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.
…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
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator