I’m not arguing that humanoids are the only robots that can operate in human environments, nor that specialized robots shouldn’t exist. We already know they should, and do, and work very well.
I’m saying it depends on what you’re after.
If you want a specialized machine, then by all means optimize the form factor for that task.
If you want a general-purpose platform, then you’re faced with a near-infinite variety of environments, tools, and situations: homes, offices, hospitals, factories, hotels, streets…
Almost all of them were designed around human reach, dexterity, height, mobility and perception.
> The moment you have mobile tools, whats the point in forcing the robot to hold them using a human hand? You can put them on a tool changer now or have a gripper that works for the specific task. Why does a robot need to hold a wrench using a humanoid hand?
It doesn’t. The wrench was just one example among many. Nearly all our tools and interfaces are designed around human hands and bodies. If a different manipulator works just as well across all of them, great. My point isn’t that it must literally be a human hand.
> I think its incredibly unreasonable to suggest that you need to solve every single problem ever encountered in human existence to be allowed to solve one much simpler problem.
That’s not what I’m suggesting.
I’m saying it’s a deployment strategy. Start with the form factor that’s already compatible with the largest installed base of tools and infrastructure. Not because it’s mechanically optimal, but because it minimises the amount of adaptation required from the market.
And enables you to sell to markets you aren’t even aware exist.
If, over time, you discover that hands don’t need five fingers, legs don’t need knees, or an entirely different morphology delivers much better performance, then you have both the experience and the demonstrated value to justify changing the robot, or even convince your customers to change the environment to fit a better robot.
They’re basically trying to go for the "one size fits most" of robotics. And yes, we both know how well that usually fits anyone.
I’m not convinced either, but I can understand the logic.
Never said it was interesting. Just that it’s easier to sell tech that fits your customers' environments than to get customers to overhaul their environment to fit the unproven tech you want to sell them.
> Why humanoid? Surely there must be a superior physical form factor than one mimicking human anatomy.
There probably (certainly) is. But if you want to build a multi-purpose platform, you’ll soon be faced with a dumb challenge: nearly all interfaces (door knobs, taps, electric switches, cutlery, sponges, every single button out there, pillow cases, wrenches, hammers, signs…) are made for humans. Placed at human hand level. At human eye level.
Nearly all environments (houses, streets, sidewalks, factory floors, offices, toilets, bathtubs,…) are made for humans. Wide enough and tall enough (or short enough, for bathtubs) to accommodate human bodies.
So until we can find one or more form-factors superior enough to justify we adapt everything around it or them, betting that the easiest way to build a single multi-purpose platform able to do most things (and not n platforms for n+ use cases) is to borrow the shape most things are made for wouldn’t surprise me. Plus, you get a wider market.
And then, once you have happy-ish customers, figure out which of these human attributes and shapes aren’t actually needed to do the job.
> You're thinking of criminal law. And it's not just some group's rules and norms - there already exists familial or social group punishment for that. Criminal law is prosecuted by the State. It's the code of conduct of the society you exist in.
What I meant is more about why and how laws come to be, which depends on what we think they’re for. Hobbes’ point of view is one. Locke and Rousseau had different opinions.
For example, one can view criminal law as a punishing tool, like gp, whose only purpose is to punish the act once discovered. You criminalise duels to punish duelists because murder is bad and no murder or attempted murder should go unpunished, and associate a great punishment because murder is a very bad thing.
But you can also criminalize duels to prevent or reduce the incidence of duels, and associate a great punishment to it to deter your stupid hot-heated young nobles from going around each other. Still criminal law, but this time both as social engineering and deterrence.
It’s been a long time since I read Hobbes. Should definitely go back to it.
That’s one school of thought. Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act, mostly reactive.
Others consider law a way of encoding the group’s existing rules and norms.
In that view, making something illegal or mandatory is not a prerequisite for punishment: it’s the actual main point.
The threat of punishment is meant for those not deterred from an act by the simple fact it is illegal (and the threat only works if enforced).
Others put it the other way around, and see law as social engineering, a way to shape the group, either through the encoding itself of the desired behaviours in law, or through deterrence. Or both. If what one is after is either power or legitimacy, they need compliance more than punishment (can’t rule once you’ve chopped everyone’s heads off, or once the mob has put yours on a spike).
It’s also sometimes used as coordination (which side of the road we drive on).
And there’s also law as dispute resolution (if your neighbour’s hen lays an egg in your garden, who does it belong to? Yes, it’s ridiculous. Yes, some places have one or more laws for that). Which, incidentally, both requires and provides legitimacy. Funny, that.
And probably many other kinds / points of view, with many different purposes, intents, and mechanisms.
Anyway, all that to say law is vast, fascinating, and utterly tedious. And apologies for the tangent.
Unless, it just occurred to me, you meant "goodwill projects" in the sense of "projects aimed towards generating goodwill among recipient countries (and their population) toward China".
In which case, I’d still argue the frame is too narrow, but acknowledge I misunderstood your initial point and apologise.
One can call anything anything. And intents can only be guessed at, while outcomes can actually be evaluated. The question is whether the label explains the policy.
BRI is state-backed finance tied to Chinese strategic, commercial, and diplomatic interests. Some projects may benefit recipients too. Great. That still doesn’t make "goodwill" a useful description of the principle.
> Judging from exceptions is not valid.
I’m not judging from one exception. I backed my point of view with examples of a broader pattern: debt-financed infrastructure, Chinese contractors/suppliers/operators capturing much of the spending, and projects that often also serve China’s trade and influence goals.
Feel free to provide substantive counter-examples instead of just waving the word "goodwill" around.
> I used that as an example of an alternative approach.
No, you used US violence as a contrast to make BRI look benevolent. That’s whataboutism. "Less bad than bombing" is not the same thing as goodwill.
> What countries are you referring to here: France (Douala and Abidjan ports, North–South railway in Vietnam), Japan (also ports in Sri Lanka, Thilawa), something else?
Given its own propensity to rely on bombing, I would not use France as an example. The EU-financed port and airport in Gaza, for all the good they were allowed to do, come to mind. Japanese development and aid efforts too, even if they, like most if not all state-sponsored efforts, come with strings attached.
> goodwill doesn’t mean free stuff
Obviously. But you’re the one explicitly framing it as humanitarian. If your "goodwill" consists of lending countries money for infrastructure that often serves the lender’s own strategic interests and pays its own companies, then I’m going to question the framing.
> Can you argue that the principle of the BRI is humanitarian
No. You can argue some projects, if done well, benefit both sides. That doesn’t make it humanitarian. It makes it basic foreign policy.
> China wasn’t the only creditor there.
I didn’t say it was. I said Hambantota was a costly development failure for Sri Lanka, and Chinese lending was part of that specific project and problem. Basically, that unlike your "goodwill" claim, China isn’t just giving away infrastructure for free out of the goodness of its government’s heart.
Don’t make me say what I did not.
> Easy to say in hindsight.
Yes. That’s why development and debt are hard problems. Also why calling it “goodwill” is, at best, too generous.
> Better than blockading Cuba / bombing Iran / etc.
“The US also does very bad stuff” doesn’t make BRI goodwill. Plus, there are more than two countries in the world. Some even try viable (if self-interested) development policy without bombing people.
A lot of it was financed through large (sometimes unsustainable) loans to recipient countries, sometimes leading to unsustainable debt burdens, irrespective of the potential ROI for the recipient (ie Sri Lanka’s port).
In many cases, much of that debt paid for Chinese companies, contractors, suppliers, and imported workers who built or operated the projects.
And the infrastructure didn’t necessarily line up with the recipient’s actual needs, mostly with China’s (ie the Laos–China railway, in large part financed by Laotian debt, which may someday bring some benefits to Laos, but mostly serves China’s regional trade ambitions).
Not to say other countries do it better or have purer ambitions or whatever. It’s just the "goodwill" part that made me twitch.
I also "run" Lightless Labs (Descartes, Third Thoughts, Refinery). Writing https://weekly.elfitz.com.