Remix.run Logo
Animats 2 days ago

Look at it this way. Useful Humanoid robots are at least as hard as useful self-driving cars. It took about 20 years to get from the DARPA Grand Challenge (can drive OK on an empty road) to Waymo (take one across town today.).

bbarnett 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think some of the car role will port to robot role.

Vision for cars already includes object detection, and the better that is, the better robot object detection gets. The same for "human ran out on road" would work for "walking in house, small human is now in front of me, stop!".

I wonder how much of the one will port to the other. A house has paths aka "roads", inside and out. Places the robot may walk, and not. So path navigation is a thing too. Maybe 'getting around' is mostly solved, while of course other challenges are still there.

Sort of replying to others in this part, the reason people are all hung up on humanform, is that our entire world is made for humans. Whether stairs, doors, sidewalks, doorknobs, cupboards, or even space to walk in a small kitchen... it's all made to work with human shape and size.

(Yes, while there is wheelchair access mandated, that doesn't extend to the inside of every home, and all the spaces in homes, and even then everything we have is designed to be operated by fingers/arms/hands.)

So if you solve humanform, the robot can go anywhere and manipulate/do anything a human can. That means no change to the environment when you get one. Right or wrong, that's why everyone is after humanform.

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent [-]

Tesla went into humanoid robots because they noticed what kind of thing was their AI architecture developing into.

They realized just how much of what an autonomous vehicle needs to do to navigate real world roads is similar to what an advanced robot would need to do to operate in real world environments. If they could get anywhere close to solving FSD, it would be an "in" on advanced robotics too.

The triumph of LLMs then made it glaringly obvious that the kind of advanced decision-making that you would need to power truly universal robots is no longer in the realm of science fiction, so a lot more companies followed.

Animats 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Tesla went into humanoid robots because they noticed what kind of thing their AI architecture was developing into.

Tesla went into humanoid robots to pump the stock. Musk recently claimed that 80% of Tesla's value is in Optimus.[1]

(What is it with US auto company management? Tesla did well for a while, then Musk got distracted. No new models in years, and the Cybertruck turned out to be a dud. Stellantis has cut Chrysler down to one line of mini-vans, raised prices on everything, and messed up Jeep, which killed sales. The dealers demanded the CEO be fired, which was done. GM is being GM, plugging along. The CEO of Ford seems to have a clue. He got a BYD car to drive around and has been telling everybody that Ford has to get that good and that cheap, and fast, which they are trying to do.)

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-story-of-optim...

bbarnett a day ago | parent [-]

Tesla went into humanoid robots to pump the stock.

Everything else in your comment is more locked to direct observable info.

However this really isn't. And frankly every CEO wants a healthy stock price, that doesn't mean the primary goal is "pump the stock", which is what you are stating is the goal here.

That said, the Chrysler/Stellantis thing is just weirdosville. One thing I liked was this new platform:

https://www.caranddriver.com/ram/1500-ramcharger

but:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64781518/ram-ramcharger-1...

They put all that work into it, hype, pre-launch, and it's even built on a common platform. The truck is basically the same as their pure-electric version, as the engine is simply used as a generator to charge. No major changes to the rest of the vehicle, just an added engine.

You may wonder why I like this? Well I was hoping it's carry over to smaller Jeeps or even cars. I live in a rural area, and it gets quite cold here (-40C sometimes), which really reduces range. I want a PHEV, but also with a backup power plant.

This is that.

It also reduces a lot of the complexity of a hybrid. No dual drive train, or one part driven by gas engine, the other electric.

I can see myself driving much of the summer with the engine only coming on rarely, but then needing the engine more and more in the winter. But at least I'd be on battery most of the time, even then.

Heck, I can drive 100s of km without there being a fast charger here.

We need bridge vehicles for the time being.

But my rambling really goes back to, they developed the platform, started selling it, but held off on this final piece because of.. reasons?

Weirdos.

Animats 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Tesla went into humanoid robots to pump the stock. Everything else in your comment is more locked to direct observable info. However this really isn't.

Musk says it is: "Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on X that about 80% of his automaker’s value will come from Optimus humanoid robots. Musk said in mid-2024 that Optimus robots could make Tesla a $25 trillion company, equal to more than half the value of the S&P 500 at the time of his comment."[1]

I'd like a good $35,000 electric Jeep myself.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/musk-tesla-value-optimus-rob...

bbarnett 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sure, but that's discussing the outcome of a goal. That doesn't make it the goal. To highlight this, they've been working on Optimus for what? A decade?

'Pump the stock' has more of a bait and switch, or a scammish connotation, at least to me. Every company must be aware of stock price to a degree, and tout their successes and products and goals. That's not pumping, which is often conjoined with pump'n'dump.

But anyhow.

What I like about that platform, is you could have that $35k electric Jeep, and I could have a $45k electric Jeep with built in generator and other fluff modz, but it would be built on the exact same platform. Same parts except for the generator+tank.

One of the benefits could be space for extra bling. You could put a water tank on the mounting brackets for the fuel tank, or something else interesting. You could convert your model to a gen model, even buying parts from the wreckers on the cheap, should your circumstances change. Or the reverse! Remove the gen+tank if desired.

I can imagine needed the gen+tank for 4 years, then maybe I suddenly have sufficient fast chargers locally...

Heck selling a model with the wiring + tank would add minimal weight. Even just the wiring. Imagine being able to rent an engine for a week, a month, a year? The mount rails and a generic, standardized connector is there, the software supports it, an open API.

So much could be done, but of course won't.

But I do, as maybe you can tell, really like the idea of a shared platform.

numpad0 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Elon wanted to automate final assembly. Final assembly in cars is anything but final; it's most of what regular people consider "building" phase of the car where the body on a cart rolls forward and human workers attach parts to it until it rolls off at the end.

A lot of final assembly processes are already highly automated, albeit with human hands as tip of robots. Heavy objects such as entire assembled dashboard spanning an entire width of the car, or seats complete with headrest, are slid in from side riding on a carriage, often following a human hand that route cables and to confirm alignments for attachment.

Joint wears of worker humans embedded in the processes as robots are tracked and managed as well, by computer simulation, data tracking, and optimization.

Tool used, such as drills, are highly computerized as well, automatically setting and logging turns and torques, types and numbers of screws removed from the workstation shelf, etc., but they are still manipulated and articulaed by humans, as robots aren't good enough.

Robotizing final assembly is the holy grail for which Honda was doing robots since late 80s until Japanese economy collapsed and AI researches stopped. Steve Jobs was dreaming the same lights-out factory concept during NeXT years. More recently, Foxconn bought robots in hundreds at one point in hope that it will be useful for iPhone. Sony actually shipped some numbers of PS4 from a fully robotized prototype line.

The difference between them and Tesla is that they're so far the latest and about the least actually committed to it, obviously due to lack of engineering talent outside of UI software.

modeless 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ASIMO is 25 years old. PETMAN is 16 years old and Atlas is 12.

HarHarVeryFunny 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Humanoid robots are at least as hard as useful self-driving cars

A self-driving car only has to do one thing - drive. It's also got a stable wheeled base and only a couple of degrees of freedom - got to steer and regulate it's speed.

Even if the only thing you wanted the humanoid robot to do is drive your car, it'd be massively harder for it since it's got all those degrees of freedom, will be bouncing around in the drivers seat, and presumably doesn't even know how to drive.

If the humanoid is more than a gimick - meant to be general purpose, then it needs an AGI brain and ability to learn for itself. It's not going to be learning in a simulator like your FSD car - it's be learning on the road like your teenage kid.

AndrewKemendo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s actually going faster because it does not require public approval the same way that driving cars do because you’re in public space.

We’re seeing a lot of robotic trials happening in private warehouses and on private test ranges at pretty rapid scale

Beyond that the methods for transfer learning behavior cloning behavior authoring are very robust so that I can get joint angles directly from a human via instrumentation through vision or even commodity sensors which captured trajectories that can be immediately applied to robotic joint positions.

The real challenge is actually capturing demonstration recordings from humans because it’s the hardest thing to instrument. The core task is instrumenting data capture of existing human tasks that are not done through machines, such that they can transfer to machines.

This is easiest done with existing human operated robots because the instrumentation is free, so data can go directly into real2sim2real pipelines.

There might seem counterintuitive but most of the actual technical bits and bites are already there it’s re-orienting the economic and logistical process of labor execution that is the major challenge.

I will say though, I’m seeing less and less barriers there as time goes on. Employers really want to not have to hand human employees

SequoiaHope 2 days ago | parent [-]

Municipal approval was probably only a minor part of the development time tho no? Google was operating Waymo in Mountain View for years before they expanded. The vast majority of the time cost was in development.

I think technology development can be faster thanks to better AI systems like VLA models, but I do think the time to real deployment will be long.

My pet issue is that the dexterity of the hands is still really poor. A human hand is incredible with what it can do.

I think between the general manipulation tasks, world understanding, and more these systems are still a long ways out for widespread use, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they find niche uses near term.

Earw0rm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

(a few specific towns, which have done various things to smooth operating conditions for Waymo.)

It's useful, don't get me wrong, but when Waymo can handle Cairo and Rome, I'll consider it a solved problem.

AlotOfReading 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What specific things do you think the "towns" of SF, LA, NYC, and Tokyo have done to smooth operating conditions for Waymo?

fragmede a day ago | parent [-]

Drive according to western standards. If you've never driven outside of those, then it's hard to imagine. No one follows the laws. Lanes are entirely made up, no one follows the lines on the road. If you're not agressive to the point of someone in LA about to shoot you, you won't get in.

I ride Waymos and I believe they can be made to work in Rome et al, but honestly, I doubt most human drivers can drive in eg Mumbai.

AlotOfReading 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm familiar with Indian traffic. Those events are more frequent in some places, but they happen everywhere. In any case, it's not what the OP is talking about. They were talking about cities improving conditions to make things easier for AVs. LA wasn't Mumbai before Waymo and it still isn't after.

stackedinserter 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe cities like Cairo are problems, not the algorithms that can't drive there.

_diyar 2 days ago | parent [-]

The problem with respect to what? The end-goal of self-driving cars (and humanoid robots) is to work in the environments created for humans. Otherwise we can just put down rails across all cities and call it a tram, or design purpose-built robots for all tasks.

Edit: Stated more explicitly: the human world is the way it is because of many reasons and can't always be changed naively (it's not like nobody in Cairo has thought about improving the traffic situation, or architects haven't thought about the ease of cleaning different flooring material). Robots which are general purpose with respect to their human-like capabilities must necessarily also accept a world in which humans live.

stackedinserter 2 days ago | parent [-]

The end goal of is to make them work in reasonable environments. If it works fine in 90% of cities but doesn't work in Cairo, then fuck Cairo, no driverless cars for them.