[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.