• Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    I bet there is a place for both monolithic purpose-built industrial robots and less effective but more versatile robots.

    • Mark with a Z@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      A traditional robot arm with a tool changer is already pretty versatile. What does the human shape add?

      • felbane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Seems like none of y’all even read a few paragraphs into the article.

        A human-sized, human-shaped robot can integrate into an existing production layout without having to redesign how the factory works. That’s the sell.

        To me that’s a thinly-veiled way of saying “these things are purpose built to uproot human workers as soon as fucking possible,” which would be a great thing if the intent were to remove humans from dangerous and/or unfulfilling jobs and pipe the earnings from the cost reduction/efficiency increase into taxes/ubi/assistance programs so that people can pursue their own dreams and interests without needing to wage slave their healthiest years away trying to survive.

        But that’s never the intent; it’s always to add more zeroes to the balance sheet of the people at the top.

      • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, versatility. No need to redesign a new monolithic welder robot when the new car design is 1m longer or whatever. I mean there must be loads of things that change all the time.