> If you can have one robot do multiple tasks at 80% of the capability of a special-purpose robot
What does them being humanoid have to do with this? There are other form factors that could get to 80% but might be simpler to implement.
What does them being humanoid have to do with this? There are other form factors that could get to 80% but might be simpler to implement.
If that ends up being a dominant or niche part of the robot market is way too early to predict.
Can that "other form factor" climb stairs? Or operate existing power tools? Or get into a generic car to get transported to a new workplace? Or get teleoperated by a human with mocap gloves?
Non-humanoid robots don't get simplicity for free. They have to trade off capabilities to get there.
> Or operate existing power tools? Or get teleoperated by a human with mocap gloves?
Requires grippers that can hold in a similar way to human hands.
> Or get into a generic car to get transported to a new workplace?
My dog can do this and traverse a flight of stairs, and she is decidedly not humanoid.
I fail to see how that would be any less complex than making a humanoid frame in the first place.
The conversation is a little reminiscent of "before the car was invented, if you asked what people wanted they would have said a faster horse". If robots became popular in day-to-day, it's not hard to imagine that we would make space for them in our lives anyway. Cars can't traverse the kinds of terrain a horse can, and they require fuel so we have roads and gas stations. If you made a robot that was actually helpful and couldn't take the stairs, you'd start installing dumbwaiters in buildings.
Robots that can't solve a diverse range of tasks in arbitrary human-made environments aren't going to "become popular". And if robots don't "become popular", no one is going to redesign every single environment to suit them better.