[Lapra]

Humanoid robots are probably never coming. The fact is - flesh and blood humans pay for their own upkeep. Wear-and-tear, particularly on a heavy lifting robot, would probably be their biggest cost and might always outweigh the cost savings.

[LeifCarrotson]

I've commissioned dozens of robot cells (6-axis industrial arms for manufacturing are old, proven tech) and the wear and tear costs have been inconsequential. Even a large arm like a Fanuc R2000iC only uses about $0.50 in electricity per hour, some cells use significant power for pneumatics (in particular, compressed air venturi vacuum generators).

A couple grand for gearbox rebuilds every few years, replacement vacuum cups or worn hard tooling as needed, troubleshoot electrical issues as they arise... and your quarter million robot cell ($60k of that is the robot, most of the rest is NRE labor) will only need one human instead of eight to spit out parts every 60 seconds for the next decade.

Unless you think the humanoid robots are going to wear out significantly faster than existing robots, wear and tear costs are negligible.

With tight process controls, turning a work cell that has multiple humans doing manual labor for material handling, fastening, inspection, labeling, etc. into one intelligent human keeping the automation well adjusted is a solved problem. Eliminating that last human - the one that makes decisions instead of moves materials - with a humanoid robot is going to take decades.

[b112]

We can make things that last for decades, we just choose not to. Planned obsolescence is a business strategy, as is rapid breakdown of things we buy.

A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive.

Each time an early wear or failure point is found in the B-52, it is documented, fixed, and rolled out to all B-52s. Their ancient, but more reliable than newer bombers and require less maintenance.

We could do this for everything. Design a fridge, and after 10 years collect the failures and see how they broke. Keep selling the same fridge, the same parts, and eventually it's a rock.

We don't do this, companies don't do this, because it's not best for profit.

So my point is robot maintenance could be minor, and if it was purely a lease model, would remain minor... because the company would profit from lower overall maintenance costs.

Lastly, compare a robot to a car driving 100s of thousands of KM. I've driven new cars to 150000km with almost no failure of any kind (except brakes. tires). So maybe not as bad as thought.

[rimunroe]

> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive.

B-52s require regular inspections and maintenance just like any other aircraft. A fridge is less complicated, but it's still a machine. Even my grandfather's clock needed some work done every couple decades, and it didn't contain refrigerant, a compressor, fans, or have to deal with condensation.

[b112]

Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance?

All the parts that have been shown to wear rapidly, have been reengineered and updated across the fleet. Compared to newer platforms, it's a rock.

[rimunroe]

I was responding to you saying we could make fridges which could easily last 40-50 years without maintenance (and somehow not cost much more).

> Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance?

They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components (often including major structural ones) every four years. Presumably there is more frequent minor maintenance before then. I don’t imagine their age of 70ish years is really relevant since I assume they’re approaching Ships of Theseus at this point.

[b112]

I was responding to you saying we could make fridges

Well OK, but you starting out by discussing the B-52, so I responded in kind.

They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components

Unless the documentary I watched was wrong, and of course it could be, that isn't "just replace things because". Instead, it's "if those components need replacement".

Now, I do recall that sometimes they'll discover an early-wear component, and do fleet-wide upgrades to fix that flaw. But that's different than maintenance to replace worn parts, for of course all B-52s fly different missions, have different wear as a result.

My point is, some of those B-52s are being inspected, but not having much done to them, where as others a lot more.

I don't think you can really, fairly compared a long running platform like the B-52 with a newer aircraft. Not in terms of stability of the platform, because the concept here is "fixing engineering defects that exhibit early wear".

Whenever I buy a car, I attempt to never buy the first year of a model revision. I wait until near the end of that run, often 4 or 5 years in, as car manufacturers constantly update assembly and build to deal with parts they've seen as early-wear. This isn't really debatable in a meaningful way, it's simply what's done.

And that's my point. If you look at my original post, I specify that the way to get 'stable', is to keep the exact same platform, and improve early wear points.

The post I responded to said:

Wear-and-tear, particularly on a heavy lifting robot, would probably be their biggest cost and might always outweigh the cost savings.

So you can see why I was specifying how this can be mitigated.

But all of that said, we clearly know this really isn't true. While people will still use shovels, we now have backhoes for a reason. People could use horses, but we have cars for a reason. Mechanical replacements exist for almost everything, and the wear and tear is cost effective and worth it, even with the price of fuel, maintenance, and regular upkeep.

And, even along with the fact that companies engineer for planned obsolescence and forced replacement.

[rimunroe]

> Well OK, but you starting out by discussing the B-52, so I responded in kind.

...because you used B-52s as an example in your argument that fridges could be made to run maintenance free for decades.

> Unless the documentary I watched was wrong, and of course it could be, that isn't "just replace things because". Instead, it's "if those components need replacement".

Yes, that's how maintenance works. Why would you have thought I was saying it was just for fun? The every-four-years maintenance (PDM) involves a deep inspection of the whole aircraft and replacing parts that are fatigued or otherwise showing signs of wear. I would assume they're doing this because they've found that four years is a good rate to find and replace parts that are going to fail well before they're likely to. Airplane parts wear out after use. Frames experience stress from flying and become fatigued.

Similarly, refrigerant can leak when seals fail. I imagine that on the span of decades outgassing might be a problem too. I haven't dealt with compressor failures personally, but they're mechanical components and I assume eventually lubrication gets to be a problem. Rubber gaskets degrade over time. Fungus/algae can grow in the lines used to drain condensation to the evaporation pan and eventually block them, causing the fridge to build up ice and eventually leak water. Fans will fail over time because bearings wear or insulation on windings degrade.

> My point is, some of those B-52s are being inspected, but not having much done to them, where as others a lot more.

That inspection involves nearly complete disassembly. Which documentary did you watch? Aerodynamic surfaces and structural elements get replaced from fatigue and wear. Parts get removed because of corrosion (airplanes get exposed to a lot of moisture). New components get introduced because systems get upgraded. This is normal and expected, but it's all maintenance. From an article[0]:

---

> Foreman said it typically takes a B-52 between 220 and 260 days to go through depot maintenance, depending on parts availability and whether a bomber has any age-related stress fractures or corrosion that need to be repaired. The Air Force is still trying to figure out how much more time the upgrades might add to that schedule, he said.

> Cracking and other structural issues are common on the six-decade-old B-52, Foreman said, and sometimes require components to be replaced. But the Air Force is used to catching and fixing those problems, he said, and the aircraft should be able last well into the 2050s — perhaps to 2060 — without more in-depth structural upgrades.

---

> So you can see why I was specifying how this can be mitigated.

No, I can't, not to the degree you claimed. I don't think your argument about being able to make a maintenance-free-for-decades fridge--pardon the pun--holds water[1], much less without significantly increasing the cost. If you're expecting them to do all the work of discovering issues upfront, why would the cost of doing that not inflate the price significantly? Also, ongoing inspections of the fridge would cost money.

If your argument is that eventually we would be able to make humanoid robots where the maintenance costs are negligible, then sure, maybe. That seems within the realm of possibility.

But again, you said we could make fridges which didn't need maintenance for several decades. I don't think that's within the realm of possibility. You used something (the B-52) which needs regular maintenance as an example of why we should be able to make something else (a fridge) which needs almost none. This is what I was responding to.

[0] https://defensenews.com/air/2024/02/20/tinker-air-force-base...

[dragonwriter]

> And how much maintenance?

From what I can find, 50+ man-hours per flight hour, which is pretty far from maintenance free.

[dragonwriter]

> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive.

Neither Volvos (presumably, a reference to their cars) nor B-52s are maintenance-free, even if they have long service lives with proper maintenance, so I don’t see how either supports your argument that fridges could easily be made to last decades without maintenance.

[ralusek]

If a robot costs $50k, lasts 5 years, and does the dishes and laundry every day, I'd consider it.

[mdavid626]

Isn’t that the dishwasher and the washing machine?

[zdragnar]

Human flesh and blood is pretty bad at upgrading itself, too. A sapient robot, or one with specific programming, might adapt itself as parts wear out when individual components, limbs, and other odds and ends are separately serviceable.

[the_sleaze_]

Cost of human is much higher. Taxes, healthcare, breaks, brain-damage related to their emotional maintenance, safety requirements, etc.

No reason a robot can't work in a dark cave flooded with radon, and that is going to be cheap real estate.

[qgin]

I think it depends on the application. Employees tend to not be free in the 21st century at least.

[Teever]

Have you factored in the ability for humanoid robots to be able to do preventative maintenance and repairs on each other?

In many instances with repairing electronics and home appliances labour is the greatest cost, not the material. Sometimes it's as simple as replacing a 50 cent washer to repair something, or perhaps squirt some lube here or there regularly to prevent something from breaking down.

If it's the same for robot maintenance then robots being able to fix themselves and each other will change the equation on ownership tremendously.

Imagine if everyone had a domestic robot and if it broke down their neighbour's robot could repair it. That would be an extremely user friendly and cheap way to deal with the problem.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This makes a lot of assumptions about the field service potential of humanoid robots. A humanoid robot is so much more complex than something like a washing machine. There are far more things to break. Assuming humanoid robot maintenance will look like general appliance maintenance may not be a robust assumption.

"Replace tiny parts" option - Which parts is the manufacturer making available for purchase and what does the supply chain look like for that? What tools are needed to do the disassembly, part installation, and re-assembly? Can a humanoid robot out in the real world replicate the clean room conditions in which delicate components were assembled then sealed inside some compartment so dust can never get to them? Are we going to put heat guns and soldering irons in the fingertips of every humanoid robot to support self repair? There's going to be problems that can't be resolved with the kinds of tools available in the average household.

"Replace modules / components" option - Having to buy a whole new hand when you really wanted to replace a single finger joint impacts the value proposition of self repair, it's not a 50 cent washer it's a $1000 pre-assembled component. The repair is now definitely doable in the field, at least.

You might also be assuming humanoid robot manufacturers would not work specifically against self-repair. They make more money if you buy a new robot, or you pay them to fix your broken robot. Maybe "fix this other robot" ends up on a list of forbidden tasks the robot will always refuse to do...

[Teever]

That's the right way of thinking about it.

I think that you'd design it to use human tools as a bare minimum, so a soldering station, and a 3d printer, or even milling machines and lathes if needed.

But you're right, it'll be restricted from doing that. So the idea is you buy one, jailbreak it, and then get it to build a copy of itself.

It's like asking a genie for more wishes.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

> get it to build a copy of itself.

Where does it get the billion dollar semiconductor fab to make the chips for the copy?

[Teever]

> get it to build a copy of itself.

Get it to assemble a copy of itself from a combination of available parts and anything else that it needs to manufacture from scratch.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

What motivation does the manufacturer have to make those parts available to you?

[BryanLegend]

Forklifts do pretty great