 Parzival  | 28 Sep 2025 8:56 a.m. PST |
Roboticist calls out humanoid robot design as a waste of effort and money. Says purpose-built designs with multiple tools, arms, etc., will be more efficient and safer, with longer term economic value: link I think he's probably right. |
| Tgerritsen | 28 Sep 2025 9:02 a.m. PST |
C-3PO was always more annoying, so that tracks. |
martin goddard  | 28 Sep 2025 9:06 a.m. PST |
Human proportioned Robots will be able to use anything designed for humans.
The other way around too.
This makes them more interchangeable when they have been developed enough.
A long term perspective. martin |
 John the OFM | 28 Sep 2025 11:11 a.m. PST |
What if you call it "Gary"? |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 28 Sep 2025 11:19 a.m. PST |
I'm not buying a sexbot that's shaped like R2D2, but I'm not judging you if you are. |
| Frederick | 28 Sep 2025 11:44 a.m. PST |
Where there is artificial intelligence there is bound to be artificial stupidity |
| troopwo | 28 Sep 2025 2:28 p.m. PST |
Will cats still ride them for entertainment? |
| robert piepenbrink | 28 Sep 2025 5:09 p.m. PST |
Even if Parzival's roboticist is right in his analysis of robotic forms, it has no predictive value worth mentioning. Would anyone care to compile a list of things humans do which are neither safe nor efficient? How about wastes of time and money? Of course, as a miniature wargamer, the likelihood of a particular future is irrelevant anyway. The government no longer pays me to play near-future "likely enough to worry about" situations, so my SF games are based on what looks good and makes for an interesting game. Admittedly, this means R2D2 fills a "mechanic" or "comms" slot in a team, where C3PO has "innocent bystander" written all over him. But innocent bystanders are still useful in many skirmish/RPG scenarios. C3PO for McGuffin of the Week! |
| Zephyr1 | 28 Sep 2025 8:56 p.m. PST |
Bot tipping! The sport of the future! ;-) |
| John the OFM | 28 Sep 2025 9:47 p.m. PST |
The bottom line will of course be what the toy manufacturers consider "cute". |
| Martin Rapier | 28 Sep 2025 11:48 p.m. PST |
The vast majority of existing robots (eg the ones which build your car, move stuff aro nd the amazon warehouse and mow your lawn) don't look anything like that ke humans. |
 Herkybird | 29 Sep 2025 1:18 a.m. PST |
A very logical conclusion, you only need humanoids to do humanoid things. For most tasks a more pragmatic design is better.
C3PO was basically Jar Jar Binks without ears! |
| CAPTAIN BEEFHEART | 01 Oct 2025 5:35 p.m. PST |
Why design a robot to sit in the driver's seat when the car is already a robot? Etc. |
| platypus01au | 01 Oct 2025 11:05 p.m. PST |
The problem with purpose-based designs is that they can only do the thing they are designed to do. So if AI's are _very_ expensive, and/or they can be programmed to do many things, then it makes much more sense for them to be able to use things that already exist in the Human world. However, if AI's are licensed on a _subscription_ level, maybe purpose-based design would work. So the AI in your car is on the same subscription as the one in your vacuum cleaner/washing machine, etc. So it basically depends on the relative costs of hardware/software. And the market will decide. Cheers,
JohnG |
| OSCS74 | 02 Oct 2025 7:57 a.m. PST |
Oberlindes Sol LIC +1 I'll type nothing more because I'll get censored. |
paints two Adder Combat Cars as support vehicles for his Magrav force in Age of Madness.
