[ElFitz]

> Why humanoid? Surely there must be a superior physical form factor than one mimicking human anatomy.

There probably (certainly) is. But if you want to build a multi-purpose platform, you’ll soon be faced with a dumb challenge: nearly all interfaces (door knobs, taps, electric switches, cutlery, sponges, every single button out there, pillow cases, wrenches, hammers, signs…) are made for humans. Placed at human hand level. At human eye level.

Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies.

So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it or them, betting that the easiest way to build a single multi-purpose platform able to do most things (and not n platforms for n+ use cases) is to borrow the shape most things are made for wouldn’t surprise me. Plus, you get a wider market.

And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job.

[numpad0]

Those require a hand on a stick. The stick isn't so interesting. Humanoid robots are the stick part, and actually not THAT interesting.

[ElFitz]

Never said it was interesting. Just that it’s easier to sell tech that fits your customers' environments than to get customers to overhaul their environment to fit the unproven tech you want to sell them.

[imtringued]

Most fixed infrastructure like switches and buttons that can be operated with a single hand are amenable to any robot with at least one hand. We've had Sawyer demonstrations operating tools clearly designed for humans for more then a decade ago and Mobile Aloha had demonstrations showing how it can operate the switches of an elevator just fine. None of these are humanoid robots.

The moment you have mobile tools, whats the point in forcing the robot to hold them using a human hand? You can put them on a tool changer now or have a gripper that works for the specific task. Why does a robot need to hold a wrench using a humanoid hand?

>Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies.

Uhm, now we're getting into stupid territory. All of those environments have flat floors. Flat floors are not an environment that are exclusively built to accommodate human bodies... The flat floor is designed for ultimate flexibility. It can be used for anything. Furniture, wheelchairs, wheeled robots, furniture on rolls, animals, and also humans.

All of the environments you've listed should preferrably be wheelchair accessible for disabled people (in terms of locomotion at least).

>So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it

Is this some kind of joke? Factories already make heavy use of UGVs and stationary robot arms and build custom end effectors for them. It's also an extreme strawman to suggest that wireless/electronic interfaces require finding a "superior form-factor" to the point that it feels insulting. There's also often an easy wheelchair accessible equivalent. E.g. a button to activate the electronic door opener at wheelchair level can still be at a comfortable height for standing people.

>And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job.

So solve the impossible (come on you know it's hyperbole) first, only then can you build a simpler system.

I think its incredibly unreasonable to suggest that you need to solve every single problem ever encountered in human existence to be allowed to solve one much simpler problem.

[ElFitz]

I think we might be talking past each other.

I’m not arguing that humanoids are the only robots that can operate in human environments, nor that specialized robots shouldn’t exist. We already know they should, and do, and work very well.

I’m saying it depends on what you’re after.

If you want a specialized machine, then by all means optimize the form factor for that task.

If you want a general-purpose platform, then you’re faced with a near-infinite variety of environments, tools, and situations: homes, offices, hospitals, factories, hotels, streets…

Almost all of them were designed around human reach, dexterity, height, mobility and perception.

> The moment you have mobile tools, whats the point in forcing the robot to hold them using a human hand? You can put them on a tool changer now or have a gripper that works for the specific task. Why does a robot need to hold a wrench using a humanoid hand?

It doesn’t. The wrench was just one example among many. Nearly all our tools and interfaces are designed around human hands and bodies. If a different manipulator works just as well across all of them, great. My point isn’t that it must literally be a human hand.

> I think its incredibly unreasonable to suggest that you need to solve every single problem ever encountered in human existence to be allowed to solve one much simpler problem.

That’s not what I’m suggesting.

I’m saying it’s a deployment strategy. Start with the form factor that’s already compatible with the largest installed base of tools and infrastructure. Not because it’s mechanically optimal, but because it minimises the amount of adaptation required from the market.

And enables you to sell to markets you aren’t even aware exist.

If, over time, you discover that hands don’t need five fingers, legs don’t need knees, or an entirely different morphology delivers much better performance, then you have both the experience and the demonstrated value to justify changing the robot, or even convince your customers to change the environment to fit a better robot.

They’re basically trying to go for the "one size fits most" of robotics. And yes, we both know how well that usually fits anyone.

I’m not convinced either, but I can understand the logic.