> If you can have one robot do multiple tasks at 80% of the capability of a special-purpose robot

What does them being humanoid have to do with this? There are other form factors that could get to 80% but might be simpler to implement.

▲

BurningFrog 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The whole point of humaniod robots is that they can work in environments designed for humans. And the world is already full of those!

If that ends up being a dominant or niche part of the robot market is way too early to predict.

▲

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

Ah, Agility Robotics' Jonathan Hurst has a talk that I can't find (quickly) about the various benefits of a humanoid form. I could find a 90 second snippet [0] about why their robot has legs. In that case, they use legs to traverse terrain that is difficult for wheels, like stairs or with large debris on the ground. Of the other video, I remember them suggesting that arms help with staving off a fall or reaching above the center of mass. I think they said that they put a head with 'eyes' to give the sensors a better view and so on.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHmmySGdaoM

▲

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And what would that "other form factor" be?

Can that "other form factor" climb stairs? Or operate existing power tools? Or get into a generic car to get transported to a new workplace? Or get teleoperated by a human with mocap gloves?

Non-humanoid robots don't get simplicity for free. They have to trade off capabilities to get there.

▲

schwartzworld a day ago | parent [-]

OP mentioned a standard of being able to do 80% of human activities. You might need human legs to climb stairs, but then again, if you work in a building with elevators, that might be a pretty simple tradeoff to make.

> Or operate existing power tools? Or get teleoperated by a human with mocap gloves?

Requires grippers that can hold in a similar way to human hands.

> Or get into a generic car to get transported to a new workplace?

My dog can do this and traverse a flight of stairs, and she is decidedly not humanoid.

▲

ACCount37 19 hours ago | parent [-]

So, a dog body, but with a pair of humanlike hands attached?

I fail to see how that would be any less complex than making a humanoid frame in the first place.

▲

schwartzworld 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Or whatever man. The post I responded to said they wanted a robot that could do 80% of human tasks. It's easy to start naming things that a human can't do, but actually think about the tasks humans perform on a day to day basis and the environments they perform them in. Could it ride in a car? Anything that can fit on a car seat can. Dogs, grocery bags and even human babies all fit very comfortably in any car. Could it take the stairs? Maybe, but at my work we don't have to take the stairs.

The conversation is a little reminiscent of "before the car was invented, if you asked what people wanted they would have said a faster horse". If robots became popular in day-to-day, it's not hard to imagine that we would make space for them in our lives anyway. Cars can't traverse the kinds of terrain a horse can, and they require fuel so we have roads and gas stations. If you made a robot that was actually helpful and couldn't take the stairs, you'd start installing dumbwaiters in buildings.

	▲	ACCount37 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, "whatever man" does NOT get you out of your design constraints. Robots that can't solve a diverse range of tasks in arbitrary human-made environments aren't going to "become popular". And if robots don't "become popular", no one is going to redesign every single environment to suit them better.