All these companies are pursuing humanoids precisely because we've built the world around that "form factor" (and we evolved ourselves to fit to the world). It's a general purpose design. It's the same reason why OpenAI pursued LLMs, as they are general purpose.
Yes, like LLMs, they will over-promise in the beginning. But it still make sense to pursue that form factor from an investment perspective if we think it's feasible.
Back on the ground, I guess it's possible that some general purpose non-humanoid robot will be able to use our tools and built environment better than people, but I have a hard time imagining what that would be.
Does it NEED to? perhaps I need a special robot to clean my stairs, if there is any clutter on it, it just dumps it at the top/bottom. Then a different robot puts the clutter away. My robot vacuum/mop does a great job with floors already, so I don't need the clutter robot to handle floor cleaning. I likewise need a robot to fold my laundry, but maybe it turns the folded laundry over to the clutter robot to put away or something?
The point is I don't need a general purpose robot of any form. I have various specific tasks I need done, I don't care how many robots are involved. I do care that the total is affordable. I do care that the total doesn't take up "too much" space. I do care that the job is done well. I don't want to think about any of it unless I want to think about it (sometimes it is fun to watch my robot vacuum work. Sometimes I want a specific mess cleaned up first and then go away before guests arrive). Maybe a general purpose robot is the best answer, maybe not - since I'm not [currently] designing such robots I expect those who are experts to figure out the best form - which is probably a compromise.
So you can buy one robot that does everything and stays busy all day, or a bunch of robots that each do one thing and otherwise stay in closets.
If you have a factory, idle equipment costs you money. Right now our factories have only specialized robots, but they still have lots of people because it's too expensive to do the remaining tasks with specialized robots. We need general-purpose workers for the tasks we're not doing 24 hours every day.
This makes general-purpose robots look like the cheapest option for many tasks, but that could be offset if they cost a lot more. But the more of anything we build, the cheaper the thing ends up being. A very large number of identical robots will probably end up costing less than smaller numbers of lots of special purpose robots.
> If you have a factory, idle equipment costs you money
True, but that isn't the whole story. Where I live most factories have their own snow removal equipment even though it is only used a few days per year and sits idle the rest of the time. While it costs money to have it sit idle, it costs even more to have the whole factory idle until the snow melts. (or the people you hire get around to your factory).
> Right now our factories have only specialized robots, but they still have lots of people because it's too expensive to do the remaining tasks with specialized robots.
And when they decide people are too expensive they replace them not with general purpose robots but more special purpose robots.
> A very large number of identical robots will probably end up costing less than smaller numbers of lots of special purpose robots.
Maybe. It isn't clear. A general purpose robot could be more expensive - I only need one while I "need" one vacuum robot per floor meaning that special purpose robot scales better. And that vacuum robot is also a lot simpler meaning it will be cheaper to own 2 than to have 1 general purpose robot.
The question then is the general purpose robot cheaper because you only have 1 instead of an army of special purpose robots. We do not know (today).
So the point is just to allow them to use existing tools ? Essentially self imposing our own limits on them, I don't really see how that makes sense.
Just look at the animal kingdom, there are a bunch of stuff that would be extremely useful, tails, extra limbs, extra joints, no separated head, longer limbs &c.
The animal kingdom also lacked built infrastructure and tools. If the environment had been full of hand tools for a hundred million years, how many animals would have evolved to use them?
Some of your listed features could still work though. A humanoid robot doesn't have to have exactly the same form as humans, as long as it's close enough to use our stuff, ride around in our vehicles, etc. The alternative is to build all new infrastructure and tools that don't work for humans; I'm not sure why we would want that.
I think Asimov wrote something along those lines in one of his robots cycle novels (which leads us back nicely to "iRobot", er, "I, Robot"): why build a vacuum robot, a window-cleaner robot, a robot lawnmower, a robot car etc. etc. when you can build a humanoid robot which can operate all the devices designed for humans? Ok, currently it's "if you could build" rather than "when you can build", but looking at it from the science fiction writer's perspective, it makes sense...
I think we've settled on the idea that the bipedal human form is most efficient when it's a bit naive. The vacuum robot is more optimal because it's small form allows it to reach all parts of the floor and under small spaces we usually can't get easily. We build tools to do jobs more effectively. Not just to mimic how we've done them before.
The human form evolved to run long distances in wide open fields, climb trees for nutrient and protection, and create and wield tools. We have built the world to accommodate for that around us. It is not a general purpose form factor.
An urbanized, general purpose robot may take an entirely different form factor than bipedal homosapien, ie. tachikomas from Ghost in the Shell: SAC.
Will a tachikoma fit through a door? If not, that's a bad "general purpose" platform.
A true "general purpose" robot should be able to walk into a space built by humans for humans and perform useful work there. That's the reason why humanoid frames are desirable.
A tachikoma is not the general purpose vehicle. It is an example of what a general purpose robot body could look like. It's job, in an anime, is a super intelligent armored tank.
Humans evolved to be bipedal to see over the bushes and tall grass in the savannah. Maybe the optimal form for a robot is an elephant with prehensile trunk, or giraffe, or a frog.
To some extent I'm willing to remodel if needed so the robot can fit. When I build/remodel my own house I only use extra wide doors so that a wheelchair can fit - I've never had someone in a wheelchair visit, but that is still something I make a requirement: does this help your robot work?
Maybe you are. But is the entire world willing to remodel? For the first generation of general purpose robots, which will, without a doubt, suck?
Chicken and egg problem there. Nobody will adapt the environment for your robots unless your robots have proven to work really well. So your robots have to first work really well in unadapted environments.
That depends on how much is needed. I've lived in houses with doors I need to turn sideways to get through (and I'm a wide guy - I expect fat people couldn't fit in any direction. I've lived in houses where all doors are bit enough for a wheelchair. Most houses have a range of sizes - what is your requirements. Some things are "easy" to do, and some are a major tear down. Without knowing the exact size requirements of a real robot we can't have this discussion. Though If you are in the business I expect you to look at houses and try to come up with something reasonable unless there is a good reason you can't.
There are always first adopters who will if it isn't too expensive. Rich people often live in a house with big enough doors (well most doors big enough - enough for this discussion to say they do), and likely have a need (and the money) for something even if it isn't very good. If your robot starts to prove useful people will ask for it - we build thousands of new houses/apartments every year just in the US, if builders see a demand they will make changes to their new models - it doesn't cost that much more so they don't even need a real demand, just a marketing feature that you could even if nobody does will work (for a few years: you better prove it useful to those who buy new houses fast or the fad will pass!)
It isn't easy because as you say, chicken and egg. If these prove useful people will make changes of the next few decades so they can have one. (though of course your competition will be looking to see if they can make something that doesn't need a remodel to use)
When they aren't doing high speed chases through the streets of Japan they are jumping out of helicopters, climbing walls, and chasing suspects up stairs.
And whether or not it actually is feasible, many are betting millions that it is, and marketing it as possible to keep the innovation machine running until we achieve it
I don't know why people keep saying "the world" when they talk about extremely small subsets of human civilization. Most roads weren't designed for humans. Flat surfaces in buildings were not designed for humans. Packages were designed to be handled by suction cups. Containers were designed to be intermodal transport, not to be carried by humans.
Space is practically inaccessible to most people.
It's crazy how many people purposefully become ignorant of the things they see every day with their own eyes.
Roads weren't designed for humans, but vehicles generally were. I don't think we need our robots to be able to drive 70mph on highways when we've already built millions of vehicles.
We've had buildings with flat surfaces for centuries, so I'm not sure of your point there. And Sears was shipping things in cardboard boxes long before warehouses had robots with suction cups.
Yes, like LLMs, they will over-promise in the beginning. But it still make sense to pursue that form factor from an investment perspective if we think it's feasible.