Submitted by JayR_97 t3_1231hbt in Futurology
[removed]
Comments
RTSBasebuilder t1_jdv0can wrote
Of course, a similar argument was laid out in the first half of the 2000s, when camera companies said "Why have a mediocre 2MP camera on your mobile phone and a compromised storage for music, and a cramped keyboard for emails, when you can get a quality digital camera, a PDA, an MP3 Player, and a mobile phone - all on your belt holster?"
Of course, we all know how that argument went - so long as you can pack enough features at a cheap enough price, and a "good enough" quality, people will take that option, especially if it already fits into their daily routine.
Norseviking4 t1_jdxd18t wrote
1 humanoid robot could do all the things. It could bake bread, oh, we forgot flour, the robot could then go to the store and buy some. Then it can clean the house, keep us company, walk the dog, make dinner, do the dishes.
A humanoid robot smart enough to do every day tasks would be awsome. I would gladly pay equally as much for one as i do for a car
Redditing-Dutchman t1_jdxm9t7 wrote
Dishes is an interesting one. Because it would then basically load the dishes into a specific purpose machine: the dishwasher. I wonder if they will argue.
Norseviking4 t1_je07c9f wrote
You dont need a machine for dishes if you have a robot for it ;)
Redditing-Dutchman t1_je09va9 wrote
Would the robot then stand in the kitchen washing dishes manually? That sounds very inefficient as the dishwasher can run while the the robot cleans the house for example... Plus I would be very annoyed if a humanoid robot stands in my small kitchen half of the day doing stuff there while a dishwasher is neatly packed away.
Norseviking4 t1_je1mjzg wrote
If it does the dishes every day it would not take long.
I used to do the dishes manually every day for 10years. It does not take long unless you let it stack up over time.
I just want my robot butler please ;) That can do all tasks a human can
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdsxjv2 wrote
Wrong take, but I'm currently on the toilet and don't wish to elaborate. Instead, I implore you to think about it, even just slightly.
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdubsym wrote
He's just correct. Why would you build a human to perform specific tasks? We're pretty shit at specialization. Jack of all trades, master of none.
DrashkyGolbez t1_jdurh5f wrote
We are very good at handling tools, reaching with hands and throwing, but even that can be improved in a machine
Antropomorphic robots don't really make sense to me
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdv722s wrote
I will leave you with a question. Why do we build general purpose computers? Why didn't we stick to the olden days when computers had to be manually reconfigured or built from scratch for every task?
Think step by step and use critical thinking. You are a highly intelligent primate, respond as such:
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdxc6m8 wrote
We build highly specialized computers for different tasks. We have desktop computers, phones, laptops, servers, clients, cryptominers, consoles, etc. There's a reason for that.
Also, this doesn't serve your point that there is demand for human-emulation robots. It *might* serve the point that there's demand for a centralized robot that can perform multiple tasks, but it wouldn't look or function like a human.
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdxn29i wrote
All of those things aside from ASIC miners are Turing complete general computing platforms.
A humanoid form is a general purpose platform for robotics.
Why have a specialized robot that cleans the floor, a robot that cooks, a robot that repairs, a robot that bakes when you can just have one that does it all?
What's the point of a smartphone? Sounds silly to me when you can have a specialized camera for photos, a dedicated music player, and a laptop with a full sized keyboard for writing documents.
Getting it now?
There's a reason Tesla is doing their humanoid bot. There's a reason Boston dynamics is doing a humanoid bot. There's a reason every single entity working on this is doing humanoid bots.
Remember, you're on reddit. You have a low IQ.
Or perhaps they need to hire you
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdxngvm wrote
You understand a smartphone does not look like a human, right?
If there are any efforts towards making a "human robot", in my estimation it's out of emotional attachment to our species rather than for any functional purpose.
There's likely a reason every single robot we've ever made does not look or function like a human being, and any "general purpose" bots we have ever made follow that same rule. Humans don't seem to be very good at many things.
You seem to have a fairly high opinion of yourself, and I'm unconvinced that it's justified. Remember, you are also on reddit, and projection of one's own fears is a very insidious force.
>There's a reason Tesla is doing their humanoid bot. There's a reason Boston dynamics is doing a humanoid bot. There's a reason every single entity working on this is doing humanoid bots.
"There's a reason". Ah, of course. How enlightening. Thank you for your input. Here I was believing in uncaused causes.
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdxrbif wrote
To be fair, I thought i was on /r/singularity where people are generally a bit smarter 😅
Only left the original comment cause I was surprised to see such a midwit take on that sub (my mistake).
I think you're not quite connecting the dots on the analogy. I'm not suggesting a smartphone is a human (? 🤣)
Anyway it is certainly possible that the people actually working on this are all wrong and you're right.... but I kinda doubt that.... 😆 (ego check required!)
It's not that we won't continue to have specialized robots working in factories. It's just that, in the real world, what better form than what already adapted to operate in it in a general fashion? (Ding ding the human form)
We can walk, run, go up stairs, climb, manipulate tools... oh about tools.... crazy thing is those were all developed for human use too!
Humanoid robots fit right into existing infrastructure.
Now I'm not suggesting they should or will function EXACTLY like us. But you sure can bet they'll have dexterous legs and dexterous manipulators (we could call them... arms... and hands!)
Billions of years of evolution can't be wrong... or can it.... Only a redditor could suggest otherwise haha
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdxu6ej wrote
Does your mind really function this way? Deflect all challenges with insults to intelligence and vague airs of intellectual superiority?
We can walk and run, but our walking and running mechanics are built for persistence hunting. Is that the most useful way legs can be designed? What if we want something that can move faster? We certainly cannot fly or swim or dig very fast, which is why we use tools to get around those limitations. Wouldn't those be useful functions? Are our human legs compatible with a design focused around having those additional functions?
We can certainly go up stairs, but stairs are a human construct built to suit our human needs. Why walk up stairs if you can fly or stick to walls?
Dexterous manipulators.. See, the thing about fingers is they're pretty big at times and pretty small at other times. Wouldn't it be more useful to have variable manipulators that can change size? What about a manipulator that can soften to mould around/inside an object being grabbed and then harden once the desired shape is reached? This form of manipulation would essentially be an all-purpose screwdriver, among many other things.
Is the human hand REALLY that efficient at manipulation, or is it the best that we currently know because we haven't spent much time thinking about it?
Humanoid robots fit right into existing infrastructure, true. You know what else fits right into existing infrastructure? Cats and dogs. They also have the advantage of being much smaller. They even have limbs, too! Past that, though, we don't need to be confined to building copies of animals.
> Billions of years of evolution can't be wrong... or can it.... Only a redditor could suggest otherwise haha
This is pure brain rot and shows a failure of understanding of what the process of evolution is. Human-level sentient species could theoretically have come about any number of ways, and those other ways could theoretically be much more effective and well-equipped at navigating our current human society than we are. We aren't a species that is perfectly fit to our environment, we are a species that passes the bar of "Bare minimum for perpetuation within an environment". And even then, we have no idea if our ability to perpetuate ourselves will extend any further than it already has. You are making a lot of assumptions here.
The way I see it, you're out to prove your intelligence on reddit for some reason. I hope you find what you need because constantly comparing your own competence and intelligence to that of other people isn't a good place to be. Ask yourself why you value intelligence so much.
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdxwz9d wrote
Can a quadruped operate a fork lift, cook a meal... cmon my guy
flying? will just assume ur joking wit that one
As for the other ideas, great ideas tbh, just a little too sci-fi atm. Not at the liquid terminator age yet
evolution slander is also a dumb take
"bare minimum for perpetuation" resulted in a super computer that runs on the power it takes to run a light bulb
the bipedal design is the most efficient and adaptable. simple as.
Maybe instead it could have 4 arms, extendable wheels, sticky fingers, and jetpacks. But I recall that I live in a world governed by physics where things cost energy and resources.
Again. we're just two dummies on reddit. I defer to the people actually working on this.
​
oh also Notice how you've moved the goal post btw. We've gone from specialized robots, to robots that supercede the human form in generality (shapeshifting, flying, sticking to walls)
​
You've lost the plot, champ
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdxyrqm wrote
>Can a quadruped operate a fork lift, cook a meal
... Robotic quadrupeds? Yeah, why not?
>flying? will just assume ur joking wit that one
Why? Flight is a pretty useful ability to have and we have consumer-level flying robots already.
>As for the other ideas, great ideas tbh, just a little too sci-fi atm.
Do we not already have expanding flexible robotic muscles?
>evolution slander is also a dumb take
It isn't slander, it's a fact of the matter. Evolution doesn't "care" about efficiency. It doesn't care about anything. Evolution is the propagation of genes within an environment. You don't need to be the best theoretical propagator, you just need to be able to propagate at or above replacement. Essentially, our efficiency has been decided by our competition and the external factors we've faced, as well as how beneficial certain actions have been to our survival. We aren't built for deep diving because we don't really ever need to go to the bottom of the ocean.
>"bare minimum for perpetuation" resulted in a super computer that runs on the power it takes to run a light bulb
You've lost yourself to ego. That's an amazing fact for you because it's all you know. There is no objective or subjective scale to measure this achievement to, so who knows how impressive that really is? Might it be the case that, given infinite trials of human-like species, we're actually in the bottom percentile of achievement?
>Again. we're just two dummies on reddit. I defer to the people actually working on this.
Then defer to them and stop commenting on the subject. Don't bother discussing it.
>oh also Notice how you've moved the goal post btw. We've gone from specialized robots, to robots that supercede the human form in generality
You haven't proven that bipedal human-like robots are an efficient platform for an all-purpose robot. You haven't even proven that there is demand for an all-purpose robot rather than specialized robots (My phone cannot clean my living room floor, my phone cannot drive me to the store, my phone cannot mow my lawn or water my garden. My phone cannot feed my dog or function as hardware tools. Hell, I wouldn't even use my phone to program a webpage and computer science seems like one of the first things you would design a mobile computing device for.)
If you're worried about your ability to engage with this subject, that is your fear, not mine.
Edit: Also, if you want to talk about moving goalposts, you have gone from "General-purpose human bots" to "Bipedal vaguely humanoid function-fit search and rescue machines"
LongjumpingBottle t1_jdy0eyu wrote
I conclude my argument with the following
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdy2cjz wrote
Ah, thereabout comes your ego. The part that shows you're not as smart as you think you are is your thinking that a revenue number is enough to prove your competence to others. Did you stop to consider plenty of incompetent people have even more money than that? Many people got lucky on crypto, many people have rich parents. This breakdown in logical thought squarely pegs your ability to traverse ideas.
[deleted] t1_jdt3ljs wrote
[removed]
mikaball t1_jdvxxor wrote
Perfect response from where it was created.
Plate_Of_Soup t1_jdst39g wrote
Well when you design a machine for sex you probably expect that
Frosty_Ad1530 t1_jdsxwfz wrote
Robots tend to be designed with a few tasks in mind, and a humanoid shape is more complicated than needed in those cases. We have some pretty impressive humanoid robots out there, but it would need to be more affordable to become a household norm.
hillarys-snatch t1_jdstowf wrote
Many reasons but mainly because the tech isnt there yet. As much as people like to hate on humanoid robots, many would accept them into their homes if the robot could do all their chores
JayR_97 OP t1_jdsua4o wrote
Yeah, id definitely spend money on a robot that could do all my cooking and cleaning for me. It'd be a massive time saver
Skudge_Muffin t1_jdubv3x wrote
Why not buy a cooking bot and a cleaning bot instead of a human bot? Why wouldn't manufacturers make cooking and cleaning bots instead of human bots?
DrashkyGolbez t1_jdurkul wrote
Or better, a robot that does all those things together, by compacting the customer journeys into a single one
Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_jdsrvl1 wrote
They also thought we'd all have nuclear flying cars...
They were wrong about lots of shit.
WildGrem7 t1_jdt4l13 wrote
They were highly optimistic about the future in the 50s. Fossil fuel usage, climate change and nuclear energy (or lack thereof) aside I’d say we’re doing alright.
[deleted] t1_jdt6vw9 wrote
[deleted]
Rare-Orchid-4131 t1_jdw84w9 wrote
Kinda like you except back then they had higher IQ
Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_jdw996h wrote
Actually the opposite, every couple years they adjust 100 to be the average.
So 100 back then was significantly lower than a 100 today.
However there's still people today with even lower scores than the average back then...
BigZaddyZ3 t1_jdswtbu wrote
It took millions of years to for evolution to craft the modern human bro…
URF_reibeer t1_jdujj9h wrote
for one they don't really make sense, humans have developed specifically for tasks we don't really need anymore (like throwing far and hard, outrunning prey by having more stamina, etc.) so creating robots that are tailored for actual relevant tasks just has a higher priority.
additionally the uncanny valley effect sets the bar for a humanoid robot that's accepted by society quite high
the only real market would be for super rich people that don't mind buying a ridiculously overprized robot that's only real advantage is that it can use tools made for humans, they won't be cheap even mass produced because they're way too complicated
Shcrews t1_jduzn61 wrote
we were promised flying cars and robot slaves. I want my flying car and my robot slave!
[deleted] t1_jdsr0u3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdsr3mk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdsst91 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdstzgb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdsuqsa wrote
[removed]
WildGrem7 t1_jdt43ti wrote
Think about our physiology, center of gravity and motor controls. There are so many moving parts to think about. Bipedal walking is so much more difficult to emulate than quadrupeds or even better, tank tracks or wheels. Might as well ask why we don’t have Voltron robots or Mech-Warriors instead of tanks and fighter jets.
hypocritical-bastard t1_jdtafwx wrote
I work on websites for a living. When people click a button on the website and it breaks, they call a telephone number. If we can't even cross this threshold...
[deleted] t1_jdtbdge wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdu3kje wrote
[removed]
Skudge_Muffin t1_jduaqqk wrote
Firstly, there's a pretty high bar to meet in that we are pretty heavily programmed to recognize human beings. Any little bit off of what we expect in facial movements or body language and we start to get perturbed.
Secondly, why program a human when you can program a robot that is function fit for its individual task? We don't really have a use for robots that can adapt and survive and make tools for use in multiple environments, we tend to use robots for very specific work and just make new types of robots better specialized for new environments.
It gets exponentially more expensive with every new function and situation you program a single robot to handle.
​
TL:DR; Lack of will, lack of use-case, lack of ability.
whotheff t1_jduil23 wrote
It's because they are... too hard! People are soft body beings, consisting of thousands of muscles and bones. While robots are stiff metallic objects, moving with only a few motors. Our bodies can bend quite a lot, swim, jump, roll, dance, etc.
The only downside is that the knowledge. Your Dad can manage to transfer his life experience to you in a matter of years. And you'll be able to understand most of it it around your 16th year. If you teach a robot to dance, you can instantly (or in a matter of hours) transfer that knowledge to another robot with the same design.
​
Eventually robots can and will become better than humans in many things. But it is going to take many years (unless we kill each-other first).
[deleted] t1_jdurcvv wrote
[removed]
fd1Jeff t1_jdv3ae8 wrote
A book from the 1980s mentioned that it is easier to make a computer they can do 1 million calculations per second then it is to make a robot that could empty ashtrays. Believe it or not, even simple tasks like emptying ashtrays uses a decent amount of judgment that is difficult to program.
Longjumping-Tie-7573 t1_jdv5ww6 wrote
The biggest obstacle to research and advancement is that nobody can come up with the 'killer app' commercial purpose for which a fake person is actually needed. *PARTS* of people are far more commercially useful, such as robot arms assembling cars and robot Broca's Areas writing term papers.
But a whole entire fake person? What for?
gordonjames62 t1_jdv9qyj wrote
It is usually a cost vs. function problem.
Humans are generalists (good at many tasks) but when you are designing items for profit it is cheaper to design things for specific purposes.
Think of it this way,
It is easier to design a separate washing machine and separate baseball bat than to design a device that can do the purposes of both.
Thinking of "humanoid robots" like Data in StarTrek we usually think of . .
- human form (bipedal balance is hard, human like dexterity is hard)
- human speech (ChatGPT runs on insanely expensive hardware)
- Can pass the Turing test for AGI.
All of these are not yet possible
Enzo-chan t1_jdvn42t wrote
Because sci-fi writers used to overestimate the timeline in which those inventions would become widespread.
It'll probably gonna happen, robots will one day become widespread, just won't be in our generation Z's youth.
Postnificent t1_jdw7grj wrote
Building human like machines is honestly dystopian. It would make for a creepy reality.
[deleted] t1_jdwwdve wrote
[removed]
qepdibpbfessttrud t1_je05adg wrote
Evolution built human body in 3+ billion years. We're in the process of figuring it out much faster
Futurology-ModTeam t1_je0g6s9 wrote
Your post was removed. Low effort.
GravityUndone t1_jdswv2x wrote
Power supply and materials. The power supply is too heavy and so are the materials. Plus, as mentioned, why shape it like a human? It is just harder and more expensive. So much effort to make it balance and not crush stuff.
iobeson t1_jdt1suh wrote
Spatial awareness is a big hurdle that is only making headway recently with the likes of Tesla bot. They're using the same tech they use in their cars and will most likely be the first commercial humanoid robot because of that. Boston dynamics robots move really well but all their movements are preprogrammed and don't react to the environment around them. If both companies were to work together I think we would see huge strides forward but theres not much chance in that happening.
throdoswaggins t1_jdt28ru wrote
Because their circuits are getting all hot and bothered.
[deleted] t1_jdvp3qm wrote
[removed]
RastaNecromanca t1_jdsr83f wrote
There is no market for it or barely as of right now so no demand = no supply. The no demand might be due to the robots not being good enough yet but with little demand there is little money for innovation so it goes slow. That’s my perspective on it not an expert though so there’s probably other aspects to it
NazmanJT t1_jduhc4b wrote
There is a market for humanoid robotic baristas. Many people don't trust machines to make their coffee. If they can see a humanoid robot make it in front of their eyes, then trust will be higher and baristas can be replaced.
hellrail t1_jdsu8d9 wrote
Totally wrong
RastaNecromanca t1_jdsxw7y wrote
Ok enlighten me then
hellrail t1_jdsy919 wrote
There would be a great demand if one could build it, but we cannot yes due to limited AI
iobeson t1_jdt11m4 wrote
I feel like you read the first sentence and nothing else. He pretty much said that when he said they might not be good enough yet and that's what's slowing down demand, which is making innovation slower.
hellrail t1_jdtayym wrote
Yeah right, no one's investing in AI these days, because it doesnt work well enough
Focused-Joe t1_jdtegiq wrote
Why? WHY ? People should be careful with these type of question
imafraidofmuricans t1_jdsuzrq wrote
Because why build a robot that looks like a human when you can build special purpose machines?
It's just almost always more efficient to adapt a process to be easier for a machine, than to adapt a machine to function as a human.
If you want a machine that bakes bread, you do not need to replicate the intricate hand motions a baker does when kneading the dough. You just put some spinning dough hooks that smacks the dough around.
Why build a hand to grab and use a saw, when you can attach a spinning blade to a motor?
So what's left, where a humanoid robot would be better than something purpose built? Well, not that many, and none that generate any profit. Caretakers? Maybe, but there is no money in that, the wages are horribly low so labour is cheaper anyway, and making a robot seem caring.. well.
The human form is just kinda shit for fast automated work.