"mass-production of humanoid robots is now inevitable in the next five years" My take? Probably not. It takes immense capital (which i guess, arguably, there is), and immense time and manpower to set up factories, research materials, Research and Development, manufacturing new machines to build the "new machines", and on and on. As Elon Musk found, "Making cars is hard". And my take is that high precision "humanoid robots" are decades away. Yes, yes, I hear the arguments flowing in: "But China!!" yeah, China is making humanoid robots that are "skilled" in running and jumping and dancing. In limited numbers, and certainly not useful in high precision manufacturing areas. Plus, they aren't washing machines. There has to be a market worldwide for these to be made "by the billions". Unless China gives them away, the 'average person' won't be able to afford them, and even then, I doubt they'll be capable of tending your garden and doing dishes. The amount of power they will consume is currently WAY PAST the usefulness criteria. They will have to be charged every few hours or sooner, depending upon the tasks. When battery technology comes around, then you'll see an uptick in practical uses. Until then? Billions of robots?, nope.

▲

marginalia_nu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What would even be the point of mass producing humanoid robots? It's not a particularly practical shape for a robot. We have the shape we do because it's a local minimum that accommodates our biological needs (eating, digestion, blood oxygenation and purification, reproduction), all needs that a robot does not have.

A humanoid robot is "horseless carriage" mentality if I ever saw one.

▲

david-gpu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The world is full of places and devices that are specifically designed for the human form. A humanoid robot can seamlessly use all of that, without changing any of them. That massive economic incentive is why humanoid robots are being pursued, not because researchers lack imagination.

▲

preg_match 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It might just be cheaper to change the not-robot things to fit a robot shape rather than create humanoid robots.

For example, spending ungodly amounts of money to develop a humanoid to flip burgers feels overkill. Probably cheaper to just… replace the flattop grill with an automatic cooker. Which do exist, right now, and have for decades.

	▲	m4rtink an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A lot of train an automotive stuff can be traced to the size of a horse drawn carriage, same with mny other areas - the legacy goes way back in most places and has immense power.

▲

marginalia_nu 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wouldn't it be an even bigger economic incentive to not have to go through this inefficient humanoid interface? Anyway, even with the constraint of being able to operate human interfaces, a robot can look many different ways. Like most of the torso just doesn't make sense for a robot.

There's also a ton of obvious improvements. 360 degree vision. Put a camera in each hand too while we're at it. CCD sensors and basic lenses costs next to nothing and it's very easy to replace.

	▲	GlenTheMachine 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect that if/when we get to a world where it makes economic sense to manufacture billions of robots, it’ll be easier and cheaper to modify the infrastructure.

▲

ZiiS 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Stairs, doors, tables, chairs are all designed for humanoids; the will be large similaritys with the optimum form just as horseless carriages still have four wheels.

▲

marginalia_nu 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would the robots be walking around so much? Can't you just have one robot on one floor and another robot on another floor and let them share information between them? Humans need to go places to see and hear things, and to communicate with each other. Robots don't have any such limitation.

For moving objects between locations there are much better solutions than building a humanoid robot and having it carry the thing. And it's not like they'd need to go home after their shift.

▲

ZiiS 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, single purpose robots like washing machines and rombas are much better value and hence much more common. But if I want a sandwich in bed, that is either way more pre planning then I actually did; dozens of simple machines; or something much closer to humanoid.

	▲	marginalia_nu an hour ago \| parent [-]
		We're never going to get to the point where everyone has a robot manservant making them breakfast in bed. That may well be a product, but you don't need billions of those, but thousands. The pitch for the billions of humanoid robots is replacing workers, and in that context, the humanoid shape doesn't add much, and in such an economy, the replaced workers aren't going to be splurging on domestic robots.

▲

krapp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The point would be for them to more easily replace humans without having to rebuild all of our infrastructure around non-humanoid ergonomics.

▲

busymom0 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair, what we have seen with the insane investments in AI so far, needing immense capital is no longer an issue.

	▲	m4rtink an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Huge investment does not guarantee hunge profits - or actually any profits at all. Otherwise the whole surface of the Earth would be by this point fully covered by railway track, tulip seeds or fiber optic cable. Well, there are actually places where the third option is true...
	▲	charlieyu1 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It is much harder for robots. Raw materials and manufacturing is expensive. We already have some decent robots, just too expensive for daily tasks.
	▲	grebc 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The only insanity is the multiples applied to select people’s equity. Everyone is talking about contracted revenue like it’s money in the bank.