gonna have to agree to disagree, humanoid robots are cool AF, even when they aren’t huge and piloted by an angsty fleshbag. robot arms like that only really work in controlled, clean environments like factories, and are about as exciting as a pencil imo. just try farming with a treaded arm platform or wheeled autonomous vehicle or whatever here:
bonus controversial take: The Human Body is the best multipurpose (omnipurpose?) machine possible, at least for now. despite all of our flaws, there are very few computers for example that have lifespans nearly as long as us, nothing has the combination of intelligence and self-healing that humans do, not yet anyway. maybe a simplistic machine like an oil pump or a car from the 80’s might outlive a person with a lot of care and maintenance, but anything as multifunction and complex and with as many moving parts as us would break down so fast if we tried to make it artificially, even if it might be ‘more efficient’ in several senses in the short-term.
Why do you need a multipurpose machine for a specified purpose? Washing machines weren’t made out of a wooden bucket with a washboard and two arms that manually wash the laundry. There is a severe lack of imagination to having any mechanization of labour simply be making humanoid multipurpose robots when you could make something that is a lot more efficient.
I guess the basic difference between how I and a lot of robot enthusiasts see robots is that robots are a tool not a replacement for a person.
but anything as multifunction and complex and with as many moving parts as us would break down so fast if we tried to make it artificially
Seems like an argument against humanoid robots to me.
in certain scenarios you need multipurpose robots, if you have severe weight restrictions or something for example. i don’t think humanoid robots can or should replace specialized robots or vehicles or humans, i just think they do have a place in certain tasks. i was basically shitposting with the same dismissive energy as OP tbh. i did mostly focus on the biologicial aspect of humans over robots in general in my previoius post, but in terms of mechanical design humanoid robots are especially well suited for navigating complex environments without the energy requirements of flight or specialized infrastructure, and they can use and operate pre-existing equipment (tools, flashlights, computers, vehicles, etc.) and infrastructure (scaffolding, stairs, ladders, etc.) designed for humans. they can put a mechanical manipulator (that may or may not be holding any kind of tool without a bunch of setup) wherever you might need one, regardless of most infrastructure availability or terrain scenarios. they would be especially ideal for search and rescue and other emergency scenarios, or construction or other tasks in extreme or remote terrain, especially in conjunction with humans and other kinds of robots and vehicles.
I mean this is the classic predict-the-future folly where you look at current infrastructural problem and think up future solutions that would improve it rather than future solutions that change the infrastructure and net you much better gains.
So in other words will it really make sense to have huge quantities of humanoid robots working on rice terraces in 2050, or will we just be producing most of our starch in bioreactors?
This is a very flattening argument that ignores the cultural and biological importance of a healthy, complex food system for nutrition. Replacing agroecological, Place-conscious agriculture with sterile technology not only impoverishes the diversity and importance of food as a social locus, but it demonstrably leads to worse nutrition outcomes.
The question isn’t “how do we get rid of agriculture or of people who work the land” but “how do we make their work dignified, comfortable and non-alienating”.
gonna have to agree to disagree, humanoid robots are cool AF, even when they aren’t huge and piloted by an angsty fleshbag. robot arms like that only really work in controlled, clean environments like factories, and are about as exciting as a pencil imo. just try farming with a treaded arm platform or wheeled autonomous vehicle or whatever here:
bonus controversial take: The Human Body is the best multipurpose (omnipurpose?) machine possible, at least for now. despite all of our flaws, there are very few computers for example that have lifespans nearly as long as us, nothing has the combination of intelligence and self-healing that humans do, not yet anyway. maybe a simplistic machine like an oil pump or a car from the 80’s might outlive a person with a lot of care and maintenance, but anything as multifunction and complex and with as many moving parts as us would break down so fast if we tried to make it artificially, even if it might be ‘more efficient’ in several senses in the short-term.
Why do you need a multipurpose machine for a specified purpose? Washing machines weren’t made out of a wooden bucket with a washboard and two arms that manually wash the laundry. There is a severe lack of imagination to having any mechanization of labour simply be making humanoid multipurpose robots when you could make something that is a lot more efficient.
I guess the basic difference between how I and a lot of robot enthusiasts see robots is that robots are a tool not a replacement for a person.
Seems like an argument against humanoid robots to me.
in certain scenarios you need multipurpose robots, if you have severe weight restrictions or something for example. i don’t think humanoid robots can or should replace specialized robots or vehicles or humans, i just think they do have a place in certain tasks. i was basically shitposting with the same dismissive energy as OP tbh. i did mostly focus on the biologicial aspect of humans over robots in general in my previoius post, but in terms of mechanical design humanoid robots are especially well suited for navigating complex environments without the energy requirements of flight or specialized infrastructure, and they can use and operate pre-existing equipment (tools, flashlights, computers, vehicles, etc.) and infrastructure (scaffolding, stairs, ladders, etc.) designed for humans. they can put a mechanical manipulator (that may or may not be holding any kind of tool without a bunch of setup) wherever you might need one, regardless of most infrastructure availability or terrain scenarios. they would be especially ideal for search and rescue and other emergency scenarios, or construction or other tasks in extreme or remote terrain, especially in conjunction with humans and other kinds of robots and vehicles.
I mean this is the classic predict-the-future folly where you look at current infrastructural problem and think up future solutions that would improve it rather than future solutions that change the infrastructure and net you much better gains.
So in other words will it really make sense to have huge quantities of humanoid robots working on rice terraces in 2050, or will we just be producing most of our starch in bioreactors?
This is a very flattening argument that ignores the cultural and biological importance of a healthy, complex food system for nutrition. Replacing agroecological, Place-conscious agriculture with sterile technology not only impoverishes the diversity and importance of food as a social locus, but it demonstrably leads to worse nutrition outcomes.
The question isn’t “how do we get rid of agriculture or of people who work the land” but “how do we make their work dignified, comfortable and non-alienating”.
Relax comrade, it was just an example.
You are correct, pencils are very interesting.