[overfeed]

> That's a strange comparison

It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis

>>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines

I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

[zaat]

Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.

[antasvara]

The parent comment is quoted as:

> in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed

So I think the point in this context is relevant, even if it's apples to oranges.

[zaat]

The point isn't that a humanoid robot walking is less efficient than a human walking, is that moving on a wheel is not the same thing as walking. For example, using wheels is not only less efficient it is barely usable for climbing rocks, going up the stairs and many other surfaces that makes the comparison irrelevant.

You could say that a robotic gun is much more efficient than a human in killing, that's another easy easy comparison of different tasks where robots win, but it totally miss the point.

[jason_oster]

I’ll admit, at first, I thought the human vs machine comparison was about humanoid machines. But that’s too narrowly defined to be a useful comparison. Most machines in use today are not humanoid.

Then to boldly claim that humans are more efficient at anything compared to a machine, just does not follow.

[jimbokun]

You're not wrong.

But annoyingly pedantic.

[MichaelDickens]

Doesn't seem pedantic to me. It's responding to the central thesis of the parent comment.