If your robots For a startup looking to raise its money, there is an almost 100% chance that you will get two questions from potential investors: 1) How do you integrate generative AI? And 2) Are you thinking about building a human? The first is easy enough to answer. If you run a robotics company in 2024, you've almost certainly experimented with integrating generative AI into your workflow.
The second question is one of those investor questions that requires you to look carefully and say something like, “You know, human beings have potential, but they're not well suited to this particular challenge.” Then you press a combination of keys and try to switch topics quickly. It's not a definitive refutation of the form factor, so much as an admission that — despite investor enthusiasm — it's not the ideal tool for every job.
It is reasonable to suspect that we have entered the peak of the robot hype cycle. The recent $675 million raise has dropped countless jaws across the industry and left open the question of how sustainable this market is. Modex Supply Chain View this week in
Atlanta told its own story, a story inhabited by very few human beings.
There were two in particular present among the three massive halls of the Georgia World Congress Center. The most notable of these was Agility. In a repeat of last year's ProMat event, the company attracted massive crowds throughout the week. This time, Digit showcased developing hands, new software and workflows developed for automotive manufacturing. There's been a lot of progress since last year's event, from product to executive hires to serious conversations about things like ROI.
Agility currently stands alone in terms of go-to-market progress. Conversations around Digit seem less theoretical than many humanoid robotics competitions, but questions remain about real-world deployment. A number of people I spoke to at the show this week were careful to use the word “PILOT” to differentiate between smaller-scale pilot deployments and broader adoption. Leadership is not a dirty word in this industry (nor is it unique to humans), but rather something that is standard and sensitive when it comes to new technology.
It's more that pilots are experiments and should be considered as such. There's a big gap between a company trying out a few devices and being so committed to a new technology that you overhaul your manufacturing or warehouse operations to incorporate it. The two are naturally related, as the former is generally required to achieve the latter, but coverage may be too keen to confuse the two. There are countless examples of pilots who never graduate to full-scale deployment for any number of reasons.
A big part of the reason pilots get as much play is that they are generally beneficial to both parties. The company selling the product gets – if not validation, then at least clear interest from an established company. At the same time, the company signals to shareholders and customers that it is using cutting-edge technology that can keep it ahead of the competition in this world of late capitalism. Pilots are definitely worth tracking, they mark important milestones for startups, but ultimately, deployment numbers are the real thing to track.
A number of players I spoke with continued to express doubts about the widespread adoption of humanoid robots in the workplace. As always, it's important to treat these things with caution and consider the source. If your company manufactures robotic arms and/or AMRs (autonomous mobile robots), you no doubt have a vested interest in believing that these form factors will continue to dominate the field as they have for decades.
However, over the past week I've noticed a shift in conversations compared to last year. This could be the progress that companies like Agility have made, in terms of technology, customer interest, fundraising, and continuing to hire very smart people. Whatever the reason, absolute skepticism about human beings has diminished for many. I've heard very few outright rejections of the humanoid form factor. The standardized response was close to measured optimism.
These same people now see a role for human beings in the factory, but instead of directly replacing traditional single-purpose systems, robots will augment them. Effectively, these robots will replace humans in what are known as “human-in-the-loop” systems, which require non-automated intervention. Maybe this is a good time to start discussing the human beings in the episode. But the human element is essential at the moment.
People often point to this as evidence that automation is not replacing jobs. Many manufacturers also remain adamant that people will always have a role to play here. Earlier this week, Plus One Robotics CEO Eric Neves told me the meaning behind the company's name, noting that “you have to add a human if you want to increase reliability over time.”
It's impossible to predict these things completely, but that won't stop us from trying — or having strong, consistent opinions on the matter. This is one of those places where my skepticism/cynicism (depending on the day) comes into full play. I think it's important to take into account capitalist motivations. Ask yourself seriously: If such-and-such company could save a few bucks by completely automating its manufacturing and warehouse departments, do you think it would hesitate to do so?
Lights out factories are few and far between, but they do exist. Manufacturing is particularly well-suited to full automation, as it is a highly structured environment, built on a highly repetitive workflow. But while humans don't exist on a daily basis, edge cases will always exist. These situations, which now require human intervention, could be the ideal scenario for humanoid robots, whether operating autonomously or operating remotely, as is the case with Reflex, Modex's other humanoid robotics company.
“If you start thinking about lights-out production, there are always 5% exceptions that need to be dealt with,” GreyOrange CEO Akash Gupta told me during a conversation at the company’s booth this week. “I think that's the role [humanoids] They will play in the warehouses. They will close the 5% exception gap, which requires a lot of ingenuity and unorganized execution.
Dexterity founding engineer Robert Sun pointed out to me earlier this week that the timeframes may not ultimately coincide with broader humanoid robot deployments. He suggested that while the form factor could play an important role in the transition to lights-out factories and warehouses, the technology may not be where it needs to be at the right time for it to make much sense.
“By automating all logistics and warehousing, I thought humanoid robots could be a good turning point,” Sun explains. “Now we don't have the human, so we'll put the robot there. Eventually, we'll move to this automated lights-out plant. Then the issue of human beings is very difficult which makes it difficult to put them in the transition period.”
Schedule is key here. After all, many of these systems are positioned as “general purpose,” although anyone familiar with the field realizes that this is a far-fetched promise. The question ultimately is how much value these systems can make themselves in the meantime. That's exactly why these pilot programs are so important — and it's also why a large portion of messaging turns to ROI.
Humanoid robotics companies can hold promise for the world of the future, and the form factor is certainly significantly more adaptable than many or most of the single-purpose systems that currently dominate warehouse and factory floors. But ultimately, bridging the gap between now and then will require systems that are able to prove their value from day one.
