Welcome to a new edition of The Board: Distillation Aftershots (*).
This blog post is an online version of the Disttillation Aftershots newsletter, posted the Monday after the newsletter is distributed. This newsletter shares curious and interesting insights and data points distilled from enterprise technology to identify what’s notable. To subscribe to this newsletter and get it in your inbox, subscribe here.
In this issue, we will begin discussing robots and robotics. This will take a few issues to get through.
First, my take.
Let’s get the ugliest part of this out of here: humanoid robots are the worst possible path we can take. Despite Hollywood’s love of anthropomorphized animatronics, there are many deficiencies in human-shaped and look-alike robots; it would take a treatise to explain why we should move away from them. Let’s try the two most significant problems.
First, the human body is a marvel, but not particularly efficient. While we can manipulate objects with over 17,000 microtactile receptors, most repetitive hand tasks do not require that level of precision. Replicating a human hand in robotic form takes years and costs millions, and the results are essentially the same as if we did it ourselves, not improved functionality. Servos and sensors are not a replacement for muscles and nerves. Aim for better: build a robotic attachment optimized for the need, not to look like us. The same applies to virtually all parts of our anatomy (let’s not even start on biped transportation…).
The second one, our ability to adapt to myriad environments easily, which – again – is very costly. You have no doubt seen the hilarious (at least to me) videos of Boston Dynamics’ robotic quadruped and androids moonwalking, backflipping, and dancing. You have also, I am sure, seen how hard it is for them to adapt to changing landscapes – even a difference as small as a pebble on the floor can send them flying. Other videos of the Robotic Olympics, soccer games, and similar events show what happens when even the slightest change occurs in their expected environment. We can easily adapt to that for most of us; robots cannot, and the programming required to get there is also onerous and extensive.
I think that after we “conquer” AI (for specific processes), we should move to implement it via robotics, just not humanoids. If your enterprise is considering this in the coming years (and you should), start by exploring non-humanoid options; you will get better results.
I found some resources:
- As I mentioned earlier, here is the most hilarious video of Boston Dynamics quadrupeds moonwalking. I am sure I am not the only one who cracks up every time I see this—also, a short article + video showing the evolution since they learned to moonwalk.
- China, which has been doing much of the heavy lifting on humanoids, has warned that the market may be a bubble. The warning states we are building more humanoid robots than we likely need, and their efficiency (beyond human appearance) has not been proven. China has led in using humanoids for soccer, the Olympics, and other similar endeavors.
- 3. Showing how ridiculous it can look, a short article explaininig why a six-handed humanoid working a serial line can provide 30% improvement over humans doing the same work. Three times the mechanics for just 1/3 improvement? Color me skeptical.
- Accenture published a report on how AI, robots, and humans could interact in a future scenario and launched a research institute to further investigate this. A finding “(…) a comprehensive meta-analysis based on 106 experiments confirms that blending human and machine effort isn’t always the right approach.”
- Bain wrote something a few months ago for executives about humanoids, and they’re more optimistic about them. Quoted: “Dexterous, bipedal robots with general intelligence are advancing faster than many expected, and they’re quickly becoming economically viable. Within five years, robots will likely be able to perform a wide range of physical tasks at a cost that rivals or beats human labor."
What’s your take? We are fostering a community of executives who want to discuss these issues in depth. This newsletter is but a part of it. We welcome your feedback and look forward to engaging in these conversations. If you are interested in exploring the full report, discussing the Board’s offering further, or have any additional questions, please contact me at [email protected], and I will be happy to connect with you.
(*) A normal distillation process produces byproducts: primary, simple ones called foreshots, and secondary, more complex and nuanced ones called aftershots. This newsletter highlights remnants from the distillation process, the “cutting room floor” elements, and shares insights to complement the monthly report.
