Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot • Hacker News Board

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#411

Post by ryukoposting » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

troyastorino wrote: post #280

ryukoposting wrote: post #278

Humanoids are Silicon Valley's horseless carriage. The purpose of robotics, and tools in general, is to do things better than we can given our human form and cognition. Tools take on forms that are optimized for their intended purpose. A humanoid has no market fit because it's necessarily bounded by most of the same limits we have.

The point of a humaniod is compatibility with systems that have been built for humans, which is...nearly all systems that have been built. Environments and tools that exist in the world are ones that have been built for humans, so for a single robot to be able to interact with almost all of those, that robot needs to be shaped like a human.

My dishes were designed for humans, but my dishwasher handles them just fine.

Okay, maybe that's a special case. Maybe we should think of a task we haven't solved yet, like folding laundry. Why would a laundry folding robot need legs or a head? Why limit its arms to articulate only at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder? Why limit it to only two arms? Five fingers?

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#412

Post by Sateeshm » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 3:37 AM UTC

gonzobonzo wrote: post #262

ItsHarper wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do sell Spot, actually

True, though very few (this says "over 1,500"[1]). And from everything I've seen, Spot appears to be a very expensive solution in search of a problem. They also have Handle, a slow moving robot on wheels with an arm for moving boxes. No idea how many have been sold, but it seems to be even less than Spot. [1] https://bostondynamics.com/products/spot/

The arm robot is called Stretch I think

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#413

Post by Sateeshm » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 3:41 AM UTC

rswail wrote: post #371

throwaway0123_5 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only place I commonly see escalators besides these places is airports, I don't think they've expanded that much?

Sorry what?

You couldn't hear?

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#414

Post by rowanG077 » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 4:10 PM UTC

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #408

rowanG077 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the entire point that LLMs are unreasonably better at even specific things that you would naively think a purpose build system would be good at.

Could you name an example aside rephrasing text?

Considering the entire thing is a text generator it's quite a statement to exclude that. Text is a huge world. Math, programming, stories, chatting, mail, search, website navigation, most things you want to do in the digital space involves text.

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#415

Post by timschmidt » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

bchasknga wrote: post #388

timschmidt wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unitree r1 is effectively a useless toy Only because it's not yet attached to a reasonable AI, which is my point. It's not going to do any heavy lifting, but it could easily do basic house chores like cleaning up, folding laundry, etc if it were. The actuators and body platform are there, and economies of scale already at work. I guess some folks just can't or won't put 2 and 2 together to predict the near futu…

Your reasonable AI cannot resolve the fact that its arm can only lift 2KG. I am impressed by Unitree, but the problem that needs to be solved here is not just better software. Better hardware needs to come down in cost and weight to make the generalized robot argument more convincing. There is still a long way to go for a humanoid to be a reasonable product, and that's not just a software issue.

> its arm can only lift 2KG

That covers more than 90% of the objects in my home, and most people's.

> the problem that needs to be solved here is not just better software. Better hardware needs to come down in cost and weight

I disagree. Software seems to be the main limitation to me at the moment. Bigger motors and batteries are readily available on the market already. Software is advancing rapidly, and seems to me will quickly be up to the task (i.e. within a few years), but at the moment is still the domain of research projects.

> There is still a long way to go for a humanoid to be a reasonable product

Whether or not you think it's a reasonable product, it's clearly already an available one which is already selling in volume. As with all things, future versions will be more capable.

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#416

Post by xp84 » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 7:59 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #354

xp84 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bollocks. I wouldn’t care if it looked like Chewbacca if it did the household chores, had a good warranty and was repairable, and cost under $30k. I’m not f##king the robot maid, I don’t care if it looks like a girl. If I was into that, there are other types of ‘robots’ for that.

I'm not saying everyone, everywhere, wants to fuck their robot maid, I'm saying thousands of years of patriarchy, hundreds of years of popular culture, fetishization of domestic labor roles and simple human nature will have an influence on the adoption of humanoid domestic robots that companies ignore at their peril. Some people are Honda Civic people, only concerned with utility - that's fine, I'm the same way. But…

> Some people are Honda Civic people, only concerned with utility - that's fine, I'm the same way. But the money comes from cars designed to evoke eroticism or animal aggression.

They sell a ton of Civics, and even more of the kind of boring-ass SUV like a Nissan Muranos and Ford Escapes. None of these are the 'sexy' cars you describe. True, individual Lamborghinis sell for an order of magnitude more than a Murano and are sexy cars, but your original comment suggests that only an aesthetically sexy robot maid would be "popular." Would a sexy robot maid be a sensation? I bet it would, but I just don't think adoption is waiting on that necessarily. Rather, usefulness and 'right price' are the current barriers.

> The humanoid robot in the article is, aesthetically speaking, horrifying to most people.

Hard agree, it's for sure gross looking. They could do a lot better by literally just letting an animator design a cute cartoon face to put on a cheap screen. If anybody wants the weirdo look pictured there they can just turn the screen off.

Re: Figure 03, our 3rd generation humanoid robot

#417

Post by Teknomadix » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC

mainecoder wrote: post #183

antoniojtorres wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus looking at the cost of labor strictly as a burden and not as something that supports the working class is a special kind of pathology.

the cost of labor is shared the the working class as well , it is not just tha capitalist class that pays for labor that labor cost is in the final cost of all the goods and services you use. These robots make life better, if you don't want to buy a robot that is your choice but do not take the freedom of others to buy ,use make and modify robots.

You're entirely missing the point. Unless you can build the robot in question and the infrastructure that supports it's ability to operate, you will never own one. You will be a renter of hardware and services and you will be subject to an externalized market controller who can—at will—arbitrarily raise the costs of operating said robot.