• Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I feel like all shapes and sizes are good. That also includes the potential of humanoid shapes if needed. The design should be based off what it’s meant to do. Humanoid like shapes would be best for things that are involving human interaction, and something that needs a diverse amount of tasks, but those types of shapes would also be the hardest to do and the most expensive. It would make sense to minimize cost and complexity as long as it isn’t making a compromise elsewhere.

  • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    All shapes and sizes, but the smaller and more efficient the better.

    Humanoid robots are stupid and wasteful.

  • orlyowl@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’d prefer all shapes and sizes, and even if some of them are humanoid I wouldn’t want them to look more humanoid than say C3PO. For multiple reasons I wouldn’t want them realistic enough to fool any part of my brain into thinking they are human.

      • pandore@fedinsfw.app
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        On the other hand, cleaning under the bed is better done by a robot that isn’t android. For the record, android means a human form factor robot.

  • scytale@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    All shapes and sizes, especially if they are specialized to do specific tasks. A humanoid robot won’t be practical for a lot of tasks.

  • DeuxChevaux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’d like them to be utilitarian, optimized for the tasks they are made to perform. And simple, as in easily fixable by the owner (right to repair).