Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.
There might be more efficient ways to move but we are pretty well equipped by evolution.
Agreed, but it was gp that brought up the human vs. machine efficiency argument. Machines can have wheels.
It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis
>>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines
I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?
Then to boldly claim that humans are more efficient at anything compared to a machine, just does not follow.
> in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed
So I think the point in this context is relevant, even if it's apples to oranges.
You could say that a robotic gun is much more efficient than a human in killing, that's another easy easy comparison of different tasks where robots win, but it totally miss the point.
But annoyingly pedantic.