Ah, thereabout comes your ego. The part that shows you're not as smart as you think you are is your thinking that a revenue number is enough to prove your competence to others. Did you stop to consider plenty of incompetent people have even more money than that? Many people got lucky on crypto, many people have rich parents. This breakdown in logical thought squarely pegs your ability to traverse ideas.

>Can a quadruped operate a fork lift, cook a meal

... Robotic quadrupeds? Yeah, why not?

>flying? will just assume ur joking wit that one

Why? Flight is a pretty useful ability to have and we have consumer-level flying robots already.

>As for the other ideas, great ideas tbh, just a little too sci-fi atm.

Do we not already have expanding flexible robotic muscles?

>evolution slander is also a dumb take

It isn't slander, it's a fact of the matter. Evolution doesn't "care" about efficiency. It doesn't care about anything. Evolution is the propagation of genes within an environment. You don't need to be the best theoretical propagator, you just need to be able to propagate at or above replacement. Essentially, our efficiency has been decided by our competition and the external factors we've faced, as well as how beneficial certain actions have been to our survival. We aren't built for deep diving because we don't really ever need to go to the bottom of the ocean.

>"bare minimum for perpetuation" resulted in a super computer that runs on the power it takes to run a light bulb

You've lost yourself to ego. That's an amazing fact for you because it's all you know. There is no objective or subjective scale to measure this achievement to, so who knows how impressive that really is? Might it be the case that, given infinite trials of human-like species, we're actually in the bottom percentile of achievement?

>Again. we're just two dummies on reddit. I defer to the people actually working on this.

Then defer to them and stop commenting on the subject. Don't bother discussing it.

>oh also Notice how you've moved the goal post btw. We've gone from specialized robots, to robots that supercede the human form in generality

You haven't proven that bipedal human-like robots are an efficient platform for an all-purpose robot. You haven't even proven that there is demand for an all-purpose robot rather than specialized robots (My phone cannot clean my living room floor, my phone cannot drive me to the store, my phone cannot mow my lawn or water my garden. My phone cannot feed my dog or function as hardware tools. Hell, I wouldn't even use my phone to program a webpage and computer science seems like one of the first things you would design a mobile computing device for.)

If you're worried about your ability to engage with this subject, that is your fear, not mine.

Edit: Also, if you want to talk about moving goalposts, you have gone from "General-purpose human bots" to "Bipedal vaguely humanoid function-fit search and rescue machines"

Does your mind really function this way? Deflect all challenges with insults to intelligence and vague airs of intellectual superiority?

We can walk and run, but our walking and running mechanics are built for persistence hunting. Is that the most useful way legs can be designed? What if we want something that can move faster? We certainly cannot fly or swim or dig very fast, which is why we use tools to get around those limitations. Wouldn't those be useful functions? Are our human legs compatible with a design focused around having those additional functions?

We can certainly go up stairs, but stairs are a human construct built to suit our human needs. Why walk up stairs if you can fly or stick to walls?

Dexterous manipulators.. See, the thing about fingers is they're pretty big at times and pretty small at other times. Wouldn't it be more useful to have variable manipulators that can change size? What about a manipulator that can soften to mould around/inside an object being grabbed and then harden once the desired shape is reached? This form of manipulation would essentially be an all-purpose screwdriver, among many other things.

Is the human hand REALLY that efficient at manipulation, or is it the best that we currently know because we haven't spent much time thinking about it?

Humanoid robots fit right into existing infrastructure, true. You know what else fits right into existing infrastructure? Cats and dogs. They also have the advantage of being much smaller. They even have limbs, too! Past that, though, we don't need to be confined to building copies of animals.

> Billions of years of evolution can't be wrong... or can it.... Only a redditor could suggest otherwise haha

This is pure brain rot and shows a failure of understanding of what the process of evolution is. Human-level sentient species could theoretically have come about any number of ways, and those other ways could theoretically be much more effective and well-equipped at navigating our current human society than we are. We aren't a species that is perfectly fit to our environment, we are a species that passes the bar of "Bare minimum for perpetuation within an environment". And even then, we have no idea if our ability to perpetuate ourselves will extend any further than it already has. You are making a lot of assumptions here.

The way I see it, you're out to prove your intelligence on reddit for some reason. I hope you find what you need because constantly comparing your own competence and intelligence to that of other people isn't a good place to be. Ask yourself why you value intelligence so much.

You understand a smartphone does not look like a human, right?

If there are any efforts towards making a "human robot", in my estimation it's out of emotional attachment to our species rather than for any functional purpose.

There's likely a reason every single robot we've ever made does not look or function like a human being, and any "general purpose" bots we have ever made follow that same rule. Humans don't seem to be very good at many things.

You seem to have a fairly high opinion of yourself, and I'm unconvinced that it's justified. Remember, you are also on reddit, and projection of one's own fears is a very insidious force.

>There's a reason Tesla is doing their humanoid bot. There's a reason Boston dynamics is doing a humanoid bot. There's a reason every single entity working on this is doing humanoid bots.

"There's a reason". Ah, of course. How enlightening. Thank you for your input. Here I was believing in uncaused causes.

We build highly specialized computers for different tasks. We have desktop computers, phones, laptops, servers, clients, cryptominers, consoles, etc. There's a reason for that.

Also, this doesn't serve your point that there is demand for human-emulation robots. It *might* serve the point that there's demand for a centralized robot that can perform multiple tasks, but it wouldn't look or function like a human.

Why not buy a cooking bot and a cleaning bot instead of a human bot? Why wouldn't manufacturers make cooking and cleaning bots instead of human bots?

He's just correct. Why would you build a human to perform specific tasks? We're pretty shit at specialization. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Firstly, there's a pretty high bar to meet in that we are pretty heavily programmed to recognize human beings. Any little bit off of what we expect in facial movements or body language and we start to get perturbed.

Secondly, why program a human when you can program a robot that is function fit for its individual task? We don't really have a use for robots that can adapt and survive and make tools for use in multiple environments, we tend to use robots for very specific work and just make new types of robots better specialized for new environments.

It gets exponentially more expensive with every new function and situation you program a single robot to handle.

​

TL:DR; Lack of will, lack of use-case, lack of ability.