this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
50 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ConsciousCode 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think it's moreso a matter of evolution. We know humanoid bodies can do anything we can do, so we start with that and make incremental improvements from there. We already do have plenty of other body shapes for robots (6-axis arms, SPOT, drones, etc) but none of them are general-purpose. Also, the robot shown in the article is pretty clearly not fully humanoid, it has weird insect legs probably because it's easier to control and it doubles as a vertical lift.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, it's because those robots are designed to operate in environment built for humans. Humanoid robots can worn alongside humans and you don't have to change the entire factory for then to work there. For example you can give robots wheels but most places have stairs. You can transport things with drones but most places have walkways and shelves designed for grabbing things at chest level. All the tools are also designed to be operated by humans. You can design a better, cheaper all purpose robot but it will simply not fit well in a current working environment.

[–] Snoopy@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Good point, i didn't see that from that angle :)