[carapace]

Part of the problem is that the popular conception of robots tends to be a kind of fetish. What I mean is, the things that are easy for robots to do are already addressed. You can buy off-the-shelf robots that work really well. They're not cheap though.

But those don't look like "robots", they look like arms with tools on the end of them.

The kind of humanoid servant robot from books and movies, however, is still pretty much fictional. The required capabilities are mostly really hard, even after you factor in the recent advances in ML et. al.

I remember when Sony made that little humanoid robot that danced. I was like, "Big deal! I like to dance. Make a robot that does the dishes."

- - - -

To make it big with robots (per se as opposed to just building an automated factory, or toys) you have to find the economic niches.

[DuskStar]

> But those don't look like "robots", they look like arms with tools on the end of them.

> I was like, "Big deal! I like to dance. Make a robot that does the dishes."

From these comments, I think you're missing a really huge category of robots - appliances. Why does a dishwasher or laundry machine not qualify as a robot, after all?

[carapace]

I sometimes do call them robots, but you could exclude them on the basis of lack of mobility, or, better yet, lack of decision making. (Although a friend of mine has a laundry dryer with a moisture sensor.)

In a sense, anything with a PID controller or even just a governor could be considered a "robot", or at least "automation", eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor