Yeah, I’ve been wondering this as well. It makes so little sense but I’m guessing it just makes for shiny propaganda. I was never convinced by the argument that “Humanoid robots are better suited to working in environments that were built for humans”, like, WE are the ones who make these environments, wouldn’t it just make more sense to rebuild the facility to be more efficient for cheaper and more sensible machinery, rather than invest exponentially more to replace all the humans with robots?
It’s like saying “Cars were designed with humans in mind, so if we want self driving cars we need to put a humanoid robot driver in the drivers seat”.
wouldn’t it just make more sense to rebuild the facility to be more efficient for cheaper and more sensible machinery
Yes, but that takes time and we need to have a good and mature enough tecnology for it to make at least some “financial” sense. So, if the humanoid robots can do work that humans can do then it means that we could try make/have AIs make new robots and new enviroments that work well toghether without consideration for human form.
Basically, from the first factory robots half a century ago until a few years back there wasn’t that much of an advance that could allow robots to work alone in anything but a few cases. Now though the technology that allows for humanoid robots is the technology that allows non humanoid robots to work a lot better in basically all cases, so we will finally begin seeing more and more robots and infrastructure being built to take advantage of the new advances, at the same time we’ll also get humanoid robots for other tasks, like some of the ones that involve working closelly with people…
I was never convinced by the argument that “Humanoid robots are better suited to working in environments that were built for humans”, like, WE are the ones who make these environments
And they aren’t built for free so they were built to work, and now that the technology is allowing some of that to change it will gradually change.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering this as well. It makes so little sense but I’m guessing it just makes for shiny propaganda. I was never convinced by the argument that “Humanoid robots are better suited to working in environments that were built for humans”, like, WE are the ones who make these environments, wouldn’t it just make more sense to rebuild the facility to be more efficient for cheaper and more sensible machinery, rather than invest exponentially more to replace all the humans with robots?
It’s like saying “Cars were designed with humans in mind, so if we want self driving cars we need to put a humanoid robot driver in the drivers seat”.
Yes, but that takes time and we need to have a good and mature enough tecnology for it to make at least some “financial” sense. So, if the humanoid robots can do work that humans can do then it means that we could try make/have AIs make new robots and new enviroments that work well toghether without consideration for human form.
Basically, from the first factory robots half a century ago until a few years back there wasn’t that much of an advance that could allow robots to work alone in anything but a few cases. Now though the technology that allows for humanoid robots is the technology that allows non humanoid robots to work a lot better in basically all cases, so we will finally begin seeing more and more robots and infrastructure being built to take advantage of the new advances, at the same time we’ll also get humanoid robots for other tasks, like some of the ones that involve working closelly with people…
And they aren’t built for free so they were built to work, and now that the technology is allowing some of that to change it will gradually change.