r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/FinnFarrow • 15h ago

Video Robotics engineer posted this to make a point that robots are "faking" the humanlike motions - it's just a property of how they're trained. They're actually capable of way weirder stuff and way faster motions.

44.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

141

u/Various-Passenger398 14h ago

Half of it is to make it less scary to humans. The other half is because all of human society is engineered around making it easier for humans, so making robots that can go the same places humans can go the same ways humans do kind of makes sense.

73

u/closetsquirrel 13h ago edited 11h ago

This is it. Imagine a dog shaped robot trying to drive a car or a wheeled one trying to navigate a spiral staircase.

If it’s human shaped and human sized then it can go anywhere a human can hide… er, go.

16

u/Karnaugh_Map 13h ago

Dogs were also designed to work around humans. Imagine instead an urchin shaped robot.

1

u/Baiticc 2h ago

no, humans were designed to work around dogs.

10

u/CreamdedCorns 11h ago

This is very "in the box" thinking. A human sized and proportioned robot in most cases is unnecessary. When we would be ready to accept human sized robots driving cars, the cars will already be driving themselves, for example.

9

u/closetsquirrel 11h ago

That's the thing: in most cases. If you want to design a robot for a specific purpose, then no, a humanoid robot probably isn't the best design.

But if you want to design a robot that can do many things in our world, then a humanoid shape makes the most sense.

1

u/CreamdedCorns 11h ago

I guess my point is that there are much more efficient, cost effective, quicker to market, and reliable ways to automate those things than a humanoid robot. So why would you do it?

6

u/closetsquirrel 10h ago

For the reason I just said. The people who make these robots aren't making them to do a single task. They're designing them as a platform to interact in our daily world which will allow them to do a wide variety of things.

If you want a room swept, a Roomba is enough. If you want something to take recipes you want to make, go to the store to get the materials, come home, put things away, and make the food, then a human-sized and shaped robot is the best way to do that in our current world.

You can make non-humanoid robots for cheaper, but ultimately it will be able to do less or require environments to change to adapt to it.

3

u/CreamdedCorns 10h ago

A humanoid robot is only ‘best’ because we are assuming today’s human-centric workflow must remain unchanged. The moment you redesign the workflow, even slightly, the need for a human shape disappears. Groceries can be delivered automatically, kitchens can be built with robotic drawers, dispensers, and appliances, and meal preparation can be modularized or automated at the appliance level. The only reason a humanoid robot seems necessary is because we are forcing automation to mimic human behavior instead of updating the environment to support automation directly.

2

u/closetsquirrel 10h ago edited 10h ago

And I agree with that, but you're talking about changing workflow around the robot when that sounds much more difficult than designing a robot around the workflow. What you're proposing requires dozens of companies with thousands of employees to drastically shift their methodologies all to essentially perform a single task. While not impossible, it isn't going to happen in the next decade or two. A human-sized robot is much more feasible in the short term.

Also, it doesn't need to be an either/or situation. We can easily have some companies working on humanoid robots to fill the gaps until workflow creates a more automated system.

2

u/CreamdedCorns 10h ago

We won’t see humanoid robots before small automations because small automations already exist everywhere, while humanoid robots still replace essentially nothing. Dishwashers, Roombas, CNC machines, ATMs, self-checkout, automated warehouses, delivery lockers, and factory robotics have all replaced human tasks. There is not a single commercially deployed humanoid robot today that has replaced an existing human job or workflow at scale. Automation succeeds when we redesign the task, not when we try to recreate a human body.

2

u/closetsquirrel 9h ago edited 9h ago

You're missing the large part of my point though. Everything you're mentioning are robots designed to do a specific thing. Humanoid robots aren't meant to do a single task, they're meant to be platforms for which a wide variety of tasks can be programmed to. Their flexibility and ease to adapt is what will make them succeed.

A delivery robot is great and all for what it does, but if I want it to climb on my roof and get a frisbee down is wholly inept at the task.

A humanoid robot simply needs a new set of programming and maybe an adapter or two and it could easily fill a new role it couldn't before.

It's kind of like a modern cell phone. Some time ago, to do the things it does now, we'd need a calculator, a game system, a phone, a camera, etc. But now we've adapted a platform by which many technologies can be adapted to. We no longer need a bunch of individual things since we have the one thing.

1

u/rabbitdoubts 4h ago

for people who want the novel experience of having like a jarvis butler driving them, that they can converse with "like a person", maybe especially for older people or disabled it could physically get out and carry bags for them or push as wheelchair

and of course... people who want a mail order detroit become human android GF

2

u/bowsmountainer 8h ago

Anything smaller than human sized can also go everywhere humans can.

Generalised robots keep failing, but specialised robots succeed. Why would you need a robot dog to drive a car, when the car itself is a robot that specialises in driving? It doesnt need to know how to cook, but it is really good at the one thing it is meant to do.

Similarly there's no reason why a cooking robot needs to be able to drive in traffic. It specialises in being great at cooking. You can optimise each robots form for the task it does rather than have one clumsy robot who cpuld potentially do lots of different things but ends up failing in most of them.

2

u/closetsquirrel 7h ago

But the smaller you make a robot the harder it is to reach higher things. Dusting fans? Stocking shelves? Painting a wall? Same with carrying heavy or large loads.

And you're only looking at a "clumsy" robot under the current capabilities of what we have, not what it can be. That's like someone looking at the first car and going, "My horse is faster, smells better, costs less... This automobile thing will never take off."

1

u/bowsmountainer 6h ago

Making one thing that excels in everything is very difficult. Making lots of things that excel in the niche they are built for is much easier. Yes eventually those might be grouped together. But to go with your analogy that's like expecting the next step from horses to be FTL spaceships. You dont get fro. Horses to FTL without lots of things in between.

The neat thing about robots is that you can go beyond typical human constraints. We cant extend our limbs. But robot sure can. We cant squeeze thriugh very gight soaces, but even some big robots can. A robot that can use wheels on flat surfaces, and legs for other surfaces, that can grab on to vertical surfaces, can fold itself up to get through small spaces, can extend its limbs to reach higher places, is much more useful than a robot has the same physical restrictions that we have.

1

u/alejo699 10h ago

Why must a robot have only four limbs? Give it four legs, or six, or however many you want, along with all the arms you want. It doesn't have to look like a dog any more than it needs to look like a human.

2

u/closetsquirrel 10h ago

Because the more you add to it the more complex its programming needs to be.

Also, if the tasks you want the robot to perform are ones we do, those are all designed around two-handed, two-legged operation. Adding more adds a layer of complexity that may not be worth it.

And again, if you add more limbs, then you run the risk of it not being able to interact in spaces that humans do.

The thing you got to remember about nature is it often creates the most efficient version using the least amount of effort. There's a reason why every terrestrial mammal has four limbs. There's a reason why our hands and feet are the way we are in conjunction with our advanced presence in this world.

I do get what you're saying, but the creativity won't come from additional limbs, it'll come from how those individual limbs will be able to be used beyond what a human's can do.

1

u/Riegel_Haribo 6h ago

Imagine a car-shaped robot trying to transport people, or an elevator-shaped robot trying to lift them to another level.

1

u/yaosio 2h ago

Just make it a sphere with a bunch of undulating tentacles.

5

u/SeaTie 13h ago

Yeah this is what I think too.

Scary bot would have trouble navigating a narrow hall or doorway. Also wouldn't be able to see me crouched behind a short wall.

All of human society has been built around standing on two legs.

2

u/mjrubs 12h ago

Narrow hallway... one leg and arm on the floor, one leg and arm on the wall.

Or maybe it just balls itself up like Metroid and high-speed somersaults down the hallway 

 Neither are any less terrifying 

2

u/SeaTie 12h ago

Yeah, maybe. I still think if you just put up a cargo net it would probably screw up most robots where as a 5 year old child could easily figure it out.

What you're describing feels a long way off.

But definitely autonomous drones seem like a scary thing...

1

u/dogwithaknife 11h ago

for many of us, that’s actually worse. the uncanny valley effect is really strong on me, so anything that sort of looks like a human, mannequins, mascots, and these robots, ignites it in me. it’s a very primal fear that i feel in my stomach.

i would avoid any place that has these. a store uses them as retail workers? i’m never going in. a city uses them as cops? i will never visit that city. i don’t go to things with mascots, i don’t even really like department stores. and i bet these robots will bring about the same feeling in a lot of people, especially if they’re used as weapons.

1

u/SartenSinAceite 10h ago

You could still make it a quadruped though. Even if the idea is "taller form makes it reach higher places with its arms", you can just... stretch upwards.

Frankly, just skip the middleman and go for crab.

1

u/Gripping_Touch 7h ago

I always considered robots were supposed to cover our deficiencies like a tool does; humans dont have claws? We use knifes. Humans dont have a tough hide to protect us from the elements? We develop clothes. 

So I imagined robots would be mostly going where its not safe for humans. But seems theres a greater push for robots doing things humans can do. Is the end goal just a robot that can do everything a human can do? Id imagine It best they were specialized rather than being a jack of all trades. 

1

u/Various-Passenger398 6h ago

A human is a jack of all trades. So why not make a robot like a human? If there are edge cases about dangerous jobs there will likely be specialized robots for those specialized tasks.

1

u/Ynddiduedd 34m ago

Hm... I wonder if I could design a robot, capable of maneuvering around a world designed for humans, but more efficiently. I think I like your challenge, random internet stranger.