|
|
|
|
|
|
by dbspin
7 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not following the argument. The robots linked above wouldn't be capable of vacuuming either. My point stands - the world is made for humans, we might remake an aspect of it for new vehicles that provided some radical advantage (as we did with airports or roads, although that would be a much larger undertaking with the level of complexities cities have today). But we're certainly not going to have twenty different labour saving devices roaming our homes, nor are we redesigning homes to facilitate such robots. So if we do see domestic robots, they'll have to a) perform multi-domain functions, and b) fit into existing domestic spaces. Long term, any generally useful domestic robot would have to have a pretty deep capacity for autonomy across a range of tasks - whether it's role specific or not. So it follows that it's much more likely we'll introduce humanoid robots (which already exist, starting at 30K), with the capacity for a wide range of subtle movements, and gradually add skills to them over time. We already have roombas and dishwashers. I can't see us adding dedicated laundry folders, dedicated chef robots etc. There are social considerations in addition to the level of goofery that having numerous different devices to house and charge would involve. |
|
|
But I still need to see a convincing humanoid doing even the simplest actions like grabbing a soda can from the fridge (from behind the cake), open it, and pour it into a glass and bring it to my desk, possibly in less than 60 minutes. It doesn't matter if it costs 30k if it can’t do anything useful for now. The gap is still too wide and far far away. Hence the missing “proof”.
Delivery robots in the hotels in China have the shape of a bin, not of a maid.