If your robotics startup is looking to raise funding, there's almost a 100% chance that potential investors will ask you two questions: 1) How do you incorporate generative AI? 2) Have you ever considered building a humanoid robot? The first one is easy to answer. If you run a robotics company in 2024, you've almost certainly experimented with incorporating generative AI into your workflows.
The second one is one of the questions we get from investors that we have to really think about and say, “Okay, so what? “You know, humanoids have potential, but they're not really suited for this particular task.” Then you jingle a series of keys, trying to quickly switch subjects. This is not a complete rebuttal of form factors, but rather an acknowledgment that, despite investor enthusiasm, form factors are not the best tool for every job.
It's natural to wonder if we've entered the top of the robot hype cycle. His recent $675 million raise for Figure sent countless shock waves throughout the industry and left questions about how sustainable this market is.This week's Modex Supply Chain Show is
Atlanta told its own story, populated by a very small number of humanoids.
Exactly two of the three gigantic halls of the Georgia World Congress Center existed. The most noticeable one was agility. A repeat of his ProMat event from last year, the company drew large crowds throughout his week. Today, Digit is showing off an upgraded hand, new software, and workflows developed for automotive manufacturing. Considerable progress has been made since last year's event, from products to executive staff to serious conversations about ROI and more.
For now, agility stands alone in terms of go-to-market progress. While the conversation around Digit feels less theoretical than other humanoid robot competitions, questions remain about how it will play out in the real world. Many of the people I spoke to at this week's trade show always used the word “pilot” (capitalized) to differentiate between small-scale pilots and large-scale deployments. Piloting is not a dirty word in this industry (nor is it specific to humanoids). This is a standard and delicate practice when dealing with new technology.
Rather, piloting is a test and should be viewed as such. There is a huge gap between companies that are piloting a small number of devices and those that are so committed to new technology that they overhaul their manufacturing and warehouse processes to incorporate the new technology. Of course, the two are related, as the former is required to achieve the latter, but sometimes the coverage is so zealous that he confuses the two. There are countless examples of pilots who did not make it to full deployment for a variety of reasons.
A big part of the reason Pilots get so much play is because they are generally beneficial for both parties. Companies selling products can at least get clear interest, if not validation, from established companies. Meanwhile, the company is showing its shareholders and customers that it is committed to cutting-edge technology that will help it compete in this cutthroat world of late capitalism. Pilots are absolutely worth tracking and represent important milestones for your startup, but at the end of the day, what you should really be tracking is adoption numbers.
Many players I spoke to continued to express skepticism about the widespread adoption of humanoid robots in the workplace. As always, it's important to take this with a grain of salt and consider its source. If your company manufactures a robotic arm or his AMR (autonomous mobile robot), you are wrong to have a vested interest in believing that these form factors will continue to dominate this field for decades. there is no.
But over the past week, I've noticed that the conversation has changed compared to last year. It could be the advances that companies like Agility have made in terms of technology, customer interest, funding, and continued hiring of very smart people. Whatever the cause, for many, genuine skepticism about humanoids has subsided. I've heard very few outright negative reactions to the humanoid form factor. The standard response was close to measured optimism.
These people now recognize the role of humanoids in factories, but robots will serve to augment traditional single-purpose systems rather than completely replace them. In effect, these robots will replace humans in what are known as “human-in-the-loop” systems that require non-machine intervention. Perhaps now is the time to start discussing humanoid participants. But for now, we need the human element.
People often point to this as evidence that automation won't replace jobs. Many manufacturers also remain adamant that people always have a role to play here. Earlier this week, Erik Nieves, CEO of Plus One Robotics, told me the meaning behind the company's name, saying, “If you want to increase reliability over the long term, you need to add a human.”
It's impossible to fully predict something like this, but that doesn't stop us from trying and from having strong and unwavering opinions on the issue. This is one of the places where my skepticism/cynicism (depending on the day) is on full display. I believe it is important to consider the motives of capitalism. Seriously ask yourself this question. If such and such a company could save a penny by completely automating its manufacturing and warehousing departments, do you think it would hesitate to do so?
Lights out factories are few and far between, but they do exist. Manufacturing is a highly structured environment built around highly repetitive workflows, making it particularly suitable for full automation. But even though humans don't exist on a daily basis, edge cases always exist. These instances currently require human intervention, but humanoids, whether operating autonomously or remotely, as is the case with Reflex, another humanoid robot company present at Modex. This could be an ideal scenario for
“When you start thinking about lights-out production, you always have to deal with this 5% exception,” GreyOrange CEO Akash Gupta told me during a conversation at the company's booth this week. “I think that's the role [humanoids] I'm going to play in the warehouse. They intend to close that 5% exception gap, but this requires a lot of dexterity and unstructured execution. ”
Robert Sun, a founding engineer at Dexterity, pointed out to me earlier this week that broader humanoid robot deployments may end up with time frames out of sync. He suggested that form factor could play an important role in the transition to lights out in factories and warehouses, but the technology may not be ready in time for it to make much sense.
“We thought humanoids could be a good transition point as we move all logistics and warehouse work to robotized work,” Sun explains. “Right now we don't have humans, so we're going to put a humanoid there. Eventually we'll move to this self-lights out factory. And the humanoid problem is so difficult that it's going to be difficult to put it in a transition period.”
The important thing here is the timeline. After all, many of these systems are positioned as “universal”, but anyone familiar with the field understands that this promise is far off. At the end of the day, the question is how valuable these systems will become over time. That's exactly why these pilots are important, and why so many of the messages migrated to his ROI.
Humanoid robot companies could become ubiquitous worldwide in the future, and their form factors could be much more adaptable than the many single-purpose systems that currently dominate warehouses and factory floors. I'm sure. But ultimately, bridging the gap between now and then requires a system that can prove its value from day one.