| ▲ | SoftTalker 17 hours ago |
| A machine is stronger and faster than a human? Shocking. Next we'll learn that cranes can lift heavy loads faster than a human with ropes and pulleys. |
|
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| a bullet is faster than any car. the point is, it's a humanoid type robot, not just a faster vehicle. |
| |
| ▲ | qayxc 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't see the difference. Is a humanoid robot not a machine? What surprises is that it took so long to achieve this. It took Honda 20 years to get to ASIMO in 2000. I'm not surprised by the fact that 26(!) years later, a humanoid robot finally exceeds human capabilities in basic tasks like running. Such robot would easily smash the current marathon record as well and the only thing I'd be impressed by, would be the battery capacity tbh. | | |
| ▲ | Cookingboy 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But not all machines are the same? If you were ever trapped on the top floor of a burning building, should we just send a car up there? Nobody is surprised by advancement like this, but there is still a lot of engineering that went into it, not talking about how it’s now almost consumer grade tech that you can buy. | | |
| ▲ | qayxc 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you were ever trapped on the top floor of a burning building, should we just send a car up there? Riddle me this then: what role does a robot that has been built to run real fast play in that scenario? Sure, a good deal of engineering went into this, but the hard part - solving bipedal locomotion - had been done long before that. Apart from showing off it's not really advancing the field and so there's not too much left to be impressed by (honestly, the battery and actuator efficiency that allowed the thing to do a half marathon was MUCH more impressive, at least to me). It seems to me to be more analogous to car tuning. | | |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > what role does a robot that has been built to run real fast play in that scenario? It will run real fast up the stairs, I guess? Is it a good enough riddle? | | |
| ▲ | qayxc 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The thing has no real arms, hands or carry capacity, so what would be the point? Running up the stairs is the easy part after all. The difficult part in such scenario is lack of orientation due to smoke, obstacles like locked doors or fallen debris, unstable walls and ceilings, locating people and getting them out safely. All of those things require a good amount of autonomy, on-the-spot physical problem solving and judgement. To this effect, the recent DARPA Triage Challenge, which has its final taking place in November this year, seems like a much more thorough and practical demonstration of current capabilities. Something to look forward to if you're interested in the current state-of-the-art w.r.t. real-world applications of robotics. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If I'm trapped in a burning building and am at the top floor, send a helicopter, dude. The robot will be fine on the way back (maybe) bu I won't! |
| |
| ▲ | paulpauper 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What people find impressive or interesting is subjective, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | qayxc 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely. I was impressed by ASIMO and Atlas. Running fast, though, doesn't seem all that impressive by comparison, but yeah YMMV. | | |
| ▲ | hakfoo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a very pretty benchmark. Everyone has the same basic objective and measurement norm, so we can see how performance improves year over year, and how different manufacturers handle a specific known goal, even if it's not super-representative of real world use cases. Billion-dollar supercomputers don't spend most of their time running LINPACK, and some probably perform better on specific tasks, but it doesn't make the Top 500 list any less of a thing. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | shevy-java 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you call it "humanoid"? Can you qualify this? Because I came to the conclusion that this is NOT a humanoid robot. Having one rectangle and four long spear-like things, does not make something "humanoid". So which criteria do you use? | | |
| ▲ | phoghed 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Per the article > Lightning the humanoid robot clocks 9.32sec in Beijing Bipedal, hips, knees, feet. Looks humanoid to me. If cloudflare puts this in a grid of images and asks me to pick the humanoids, I’m clicking it | | | |
| ▲ | petcat 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think of "humanoid" as a machine capable of operating in the same complex physical environment as humans do. For instance, it is generally more comfortable for a healthy adult human to use a steep staircase than a steep ramp. So a "humanoid" robot would be capable of using the same staircase instead of requiring a ramp to be purpose-built just for it. | |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nom 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | it is of humanoid shape |
|
|
|
| ▲ | DrewADesign 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >> a humanoid robot that can competently run > A machine is stronger and faster than a human? Shocking. Next we'll learn that cranes can lift heavy loads faster than a human with ropes and pullys. It’s funny how absurdly dismissive and condescending tech people can be about difficult problems in other people’s fields that they know absolutely nothing about. Numerous developers, informed by maybe a YouTube video, Reddit thread, or equally misguided explainer post on another developer’s blog, have tried to ‘correct’ me about topics in a field in which I hold a degree and have plenty of professional experience. Other tech people might be impressed because they have matching blind spots in their mental models of the world, but people who actually understand, rather than baselessly assuming they understand, see someone being smug about their own ignorance. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/engineer%27s_disease |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Stop being so proud of your degree. People see the world the way they want to, and your lectures aren't going to change that. | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, your uninformed opinion doesn’t match expertise. Correctness isn’t democratic. Glib bullshit is glib bullshit no matter how vested you are in the ego that it’s stroking. |
| |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It’s funny how absurdly dismissive and condescending tech people can be about difficult problems in other people’s fields that they know absolutely nothing about "Machines can do stuff humans cannot do" isn't exactly groundbreaking in 2026. The only interesting part of this story is that this particular machine form factor looks pretty much like a human It's still not exactly shocking news that it can outrun a human. Of course it can. We're well past John Henry vs the Machine at this point in history | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not that it looks like a human — that it basically is structured like a human skeletal system. It’s an incredible technical accomplishment. | |
| ▲ | scotty79 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The only interesting part of this story is that this particular machine form factor looks pretty much like a human That's the whole goddamn point of this. Fast stable autonomous bipedal locomotion was out of reach of human technology for decades. Since this year it isn't. This was impossible year ago, despite all of the achievements of humanity, cumulative, till the year 2025, included. Now it isn't. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think tech like this is accelerating us into extinction, So forgive me if I don't exactly celebrate "That's the whole point" that we don't need humans anymore? Great. I'm a human. You want me to celebrate? No thanks | | |
| ▲ | simonra 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though. Sure, it's an easy and accessible one for the masses with some mental gymnastics around how you view your income generating activities (or by having kids). But it's still dependent on others, as you need them being at hand to impact. See all the needless depression arising from kids moving out, or when people retire and complain about not being needed instead of finding new activities to explore or grow in. As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding. Second, large amounts of young idle people has tended to result in stupid destructive behaviour at scale. So I'm confident there will be created opportunities for paid work for mostly everyone, and the conditions won't be too poor as there would be no profit motive to push people too far. Rather, the people having both the resources, time, and energy to consume, would still be what props up the system (until we can agree on trying something better now that we have excellent tools for guaranteeing transparency and optimising allocation at scale in real time). | |
| ▲ | scotty79 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's fine to not be happy about it, but denying what's happening is a completely different thing. |
|
|
|
|
