[hugs]

A potential corollary: As soon is gets practical, it also stops looking like a robot.

Once you know how many degrees of freedom are truly needed to solve a problem, you start removing unnecessary parts in the design to lower cost and assembly complexity.

Thus, once your cool new C-3PO has perfected the art of making toast, it's only a matter of time until you re-engineer it into looking like a toaster.

[Anotheroneagain]

No, I don't think so. We already have toasters, robots are for the tasks that can't be done by such simple machines.

[detourdog]

Form factors are so important. I'm right in between robots and toasters. I see a building as the form factor for a 100 year computer.

The best illustration of this subtle difference is how I'm contemplating snow and ice management. I have the solid state idea of installing quartz IR lights around the building to control the ice and snow. I also have been working on using de-icing and pre-icing liquids with hopes of getting some droids to take over the physical part of applying the liquids and brushing away the snow.

I have settled on doing both with the building controller acting as the overall manager of the process.

I looked at the posetree.py that the author wrote and linked to and it looks like as good a place for me to start.

Form factor is critical in assigning human names and commumnicating use. I find when organizing a solution to a problem adopting a form factor too early is a hidderence.

[DoctorDabadedoo]

It's a matter of interface: people like the idea of humanoid robots because all the interfaces are already optimized for humans, thus if robots have that form factor they can use the same devices/tools that humans do and we wouldn't have to change the designs of these machines.

The question is: how much information is lost in the process? How many layers of complexity we would add to a machine ensemble to be able to operate together at a satisfactory level? The machine learning corollary of understanding the whole picture of the problem/solution space and that leading to simpler solutions (because you don't have to optimize further) applies here. At the end of the day, cost, complexity and practicality will have the final word.

[detourdog]

There can also be human handles and touch points and mechanical interfaces for direct manipulation.

[DoctorDabadedoo]

True, but all the buzz on the humanoid robots from recently is putting the robots in the same environments human use without having to change it at all, not because it's impossible but it's a lot of effort and every minimal possible interaction needs to be mapped.

There are autonomous forklifts, but a humanoid robot that could sit in a normal forklift, regulations aside, would be almost an insta buy in logistics.

[392]

I think it will first be a kit to convert your average forklift into autonomous by retrofitting some sensors, motors for pulling cables or changing pressure on hydraulic lines electronically, and a laptop. The humanoid thing will be killer when it's out but it will be a century long boundary pushing dream to be chased.

[detourdog]

I understand I'm just designing for a world that doesn't quite exist but is technically possible.

I'm designing for a future that is as far out that I both see it and achieve on the scale of an 8 unit apartment building.

[lukan]

A toaster cannot make a toast alone. It has to be inserted and removed and put on a plate. That's what I want a robot for (one day, after I am sure, it will not accidently toast me).

[BobaFloutist]

The question is, is this actually worth it over a toaster with climate-controlled toast-hopper that dispenses directly onto a clean plate from a plate dispenser.

And if that feels too expensive and space-intensive for mere toast, just think of how much worse a robot would be!