“Non-humanoids” is an incredibly broad description. For example, a Roomba can’t empty your dishwasher. But a humanoid robot can use your existing human vacuum to clean the floors.
Yes that’s the whole point. They’re forcibly thinking in humanoid forms, while I dont care about form, I care about function. Make shit that’s useful, and I dont care what package it comes in. In the vast majority of use cases it’s incredibly cumbersome to have it in bipedal form; you to have reserve cpu power/mechanics/power for balance and shit, while not at all necessary for the tasks at hand.
You said non-humanoid is a broad description like it’s a negative. It’s not. Fixating on making the robot humanoid unnecessarily narrows it down. Form and function are by definition not the same, so I don’t understand what you mean by that. But I’m got going to stop because it seems.you’re intentionally obtuse.
You said non-humanoid is a broad description like it’s a negative.
No, I said it like it’s a meaningless phrase.
Fixating on making the robot humanoid unnecessarily narrows it down.
Its not a fixation. Its simple logic that I’ve already explained. Everything we own is designed to be used by humans, so creating a humanoid robot makes them extremely versatile.
Form and function are by definition not the same
That’s not correct at all. Function is very largely tied to form, especially in the case of robotics.
Non-humanoids can theoretically do that too.
“Non-humanoids” is an incredibly broad description. For example, a Roomba can’t empty your dishwasher. But a humanoid robot can use your existing human vacuum to clean the floors.
Yes that’s the whole point. They’re forcibly thinking in humanoid forms, while I dont care about form, I care about function. Make shit that’s useful, and I dont care what package it comes in. In the vast majority of use cases it’s incredibly cumbersome to have it in bipedal form; you to have reserve cpu power/mechanics/power for balance and shit, while not at all necessary for the tasks at hand.
…what? Is your point?
They are largely the same in this case.
You said non-humanoid is a broad description like it’s a negative. It’s not. Fixating on making the robot humanoid unnecessarily narrows it down. Form and function are by definition not the same, so I don’t understand what you mean by that. But I’m got going to stop because it seems.you’re intentionally obtuse.
No, I said it like it’s a meaningless phrase.
Its not a fixation. Its simple logic that I’ve already explained. Everything we own is designed to be used by humans, so creating a humanoid robot makes them extremely versatile.
That’s not correct at all. Function is very largely tied to form, especially in the case of robotics.
This is not the argument clinic.
What does that even mean?
Then… don’t ask a question and argue with someone when they give a plausible answer, maybe?
It was a rhetorical question, smartass