The Optimus Scam: 5 Years of Smoke and Mirrors

Optimus: shuffles or is bolted to the ground when moving arms via VR control. Fans: ITS SO ADVANCED YOU GUYS! TRILLION DOLLARS! Alright. Does this mean the Chinese G1's are worth a Googolplex of money? [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uPrbXgSHUSo](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uPrbXgSHUSo)

Fascinating to me that there are people out there who believe Optimus is an advanced autonomous humanoid, when it's completely obvious it has zero autonomy and that Chinese humanoid makers are far more advanced. It's a very expensive remote-controlled mannequin. The kicker: even though they're more advanced, the Chinese robots are still pretty much useless (nice stage props though) because there is no market or use case for humanoid robots. Useful robots don't use that form factor, ever -- why would they.

There is a use case for humanoid robots, just not at the developmental stage they are at. Replication of our form factor allows robots to access the daily tasks humans access. It allows one robot to do many of the things humans can do. For high repetition work obviously very inefficient but if you want a dynamic, flexible platform it's a good standard

Anyone who works in automation can tell you 1) robots are already being highly leveraged in manufacturing  2) humanoid robots are a complete waste of time 3) Optimus is nowhere close to "autonomy"

You mean, things like washing the dishes? laundry? IMO whatever task you're looking at, it's always possible to design a robot that does it better than humans by specializing the form factor.

>"The biggest issue I see with so-called AI experts is that they think they know more than they do, and they think they are smarter than they actually are. This tends to plague smart people" Agreed.

the legend is back

I have a robot that vacuums my floors. It's completely unobtrusive, it does that job extremely well, and cost me a couple hundred dollars. And I don't have to worry about where to put a human size machine when I don't need the vacuuming done. There are machines to do a really good job of washing dishes. I just need to put the dishes in and take them out. Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars for a machine that I have to find a place to store when I'm not using it, just to save me that little bit of labor? I have never seen an actual business case for humanoid robots. Where's the market analysis? The projected market and marketing plan? Projected annual sales, tied to who's actually going to be buying, and why they're going to be buying them? What need is being solved? What is the cost of production, and how does that match to the projected market and sales price? Every business I've ever been involved in, when they were proposing a new product, did a detailed business case very early on in that process, that kept being updated right up to the point of product launch. What is the business case for these products, other than, "oh, they're really cool, people will buy cool stuff?"

25 trillion.

It plagues all people, but it actually doesn't affect smart people more. It affects people who think they are smart, which especially pertains to rich people because they have been told they are smarter and better simply because they were born or lucked into wealth.

Well said. I wish an “analyst” could be confronted with this *obvious common sense* when they raise their price targets on TSLA.

I loved your first paragraph, but you lost me entirely in the second. Humanoid robots are already doing factory work and there are tens of thousands more on order to continue that trend. Useful home use humanoid robots however are a long way away.

I'm anyone who works in automation and robotics, you're spot on with points 1 and 3, but point 2 is completely wrong.

You’re forgetting sex.

The use case is loading/unloading dishes, sorting/folding/putting away laundry, picking up ahead of the robot vacuum, changing light bulbs, cleaning gutter, etc etc etc……and all in houses that are all different with steps, and slopes and all the other random shit in houses built between 200 years ago and today. And yes it’s a long ways off getting there, but Tesla is going to promise its six months off for the next 20 years.

I politely disagree, as others point out specialist robots, aka industrial robots or robovacs are infinitely cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly; real. A hypothetical, hyper intelligent humanoid robot would be use, but it is pure fantasy, something a snake oil merchant would peddle.

Where does the zero autonomy come from? There has been demonstrations of autonomous tasks. Though it was slow. > Chinese I find it funny that Tesla is getting criticized for not being autonomous 100% of the time but a ten second clip from some Chinese company has no skepticism. You think those shiny Chinese robots are autonomous!?

Ah, but NOT HIM. He’s one of the *rare* smart people who are ACTUALLY as smart as they think!

There's a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Being smart is often a lot less valuable than just being well versed in the relevant information. Anybody who has worked in automation or machine control knows very well that the optimus $20k price point is a lie, and the value proposition is all that matters for widespread adoption.

We have a housekeeper that comes by every other week. Once there's a robot service where they show up every other day long enough to put away yesterday's dishes, load the dishes, prep two days meals, and work the other housekeeping duties in rotation, we're in.

Sex robots Tell me that Musk wouldn’t make this option. Come on Mr. Every Thing Must Be Named X is obviously going to make an X version for sex.

Theres a reason why everyone is building bots; they will be our successor

Thunderfoot's stuff is factual but also very poorly produced, usually dragging out about 2-3x longer than necessary.

The last demo was so bad when it mimicked taking off a headset, then dc’d. Elon says it’s not remote operator. Obviously it is. Crazy he gets away with this fraud to pump the stock. SpaceX buying all these Cybertrucks too. Probably with taxpayer money. Nothing to see here SEC…

[deleted]

That is many years away. Making reliable robots coordinated to do that is in the distant future. They way the remote-controlled robot accidentally popped a water bottle with its hand is because they are strong. You do not want casual, physical interactions with these things.

So Musk.

I have a bungalow size two bedroom home, with a large black lab living in the house. As long as I run it every day to keep up with his shedding, it does fine. I have the self emptying variety, where all I have to do is empty the tray it dumps itself into, a couple times a week.

ThunderJoke

Sure, navigation in a house is tricky and changes regularly. There are also plenty of business cases, from customer facing jobs, to others that require use of varied equipment or tasks

I have a Roomba, and now live in a backsplit so there are 5 levels, it doesn't work so hot. The Roomba also just misses a lot of spots, is poor at details, can't adapt beyond doing a really basic job. Use case for a vacuum costing 10,000s is dumb but it's and example. The Roomba is never going to pick up, move something and clean it, go up and down the stairs, and expand much further than what it is

You can disagree. Not all jobs require a specially designed high volume output. Some jobs just need something more flexible. The valuation people are giving this thing is bonkers, but there are definitely uses, and pretending you can just make purpose built machines for all tasks is disingenuous

Video shows Grok unable to do a simple task like create a photo of a clock showing 6:24 pm. I asked Gemini to do the same. First time, no problem. Google is not only capable of producing an actually self-driving vehicle, it is also makes a comptent, not hitlerian chat-bot as well.

So you live in just about the worst case possible for a robot vacuum. Do you think there's a market of people like you, who are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a person size machine they have to figure out where to store, to keep from having to carry a robot vacuum up and down stairs every once in awhile? Or hell, for $30,000, instead of a humanoid robot, one can buy a hell of a lot of years of weekly housecleaning service. And then the house cleaner leaves instead of standing in the corner cluttering things up and looking creepy.

In that case, Reddit must have a serious overweight of rich people.  People are constantly running their figurative mouths on all sorts of subjects like AI, Geopolitics, Mental Health etc etc

Nice burn.

I don't believe intelligent humanoid robots are pure fantasy. As of this moment, they're still in development; they'll be ready someday. I'd love to see one of the US companies succeed, with my preference being Figure or Boston Dynamics. Elon has a way of making things happen, sometimes.

If it could replace my yardwork and cleaning services. That alone would likely justify the cost after a few years.

I don't work in automation, but I disagree with #2. Almost everything we've built has been for humans. The possibilities with humanoid robots are endless. Anyone who says they are a waste of time lacks imagination.

The best robots are specialized

Anybody can imagine how useful a magical humanoid robot that can be your slave would be. Anybody with a brain can imagine the practical challenges to achieving that and how it's not very helpful if only halfway there.

Really, anyone with a brain? There are several companies with smart people working on humanoid robots right now. Just because their products aren't ready today doesn't mean they won't ever be ready. Where would we be today if everyone said there are challenges to doing that, so we might as well not try? \*I'm literally angry at the weakness of this pathetic argument. It's too hard, so it's not going to happen.

I get that there's a lot of usefulness in specialized robots. However, I think the value of a generalized robot is there as well.

How long do you believe a humanoid robot would run on battery without needing to be recharged? The power requirements alone mean it's a bad fit for 99% of applications

>There are several companies with smart people working on humanoid robots right now. I would do it too if you paid me enough. Now think of all the smart people working on non-humanoid robots.

[He's not very reliable though](https://youtu.be/7bVqfQvXP2o?si=XT_5zIkXfV7bGjfT). Broken clock and all that.

There are already robots that can swap their own batteries. If battery life is an issue, then swapping will be the answer. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHP1WGlw5Wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHP1WGlw5Wk)

[Legendary cherry picker](https://youtu.be/7bVqfQvXP2o?si=XT_5zIkXfV7bGjfT). I didn't disagree with him on this topic though but it's not exactly difficult to see the truth about Optimus.

Now extrapolate all those deficiencies to a humanoid robot

What does that have to do with anything? People can work on non-humanoid robots. Non-humanoid robots have their purpose; it's not one or the other.

Boston Dynamics is the gold standard for humanoid robots. The Chinese ones are still years behind.

Because the non-humanoid robots are going to be the bar that the humanoid robots will have to measure up to. The challenge is getting bigger all the time and there is still a black box of AI that is pure science fiction that is needed to run it all.

Ok, I'm getting the feeling I'm wasting my time here. At some time (it could be a decade, who knows), humanoid robots will be doing useful things for people, and they'll be running on the "pure science fiction black box of AI". It's not an if, it's a when. Much like AI today, some people will figure out useful things to do with it, while others fall behind in productivity. This is likely my last comment in this portion of the thread, so have a good one.

The economic constraint is pretty damning. You are competing with the cost of human labor.

Yes, this is a legitimate problem. Right now, simply making these robots functional is the goal, but once that's achieved, they'll tackle more complex tasks. At this point, I think we'll have to adapt because these things are coming. I'm not trying to be insensitive or anything. I work in IT, so we're already in a time of uncertainty. I'm honestly ready for them to take over at Chipotle, though, because I want a consistent amount of meat every time.

>I'm honestly ready for them to take over at Chipotle, though, because I want a consistent amount of meat every time. A specialized robot has been capable of this for decades.

I never made a case for a humanoid vacuum, just showing how limited purpose built machines are. The average person having a robot maid is so far from reality it's just idiotic discussing it.

This is the guy who made cybertrucks with no door handles sitting on combustible lithium batters a feature. Like an extra powerful rub and tug is going to stop him. Hell it might even be the most popular feature for that model.

And do you have an argument to back this up? Go on, do describe the scenario where a humanoid robot is the superior solution. And if you're now tempted to say anything along the lines of "environment designed for humans", I suggest you watch videos of even average cats navigating our environments faster, more precise and more agile than even the best human athletes could hope to.

>Almost everything we've built has been for humans Have you ever seen a cat? You have? Good. Next question: Do you know any humans who can navigate human environments with the same level of speed, precision and agility as cats?

Sex robots.

Wait, that’s what robot mixers are for.

A simple google search for "machine sex" would reveal that the most successful products in that market look more like something ripped from a locomotive, than a humanoid.

"Welcome to Costco, I love you"

Eg. The task is to replace a human standing next to a sink scrubbing dishes with a brush. Let's design a robot that does it for us. Aw shit we've made a wet cupboard.

It'll be a XXX version, and therefore three times as awesome.

Yeah... those demos they show are terrible. "Here's one robot that slowly and poorly folds a simple square towel, under absolutely ideal conditions." It's the equivalent of like 15 years ago when the first car drove autonomously... In a circle, on a track, with no lights, no other traffic, etc. It's a neat gimmick, but it is more proof that we're still a looong way away from a useless product than proof that we have something useful coming soon.

cats can't turn a hotel room between guests (my personal test case for robotics)

Unfortunately, common sense cannot be applied to meme stock. An analyst who keeps raising the price target of Tesla shares is a very successful analyst, up to now. Am I happy with that? No, of course.

But a quadrupedal robot with attached arms could. Think a bigger version of Boston Dynamics spot. And guess what, that robot could carry a lot more weight in blankets, sheets, trash bins, etc. and do so faster, than a biped. The example with the cat was just to demonstrate that a bipedal body plan is not a requirement, nor an ideal solution, to navigate human environments. And that's why bipedal robots aren't gonna win in robotics. Anything a biped could do, other body plans can do better.

quads have two more legs than necessary tho. the basic idea with the android form factor is simply it's a drop-in replacement for existing human labor. Turning a hotel room (or AirBnB) is a perfect use case I think. High value / high labor.

>two more legs than necessary tho. These 2 more legs make them more stable, let them carry more weight, allow for faster locomotion and easier tool mounting I'd hardly call that unnecessary l. >the basic idea with the android form factor is simply it's a drop-in replacement for existing human labor. And again: There is **not a single quality about bipedal locomotion in a robot** that makes it superior for this use case compared to other locomotions. None. The human form is not some magical optimal solution, it is an evolutional compromise. A tiger with a better brain and hands, would outperform humans at pretty much every labour task.

User name checks out.

Actually, Disney is using humanoid robots in their theme parks to be thrown around (into fireworks and other dangerous stunts). Basically a robotic stuntman. Checkmate! There is a use for humanoid robots!! When you want to look human but still be a robot. Ignore the fact that these gymnastics bots are glorified gyroscopes with near useless arms/legs. (Cannot walk, they only can flip, turn in the air and do some movie poses while in midair). .... .... .. But seriously, outside of entertainment where the 'human-looking' part becomes a key element, I don't think there's much use of humanoid robots.

Why have a humanoid robot serve coffee when I can have vending machine at 1/1000th the price and 100 times faster and more efficient?

Yes, but then you end up with a specialized robot for every single one of those tasks, often one that will have to be at least somewhat customized to your home… anyone who can afford that can also just get a housekeeper, which is why those robots don‘t exist. The roomba is just a low enough hanging fruit that it can be simple enough to be affordable for the average consumer. A humanoid robot may be less efficient at each individual task, but you only need one machine for all tasks. Meaning you only need to scale up one machine to enouh production volume that the economies of scale make them affordable. And the same goes for a lot of industrial uses - sure, you can build specialized robots for loads of tasks, but in all the use cases where that makes economical sense they tend to already exist. Humanoids are for those cases where you can sacrifice some efficiency for lower cost by standardization.

Sure we can talk about robots taking over human labor tasks. But there is no economic case for bipedal humanoid robots. Humanoid robots look good in the investor presentation, but are unnecessarily expensive and unreliable compared to other solutions. Example: you have a task that requires precise hand movements: use a robot consisting only of 1 hand, or 2 or 3 or 10... Humanoid shape is a pointless restriction.

Anyone who restricts themselves unnecessarily to a form factor based on their own physiogeny lacks imagination.

You don’t work in robotics and know nothing on the topic. You could just not share a completely ignorant opinion based on your feelings, you know. You don’t HAVE to make a fool out of yourself, you can just say nothing and look WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY smarter

Generalized robots are stupid because they will always cost more and do less than something specialized to the task. Making a bunch of specialized robots for the appropriate tasks is super easy, cheaper, more efficient etc etc etc. humans MAKE DO with the bodies they have. There are much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much better designs even as a general robot that just isn’t a humanoid shape. Hands with opposable thumbs are we need to take from human design, that’s about it

But investment firms said do it so it must be a good idea.

Tesla stock may never be based on anything but corruption and stupidity

> the basic idea with the android form factor is simply it's a drop-in replacement for existing human labor. It's such a stupid idea though.

Damn... Good thing Tesla isn't a car company... or a robot company... Stock will go up on this because now Tesla can focus on their core business... Anyone know what that business is?

I mean... Boston Dynamics Atlas exists...

All I can think about is what Linus Torvalds said to Linus Sebastian when asked what they would think of someone who used lines of code as a metric for performance, that only an idiot would think that is a valid metric.

Boston Dynamics is waiting for that day. Has been for decades...

Making cool YouTube videos is the primary application based on Boston Dynamics work so far.

Im inclined to agree, although point 2 is a bit subjective

Tesla produces “rarefied vapor,” a critical element in mining venture capital.

Some people do have experience in these things whilst we're on reddit, not publishing to an academic journal. Nothing provokes a quicker response online than saying something incorrect. Plus the whole anonymity element changes people's behaviour.

[deleted]

Spot isn't a humanoid robot