself as wanting or needing one.
And then there are the robots that are performing thousands of rides every week. There are the robots delivering food to people's homes. There are the robots that are moving vehicles in parking garages. There are the robots that are moving pallets and shelves within warehouses.
But when it comes to humanoid robots I imagine many of the same criticisms in this article echo the criticisms of coding robots of just a year ago. Look where we are now. Look it's really easy to kick new technology because it's fledgling and new. I don't think we've ever had a radically new technology that didn't require vast sums of capital and that didn't waste a lot of that capital in its initial phases. There's a lot of reason to be concerned about humanoid robots but this article seems to be pessimism for pessimism's sake.
I completely agree that industrial robots (the ones moving pallets, etc) are innovative and useful. My intention is not to be pessimistic about humanoids for pessimism's sake, but to point out that there are truly no compelling proof points for why this technology makes economic sense.
I think that robotics is going to be a major industry in the next century, but you're right to point out that the timelines and strategy brought forth by tech leaders are pretty absurd. Self driving took about a decade or 2 longer than expected, and that is a much more economically friendly use case than humanoid robots
Exactly!
Great article! My unsolicited 2 cents: (1) One of the most important days in a person’s to life is the day they realize the adults are full of shit and have no idea what they’re doing. The second most important day is the day you realize that you’re one of the adults. (2) I bet it’s super cheap to fix a humanoid robot after your roommate from college gets wasted at the cookout and decides to fight the robot (3) You misspelled “lying to investors and shareholders” (4) Let’s be fair, does anyone really know how to fold a bedsheet? (5) I just want a robot that makes sure I get my bbq sauce at the drive thru.
So it's as I thought... Tesla stock is worth a fraction of the price it is trading at.