You must log in or register to comment.

Loki-L t1_ives55r wrote

Just imagine how much revenue humans generate for their employers now.


463DP t1_ivf486g wrote

Just imagine how rich a few people are going to get!


Fragrant-Career4727 t1_ivfsqm9 wrote

Just imagine how many people will be of no use now


[deleted] t1_ivh0wpi wrote



DavePastry t1_ivhmkao wrote

Wow that’s a really long comment


TheL0ngGame t1_ivls7en wrote

did you read it, or would you prefer i make a tik tok video?


DavePastry t1_ivlsl6v wrote

I think this particular comment calls out for a black and white xeroxed newsletter mailed out to a small but highly selective network of lone gunmen.


TheL0ngGame t1_ivlv4c1 wrote

reddit is just a gathering of people of think they are smart. all gathered in one space. dont know why i come here. good thing most of you are wasting your time here and not draining mental resources in the real world.

a future in front of screens is guaranteed for us all.


[deleted] t1_ivhmf67 wrote



[deleted] t1_ivit1xg wrote



isavvi t1_ivjhtzs wrote

Ok so Crimes of the Future meets Westworld. Got it. Glad I’m checking out long before that.


Neither-Cup564 t1_ivfft06 wrote

You only get revenue when people have money to buy your things. I don’t understand who they’re going to sell to when everyone is homeless.


Shexter t1_ivfgwmf wrote

Not really. An economy can accomodate more value just by harvesting more resources and producing more stuff. Trading can happen only between the rich while the lower class can be neglected. Which could become a serious problem if a point comes where the average worker no longer has a value from an economic point of view.


slownburnmoonape t1_ivfp9su wrote

Isn’t this (almost) the case in some third world countries? Workers being treated as disposables


mrnothing- t1_ivg34wp wrote

Manñy countries who have petroluim and prefer import few skill people than treat their own populations as humans


geologean t1_ivgjbvq wrote

Do the countries prefer it, or do their petroleum companies prefer it?


mrnothing- t1_ivgnwr3 wrote

Both if you consider corrupt govermets as countries, educated and productive people feel entitled to rights, if you import people you can produce for your mansion(you and friends) and your army while your population is dieing of hunger, useless hunger people don't have the capacity too fight for their rights. For the corporations sites mean you can have 0 consideration for the negative impacts in the ecosystem, and cheap unskilled labor if you need it.


LordLordylordMcLord t1_ivgbw9q wrote

Any country where workers can't afford housing has already crossed that line... And I have bad news...


NuclearFoodie t1_ivgcvwv wrote

US crossed that line almost a decade ago and we are just starting to see the real ramifications of that. Going to be a dark decade in the US and I fear the rest of the west is not far behind us.


tonypizzaz t1_ivghgzh wrote

It’s funny almost everyone you see agrees with you. But no one feels like they can change it? We read about 20 or 30 different characters on these screens every day. Why can’t we just get rid of who is causing the problems? Why are billions suffering for a handful of people to be kings and queens.


NuclearFoodie t1_ivgjg6g wrote

Not just suffering for, but people worship these horrible monsters.


Cybor_wak t1_ivhfacu wrote

And 50% believe in "trickle down economics". That'll do it too.


geologean t1_ivgjlyd wrote

The weird thing about it is that there is adequate housing stock. It's just the distribution of that housing that's the problem. Real Estate is the one industry that seems the most stubborn to take a loss when it turns out the market was irrational for a very long time.


Artanthos t1_ivgkeu4 wrote

Mostly each other, in a much smaller market with much less competition for resources.

It’s not like they will need laborers for anything beyond status symbols.


ga-co t1_ivfp03r wrote

Revenue that will be taxed in some way that benefits society as a whole and doesn’t just pad the pockets of the ultra wealthy and replace the need for workers? Right? RIGHT???


JefferyTheQuaxly t1_ivggci5 wrote

It is in the interest of the rich to keep regular people maybe not employed but at least occupied/busy/happy. When the working class has a lot of free time and is upset at the system that’s when revolutions happen. And even if the rich have more resources, it’s a lose/lose situation when 90% of the population is rebelling against the top 5-10%. People need to be occupied with work or hobbies or something to keep them from realizing how unfairly their situation truly is.


fattony182 t1_ivgxa1j wrote

Completely agree. But the first jobs to go (and maybe only for a considerable amount of time) to these humanoid robots will be the lowest paid and easiest to replace of course. What if this is 10,20 or 30% of the population out of work?

Then it’s the 70-90~% still employed and maybe with higher wages than currently, vs the losers of this robot replacement. Will that be enough pressure to make meaningful change? That’s my concern, and partial prediction.


ronyclayaa t1_ivi1ip6 wrote

No, just revenue that can be taxed in a way that benefits politicians pockets.


crunchycrispy t1_ivkwfch wrote

i am basically hopeless at this point for US society, but it’s hard not to imagine that even some ardent conservatives will have a big wake up call to the necessity of wealth redistribution at the point when humanoids do all the work.


Tencreed t1_ivf1d5e wrote

People should know better than to trust Musk, especially when it comes to deadlines.


Blackadder_ t1_ivfn3yy wrote

Goldman lent a billion for twitter deal. They’re bleeding in that deal. So its time to shore up Tesla stonk to ensure Twitter investment is safe. Right now twitter is pegged as junk status by market.


94746382926 t1_ivhr39x wrote

How's that saying go? If you owe the bank a million the bank owns you, if you owe them a billion then you own the bank?


Artanthos t1_ivgkve9 wrote

It matters little if it is Musk or someone else.

The technology is progressing.


I_Kauser_I t1_ivfh7ur wrote

The guy is all talk, no follow through


TheCandyManisHere t1_ivft0tx wrote

I mean…he is woefully late and too optimistic about execution more often than not but “no follow through”?

Master plan part 1 is done.

Master plan part 2 is halfway there (autonomy still has a looong way to go despite what Musk says):


I_Kauser_I t1_ivfys3r wrote

Yes. No follow-through


TheCandyManisHere t1_ivg1flj wrote

Damn good point backed up with quality evidence. Never thought about it that way.


I_Kauser_I t1_ivg20mo wrote

Affordable EV commuter vehicles

Affordable EV tractors

Mainstream solar


Mars mission?

Commercialized robotics?

Basically all of Tesla's mini projects.

Tesla would generate 20x the return to shareholders if it split off all of these projects into their own standalone publicly traded companies, while Musk and Tesla bag holders retain equity in the spin-offs. It would also allow for these projects to be under more scrutiny from shareholders with more precise deadlines to reach. As it stands right now, Musk is just using shareholders wealth for his own fantasy projects.


TheCandyManisHere t1_ivg8798 wrote

Sincerely appreciate the response. Your conclusion raises some interesting points. I hadn't thought of interesting proposal but I'm not sure it would actually create more value at this point.

Specific responses to your response below:

> Affordable EV commuter vehicles

This definitely hasn't moved as fast as anyone would have liked. But year-over-year vehicle ASP (average sales price) has decreased significantly year over year. Keep in mind that building a manufacturing juggernaut that an auto manufacturer has to be to scale down costs to build affordable cars is extremely difficult and takes an incredibly long time...especially with COVID supply chain issues. Case-in-point, all vehicle prices have gone up over the past two years...and let's not forget that before Tesla came on the scene, there were virtually no EVs.

Now that Tesla arrived and took the market by storm, you're seeing a lot of great low-cost options from other companies. Not saying that Tesla should take the credit of other companies' hard work but it should be recognized that often times costs come down when competition gets spurred by the OG. Same thing happened in the smartphone market with Apple.

Also, how long did other auto companies take to get to mass manufacturing cheap vehicles with relatively new tech? Guarantee it has been more than 20 years (approx. the same time length that Tesla has been manufacturing cars).

> Affordable EV tractors

Do you mean EV semis? Tesla has never mentioned tractors lol. First batch of EV semis will be delivered to PepsiCo in December.

> Mainstream solar

Tesla, at least in California, by far offers the cheapest rooftop solar installation service at ~$2.25 per watt before incentives. I'd be willing to bet this is the case across the US. Their customer service needs (a lot of) improvement though...

> Neuralink

Not associated with Tesla. But they did just get started.

> Mars mission

Same here.

> Commercialized robotics

This program is...what...1 year old? Pretty impressive how far they've come.

Back to Master plan part 1 and 2 that has been delivered on: Build sports car, build high-end consumer car and scale, build high-end SUV and scale, build premium mass market car and scale, build premium SUV mass market car and scale, scale rooftop solar.

Next up is cybertruck and Semi. If you've been truly following what they're doing you'll know that cybertruck is in production in '23. Super delayed for sure, but still headed towards production. Semi is being delivered in a few weeks.

As for the return to shareholders, given the stock's meteoric rise, I'm not sure what Musk needs to do. Do we know how many "bagholders" there are vs. % of those who held the stock before its rise in 2020?

The only project you listed that's actually considered a side project and not part of Tesla's core mission is the humanoid robots. The rest are considered Musk's separate startups. And if he's right on robots, then it makes sense to leverage Tesla's burgeoning AI chops to build out that technology and commercialize it as this article suggests.


wgp3 t1_ivg7wsh wrote

They have a vehicle that costs the average price of a new car. That was their goal with the model 3 when it released for 35k. Now the average new car price is 48k and a model 3 is 47.5k. The model 3 also sells hundreds of thousands per year and keeps increasing. They achieved their goal of an affordable mass produced car. So they followed through.

By tractor I assume you mean semi truck? Pepsi is taking deliveries in a few weeks. No one said anything about affordable since these are commercial products. So they followed through.

Solar is probably one of teslas least great offerings. But they have been providing solar roofs to people so again they achieved their goal. So they followed through.

Neuralink hasn't promised anything other than to continue to do research so there's nothing to have not followed through with.

Mars mission? Back in 2010 musk said it would take 10 to 20 years before they could send cargo to mars. We still have 7 years to see how that goes. As for spacex, since then here's a list of things they followed through on: reusable rockets, resupply missions to the ISS, carrying humans to the ISS, launch weekly, building falcon heavy (which nasa administrator Bolden called a paper rocket vs their real sls. Yet falcon heavy has been launching for 4 years and sls not once despite starting development first), private customer spaceflight, and they're currently working on that Mars rocket. So yeah I'd say that's a follow through.

Commercialized robotics is a relatively new thing they've started so can't say they haven't followed through yet. It'll take time. Could go like falcon 9 or could be like full self driving (which tesla has not followed through on).

Most of teslas mini projects have been followed through on. Solar? Yep. Battery storage? Yep. Supercharger network? Yep. Full self driving is really the only thing they haven't followed through on and has had enough time to say they haven't done so.

You say tesla would generate 20x to shareholders if they split all these projects yet neuralink and Mars missions aren't part of tesla. The rest of the things make sense to stay under tesla and not be separate entities.


hankbaumbachjr t1_ivfqqsn wrote

If our economy was not so cart before the horse in being set up to funnel wealth to the ownership class, automation would be an amazing step for our species in freeing us from the human labor debt incurred in maintaining a modern society.

Due to our current work-to-eat model of labor, displacement of any of the labor force is bordering on a death sentence for the working class precisely because our efforts in automation are focused on increasing profit margins for those already incredibly wealthy.

Instead, we should be focusing automation on producing and distributing the basic (modern) necessities of running a human society.

Food, water, and electrical production and distribution should be the primary focus of automation, reducing the hours of human labor needed for each to the point that the notion of "paying someone" for electricity becomes moot.

Coupled with automation we will need to focus on de-centralization as well. Power plants will still exist, but we should augment their capabilities on a local level by encouraging all new structures have their own source of power generation via improving solar and wind technologies and tapping in to geothermal energies where avaialble.

Technology throughout human history has always meant increased leisure time for a given civilization until 300 years ago when the current economic system threw away cooperation in favor of competition and abandoned sustainability for increased profit margins next fiscal quarter.


Hvarfa-Bragi t1_ivgknml wrote

Shortish read: Manna goes over two possible futures for automation/post scarcity.


brettins t1_ivj3yl6 wrote

I love Manna!! It gives so much hope for that potential future.


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho t1_ivh2c1m wrote

What "we"? "We" aren't developing robots. Engineers are, they are very well paid, and they have no interest in or motive to help the working class. You talk about your animosity towards the elites, you don't think the feelings are mutual?

>Technology throughout human history has always meant increased leisure time for a given civilization

Thanks for the concern, the people making the robots get plenty of vacation days.


Bramblebrew t1_ivjl8bw wrote

Admittedly I'm still just an engineering student, but I for one absolutely do have an interest in helping the working class. Which makes being most interested in automation engineering slightly uncomfortable, but I've at least got a solid aim at a nieche branch in agricultural resource management.

Hell even one of the most Musk worshipping rich kids in my current class is for the idea of giving everyone ownership of a robot or a few at birth so they can live off of the revenue generated by the robot once they can't find work due to automation. Which certainly sounds strange to me, as it seems like universal basic income with extra steps, but it's a form of caring.

Don't paint the people making the stuff as villains because the people paying us to make the stuff pay us more than they pay others. In fact, I'd argue that doing so is playing into the hands of the wealthiest part of society, because if we see the people working in the "middle" and those working on the factory floor etc as enemies rather than as a group of people being more or less screwed over by the giant ticks drinking all our blood, we'll be at each others throats instead of making joint demands for a liveable future for everyone.

That's nit saying there aren't amoral shits in engineering, of course there are, but we're not the ones in power, at least not usually. I haven't looked all that much into it myself, but from my understanding mr musk even treats the engineers working to bring his fantasy projects to life like absolute shit.

Edit: forgot to finish a sentence, now finished


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho t1_ivogsbg wrote

I'm past that point, and there is a huge difference between engineering class, and actually working in the industry. You picked a good career, and by all accounts, its only getting better with time. You'll find that VCs, investors and big companies aren't enemies. It's a symbiotic relationship where we all get paid very well.


uasoil123 t1_iveu5jo wrote

Damn does that mean humans can start a revolution pretty quickly after these robots are in full affect?


slickhedstrong t1_ivezr9h wrote

the revolution of men versus robots never goes man's way


uasoil123 t1_ivf101i wrote

I dont care about robots actually doing the work...I just want the robots to be used so humans enjoy more time with friends and family.... really capital owners are basically creating the nuse that will be used to end themselves


MilkshakeBoy78 t1_ivfalmi wrote

if i get replaced by a robot, i won't get paid anymore. all the time in the world doesnt mean much when you dont have money to enjoy that time.


uasoil123 t1_ivfbc05 wrote

I agree, this thought I had implies you have enough resources to get your needs met, place to live, stuff to eat, ect.


Tencreed t1_ivfe430 wrote

Or to put a roof above your head and eat.


MikeofLA t1_ivfhrcb wrote

I don't know man, machine intelligence is likely to be very different than ours. They might be able to utilize all of human history but being creative, or unpredictable in a real sense will take a lot longer. And uncreative, predictable enemies are relatively easy to defeat. Also, we're immune to EMPs.


JournaIist t1_ivgjmj6 wrote

Nah, computers learned pretty quickly how to consistently beat humans in a game such as Dota 2, which is more akin to the type of "creativity" you're talking about than say chess. If they can do that, it wouldn't take them long to figure out how to do it in the real world if given a clear objective. Particularly, since they could run thousands of simulations a day just to "learn."

Sure when playing against humans the AI was got once or twice but it wasn't long before it was basically unbeatable.

Also, humans may be "immune" to EMPs but there's a lot of stuff we need that computers don't (i.e. drinkable water and oxygen) and a lot of stuff that we're vulnerable to that computers aren't (poisons, gasses, etc).


Test19s t1_ivf96sv wrote

It should really be working men vs. corrupt leaders that replace them with robots and don’t share natural resources.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfb7pn wrote

Honestly, yes. Politicians on both sides are failing to understand that autonomy is on the horizon and that there’s a very real potential of mass unemployment over the next few decades. I lean conservative but it seems to me that we need to have some sort of universal income, likely paid by a tax on companies that automate their businesses. When people don’t work a combination of financial stress and boredom could quickly lead to civil unrest.


uasoil123 t1_ivfbyez wrote

To allow universal income to become viable, you also need other things like universal healthcare, some type of control on rent/housing prices...basically anything that stops landlords/companies from price gouging tenants/customers ...which they will do as we can see the current economic environment with companies taking the oppertunity to price gouge on gas, groceries, everyday items.


Pbleadhead t1_ivhzpl5 wrote


aka: companies are not price gouging.

your argument is invalid.


uasoil123 t1_ivhzsik wrote

Yeah they are


Pbleadhead t1_ivi3fxi wrote


8.5% > 8.2% (for September (most recent data) year to year)

According to the official government resources, No. They are not.


pb_3 t1_ivf1e2v wrote

Any companies with a good product to gain exposure to?


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfalva wrote

So far Tesla is the only company I’ve seen with a prototype that looks feasible. Boston Dynamics can do some incredible things with robots but they have to program every movement and the videos we see often take many, many shots. Tesla also has a lot of vector mapping knowledge to borrow from the FSD team. A single model that can learn different tasks will be infinitely better than a wide array that needs very specific programming.

There will likely be many other companies attempting this in the near future so it’s tough to say but Tesla has a strong reputation for developing ground breaking technology. Don’t let Elon’s overestimated timelines fool you, Tesla’s AI team is one of the best in the world.


bpknyc t1_ivff5pf wrote

Yeah. Internet rando claims Tesla is the only feasible tech when the said Tesla tech are just bunch of vague claims with no significant substance makes sense

Tesla just laid off 200 Autopilot engineers earlier this year, and shifted another 50 to review Twitter code

Meanwhile, Ford/VW just dissolved their autonomous car venture Argo.AI because they didn't see a viable way to commercialize the tech in the near future.

All the signs point to the simple truth, that autonomous cars are still a long ways away, as well as "AI".


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfhj8r wrote

I completely agree that level 5 autonomy (and even level 4 most likely) are still a long ways off but level 3 is right around the corner. If they geofenced the current FSD Beta to avoid unprotected turns and thin roads, it would be 99% of the way there. The layoffs you’re referencing were actually a very positive sign that Tesla has made major advancements; the majority of those laid off were part of the data labeling team and Tesla was able to implement an autolabeling system that did their job with AI. I am very interested in the impact that moving 50 AP engineers to Twitter is going to have. It seems like an insanely dumb move to me but I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes.

I hope autonomous vehicles are closer than you think! But technology rarely follows a linear path, all we can do is speculate and dream.


Test19s t1_ivfsot8 wrote

How likely is it that L4 either never rolls out within anyone’s lifetimes or is simply impossible to produce with inorganic computer chips?


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfyly4 wrote

That’s a really good question! It’s super hard to predict technology because advancements are rarely linear. We might find that the jump from 3 to 4 is relatively simple or maybe it takes decades of work before we can do it! I personally think that it’s likely to come very quickly, maybe even the next ten years.

Surprisingly, it doesn’t take a supercomputer to drive a car, I think the biggest limitation is not the chips but the sensors. For example, radar provides a good view of the world but stops working in rain or fog. Cameras are great until it hits inclement weather. LiDAR makes perfect 3d maps but it’s performance suffers at night or in cloudy weather.

Most companies are combining multiple sensors to combat their weaknesses but Tesla seems committed to using only cameras. I don’t know if multiple sensors will be required or if Tesla is right in trying to copy the way humans drive. So far, Tesla seems to have a lead but they’ve also spent more time working in this than anyone else. We’ll see if the camera only approach is enough for level 4, I’m a little skeptical.


Test19s t1_ivg2i5k wrote

I’m experiencing some pretty crazy stuff by decade’s end even if we don’t see mass L4 deployment. If radar and LiDAR become cheap enough we could see it even sooner. (I don’t see robotaxis working outside of major cities in certain countries bc a lot of people like their own cars)


Slightlydifficult t1_ivg6jfl wrote

It’s definitely a really cool time to be alive!


Test19s t1_ivgep7e wrote

If it wasn’t for all the other bullshit that came with being the decade that first built Optimus Prime.


bpknyc t1_ivfjcw3 wrote

Tesla can't even have full autonomous cars in a closed loop (Vegas loop) and requires human in the driver seat at all time ready to take over.

You realize that airport shuttles are fully autonomous, and doesn't require operators, right? He'll even Vegas monorail loop is driverless.

If Elon can't figure out 100% autonomous in a closed system when even Disney can put make their new star wars ride 100% autonomous in closed loop, you can know how far even level 3 is from viability.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfkkqa wrote

You would be 100% correct if Tesla was attempting autonomous driving in the traditional way with mapping and specific route planning. But Tesla is not doing that at all, they actually have decreased the vehicles confidence in basic map data over the last few updates because they want the vehicle to process what it sees, not what it expects. This is why when they addressed Chuck Cook’s left turn it vastly improved unprotected turns for everyone, not just that one single instance. For that same reason, a closed loop isn’t a great way to measure the vehicle’s performance because they’re not training it for any specific routes. It makes their progress look much slower but in the end it will be able to adapt to changing road conditions, construction, new roads, etc. without needing to be pre-mapped. That said, I don’t think we’ll be seeing level 5 without different camera placement, I’ll be curious to see if HW4 makes that change.


bpknyc t1_ivfzor8 wrote

Lol you keep slurping up tesla marketing gimmick without any critical thinking.

Have you seen Capchas that ask you to identify motorcycles or traffic lights? Why do you think hundreds of millions of people are being turned into mechanical turks in 2022 for the sake of "account security?".

Capchas can determine if you're a human or a bot by the way a mouse moves within fractions of a second of the pages loading. Been that way since mid 2010s. The reason is because even the latest gen image recognition isn't very good at these things.

Teslas been promising fully autonomous car next year for almost a decade now. Maybe you should try to ask "why would it be different" or at least read the story of the boy who cried wolf


Imaginaryp13 t1_ivg4y2k wrote

Don't forget Agility Robotics, digit just got hands to do more things, by far the best legged humanoid, that's scalable. Only 2 atlas's exist, while tons of digits exist.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivg6rlq wrote

I don’t know of them, I’ll look it up! EVs allowed new companies to enter an old market, I bet robotics will be the same!


Feuerphoenix t1_ivfewhe wrote

Feasible? This robot is so far from being feasible as an Iron bar is from becoming a carframe. We did not see any active interactions on stage, no walking, nothing advanced at all. Boston dynamics is a lot more advanced in that regard. Even the show case videos are heavily edited. Sorry I don‘t see this as being close, and Musk himself is…let‘s say very liberal with self set deadlines. I am willing to wait until the next presentation, but as of right now, what was shown is neither special, nor advanced or intelligent.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfi97j wrote

I have to disagree! The robot we saw was slapped together in less than a year, that’s massive progress already! But the construction of the robot isn’t why I think it’s feasible, it’s the approach.

For a long time we’ve made very specific robots with very specific tasks. They cost a fortune but they do their job well. Tesla is going a different direction and saying “why make a specific robot when we can make a general one?” Optimus wouldn’t even require changes to the factory floor because it’s designed to mimic human movements. They’ll be able to mass produce it, equipment it with software that allows it to visualize its environment, and train it to do a wide array of human tasks.

I do like the comparison of an iron bar to a car frame because it’s a long ways off still but the bones are there and the approach seems right to me. Boston Dynamics knows how to make a robot but they don’t know how to make a robot that understands and interacts with its environment. That is going to be absolutely essential for any sort of mass production of humanoid robots.


BMW_wulfi t1_ivfkekj wrote

When they fix everyone’s (tesla owners) auto wipers, I’ll believe you. Until then, you’re just spouting an unfounded opinion.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivfvtk6 wrote

They are fixed on FSD beta, same as the auto headlights. I imagine you’ll see that roll out when they make everything single stack, I suspect that will be the Christmas update but who knows.


fwubglubbel t1_ivg5wti wrote

You should look up a robot named Baxter.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivg7r4o wrote

I remember Baxter! I haven’t seen anything on that in years, I’ll have to see what that company is up to because Baxter is exactly the same idea as Optimus. I’m curious if they’ve already rolled out to manufacturers. I first remember hearing about Baxter like ten years ago, I’m sure they made plenty of improvements since I last saw it. They would actually have a massive lead time over Tesla, if they have the manufacturing process nailed down and could partner with a group like nvidia for AI, they could likely capture a big portion of that market years before Tesla has anything ready.


alphaxion t1_ivh5fst wrote

The robot they showcased was worse than tech from 15 years ago. Asimo was worlds ahead of what they had people awkwardly and manually walk onto the stage. It looked less advanced than an A100 audio-animatronic found in Disney rides (the model that was running the Wicked Witch in the Great Movie Ride), never mind the latest A1000 model seen here

A generalised robot will be even more expensive than a specialised one, because it is orders of magnitude more complex to do the things you're talking about.

Without putting huge amounts of R&D money into the product and a team of hundreds of engineers, I fully doubt they'll have anything by 2030 that is close to what Boston Dynamics have today.


Slightlydifficult t1_ivhafe7 wrote

Asimo was crazy for it’s time, it’s weird to think how long ago that was. The big difference is that asimo ran on preprogrammed maps while Tesla’s proposed bot will not need them. Asimo had some similar things with object detection but it was nowhere near as advanced as the occupancy network Tesla uses.

Generalized equipment is almost always cheaper to produce at scale. It’s certainly cheaper with a product like Optimus where the main selling point is the software. You don’t need multiple teams focusing on several different product lines. Maintenance is simplified and issues become much easier to identify and fix.

I think you should also consider that Optimus is running off of the same software as Tesla’s vehicles. They’ve already poured excessive amounts of money into R&D. They definitely need to have a crack team of engineers; like you’ve already noted, the actuation needs work. But even still, a functioning prototype put together in less than a year is absolutely wild for this level of robotics.


alphaxion t1_ivhm5md wrote

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions, there. No-one has mass-produced any humanoid robot in decades of developing them.

There's also the major hurdle of how to power them. How long would a humanoid robot last on a charge? Will they be able to accomplish their tasks in the physical space they're looking to be operated within on that charge? Will the environment even be able to support something with the inevitably high weight they'll have?

The world we operate within is immensely complex, complete with people in it who are adversarial rather than compliant. The software for roads is proving a massive stumbling block already and that's semi-controlled. Hell, people have been discovering all sorts of issues with how those systems are sensing the world when they are adversarial to it, such as projecting different speed limits onto signs to trick the AI.
Free roaming in areas with squishy humans that don't have any of the safety features that modern cars have? I worry about our seeing the elderly crushed to death as someone with dementia freaks out in its company for the first time and knocks it over. Or where it cannot react in a quick enough time to the changing landscape of an industrial workplace and results in injury for the people still working there.

You're talking about this robot as if they've already got the solutions to fundamental aspects of both its design and its manufacturing sorted. It's not even a functioning prototype - it can't even walk unassisted. I'd also be extremely wary of claims made by Musk, the man who faked solar roof tiles for a demonstration.

I doubt a generalised (in function, that doesn't mean you can bolt together off the shelf components to manufacture it) humanoid robot will even be on the market by 2030. It's such a massively difficult task to accomplish, it takes humans near enough two decades before we consider them to be adults, and that's with millions of years of evolution behind us.

2050? That might be closer to the real timeframe when we can trust allowing these robots to walk amongst us.


JSagerbomb t1_ivf21yv wrote

That’s not a lot of money if we’re talking about technology. Especially over 15 fucking years lol


unknownpanda121 t1_ivferez wrote

Would be great if you bought your robot to fill your work role and you got paid hourly for the robots use.

All that free time.


_Real_Human_Male_ t1_ivht7f7 wrote

It will be great when our robots fill your work role and we pay you nothing. --Goldman Sachs


Cdn_citizen t1_ivfgplj wrote

I think they meant all robots, who says humanoid is the optimum form for work? Auto assembly plants and amazon warehouse robots do a ton of work better than humans (longer arms, wheels)


Gari_305 OP t1_iver9cg wrote

From the Article

>“The launch of Tesla’s humanoid robot prototype, the “Optimus”, has again sparked debate about the financial opportunities of such innovation. The investment case for humanoid robots is sizable – we estimate that in 10-15 years a market size of at least US$6bn is achievable to fill 4$ of the US manufacturing labor shortage gap by 2030E and 2% of global elderly care demand by 2035,” wrote Goldman Sachs in its report.
>“Should the hurdles of product design, use case, technology, affordability and wide public acceptance be completely overcome, we envision a market of up to US$152bn by 2035E in a blue-sky scenario (close to that of the global EV market and one-third of the global smartphone market as of 2021), which suggests labor shortage issues such as for manufacturing and elderly care can be solved to a large extent.”


Narethii t1_ivfr1oa wrote

This is just straight up non-sense, all of the companies founded personally by Musk have been immeasurable failures. Outside of acquiring Tesla, PayPal and SpaceX, and selling technology that was already invented or was already a couple of years from being marketable most of Musk's insane ideas have been abject failures (the boring company, Tesla autopilot, Hyperloop, etc.), Are in research hell (cybertruck, neurolink), or are impossible to scale without causing a mess of the environment (42k near earth orbit satellites that are needed to make Starlink equivalent to 2015 broadband).

The markets described already have robots designed for them that are already in use, Japan has had nursing home assistant robots that can already assist in patient care for almost 2 decades. Existing Bot nets, programmable robot arms, warehouse autos, Machine vision algorithms that can accurately inspect thousands of parts per second to identify manufacturing defects, etc. are way more detrimental than a clumsy humanoid robot that will in all likelihood require a human pilot to do anything complex.


AtticMuse t1_ivftpdn wrote

>all of the companies founded personally by Musk have been immeasurable failures. Outside of acquiring Tesla, PayPal and SpaceX

Musk founded SpaceX, he did not acquire it.


summerfr33ze t1_iw9xy0n wrote

He also didn't acquire PayPal. His company merged with another company and the newly formed company was named PayPal. Elon's tweets give people plenty of reasons to dislike him but it's interesting to me how fact-free everyone's assertions about the guy are. People will believe anything about someone who doesn't mesh with their worldview.


PlaidBastard t1_ivexdlj wrote

Well, somebody better stop them if they're not supposed to be doing that? Or should I put my glasses on and reread the post title?


skippyspk t1_ivf2bec wrote

Anyone else wondering if Goldman Sachs is being run by an AI right now?


charronia t1_ivfctd8 wrote

It might make billions in revenue, although when we're at the point where most work can be done by humanoid robots, it'll be interesting to see how much meaning there still is in money.


JJ-Rousseau t1_ivflrco wrote

The human body is not efficient for any kind of task, why whould they want to do humanoid robots ?

We have plenty exemple of usefull robots, none look like humans. I can't imagine a single task where an humanoid shape is more efficient than any other ad-hoc shape.


JohnnyOnslaught t1_ivg5wql wrote

> [...] which suggests labor shortage issues such as for manufacturing and elderly care can be solved

Translation: we won't need the peasants anymore.


FuturologyBot t1_ivev8cm wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the Article

>“The launch of Tesla’s humanoid robot prototype, the “Optimus”, has again sparked debate about the financial opportunities of such innovation. The investment case for humanoid robots is sizable – we estimate that in 10-15 years a market size of at least US$6bn is achievable to fill 4$ of the US manufacturing labor shortage gap by 2030E and 2% of global elderly care demand by 2035,” wrote Goldman Sachs in its report.
>“Should the hurdles of product design, use case, technology, affordability and wide public acceptance be completely overcome, we envision a market of up to US$152bn by 2035E in a blue-sky scenario (close to that of the global EV market and one-third of the global smartphone market as of 2021), which suggests labor shortage issues such as for manufacturing and elderly care can be solved to a large extent.”

Please reply to OP's comment here:


General_Josh t1_ivfs4f0 wrote

I think humanoid robots are one of those sci-fi staples that came about primarily because they're:

  1. Cool/evocative to look at (our monkey brains like things that look like us)
  2. Easy to film (slap some tin-foil on an actor and call it a day)

But, in the real world, they're just not very practical. There's not all that many use-cases where a more 'traditional' robot would not be able to do the same thing for a tiny fraction of the cost. Maybe child/elder care? But, why would I ever buy a humanoid robot to sweep my house, when I could get a Roomba for 1/100th the price? They're certainly not going to make economic sense in many (if any) industrial/manufacturing capacities, like this report seems to think.

I'm sure they'll have a niche market, based primarily on that cool factor. I don't think they're going to be a hundred-billion dollar industry.


MasteroChieftan t1_ivfvf5u wrote

I think they're going to be more like Mr. Handy from Fallout. (minus the hover jet). They'll be utilitarian, like a Roomba, but with multiple arms, manageable form factor, and something that can easily navigate the home and perform simple tasks like laundry, dishes, dusting. Imagine always coming home to a perfectly clean house. Can just focus on hobbies and leisure.


Racxie t1_ivgat8j wrote

Even Japan already has robots for elder care and they don't need to be humanoid. If anything Japan is generally far more accepting of robots whereas countries in the West generally find them creepy etc.

And eve when they're not just look at that hitchiking robot that got destroyed by people that didn't like even something simple.


BCRE8TVE t1_ivg35hm wrote

I'm kinda curious how they think the economy is going to work if they put the majority of humans out of a job. Like, if robots make all those billions in revenue for the rich people, how is everyone else supposed to support themselves? How is everyone else supposed to buy food, rent houses, get a TV or a car?


KeaboUltra t1_ivgl87i wrote

you wouldn't. It would possibly be reality in the event non renewables begin running out.

Things like driving may not be as big, especially with energy demand. EVs might be too expensive and people rely on public transport and ridesharing. I could see a universal basic income becoming a thing. If most jobs end up being automated then no one really as to pay for labor. No one would have a reason to work and life would need to change for it to happen. It would defeat the purpose in many peoples lives and possibly further cheapen the human life. Something big's gonna take place this century for sure. because the technology continues to creep into the workforce.


BCRE8TVE t1_ivgy5sn wrote

I could see universal basic income becoming a thing, but there is one problem with that. It means money has to go to the governments to pay the universal basic income, and they'll have to take that money as taxes from corporations making billions using robots.

And why would companies allow that, when they could just siphon that money for the CEOs to become rich instead?

It would be a good thing if there was a UBI due to the use of humanoid robots, but that can only happen if humanoid robots and the profits they generate are seen as a public good, and that's just never going to happen if corporations have any say about it.

Something big is absolutely going to take place this century for sure, not just technology creeping into the workforce and AI becoming smarter, but also because of global climatic catastrophes we'll be facing for the next hundred years. We likely won't be able to keep global warming under 1.5°C.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ivkel31 wrote

Are you forgetting that rich people can’t get rich if there’s no one to buy their products?

What would you prefer: Making 1 Trillion in net profit but giving 900 Billion in taxes to the government.


Making 0 in revenue but get to keep it all to yourself?

Innovation deals with one part of the equation (the cost one) and it also tends to increase demand. But in this case, demand would be 0 and they wouldn’t be able to sell. What does it matter if it costs a company 5 cents to build a car if there’s no people that can buy said car?


BCRE8TVE t1_ivkf5h4 wrote

>What would you prefer: Making 1 Trillion in net profit but giving 900 Billion in taxes to the government.

The problem is, companies will do everything they can to not pay taxes and keep all that profit to themselves.

I completely understand that companies can't get rich if there's no one to buy their products. But see, that's a problem for 10 years from now, and companies could get rich today, so they'll get the robots and worry about the other problems later.

>What does it matter if it costs a company 5 cents to build a car if there’s no people that can buy said car?

That's a problem for the next CEO to worry about after the current one has doubled the profits over 5 years and gotten a massive bonus when they finish their contract.

It's going to collectively drive humanity over a cliff, but businesses are in it to make money, not to prevent humanity from driving itself over a cliff.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_ivkgl8j wrote

I whole-heartedly agree. It’s our job as citizens to change our governmental institutions to better suit the new age.

Will it happen? Probably not. We’ll probably go through chaos before a revolution happens and we start to live in some kind of utopia. Kind of sad, but that’s how humans work.

Except the french. The french are always protesting. Maybe they can save us 🤷‍♂️


BCRE8TVE t1_ivkiele wrote

Hahaha lol you know it's a dark day in history when we think "maybe the French can save us", and I say this as a guy with French grandparents ;)

But yeah I agree, some serious reforms are going to be needed, and they'll be needed about 20 years ago. There are rough times ahead for sure.


ShittyBeatlesFCPres t1_ivg54ps wrote

If I were a multi-billionaire, I’d place a $6.1 billion order for all the robots manufactured one of those years and then just be maddeningly coy about my plans for them. “Oh, I’m just into robots.” Then wait awhile and place a separate mysterious order for a bunch of laser pointers or something. Then, one for 10,000 robot-sized red berets.

It seems expensive for a joke but lightly used robots will probably go for a decent amount on eBay. And if not, I’ll have the coolest mausoleum since the Qin dynasty.


That_Guy_D t1_ivg5cyd wrote

If these robots get genitals then they could make a whole lot more.


Narrow-Extent-3957 t1_ivgbehf wrote

Should pay for all the people made redundant living some kind of life instead of minimum wage slavery…

But I doubt it.


Scope_Dog t1_ivgc5wt wrote

I remember 10 years ago when Meta bought up a dozen of the biggest robotics companies. We all thought the robot revolution was about to happen. They ended up just selling them all or folding them because nobody had a marketable product.


misterzeus_ t1_ivikks9 wrote

This is true but we did not have a labor shortage like we do now.


phobox91 t1_ivgik62 wrote

Ia making art, ia making music, robots taking jobs, robots building robots. If only earth wasnt full of already unemployed, depresse, without future and poor people


TurningTwo t1_ivgkwad wrote

That translates to a lot of people living on the streets.


ShiftlessElement t1_ivgkwm2 wrote

Nobody ever overestimates how quickly new technology becomes commonplace. Will this humanoid robot be delivered by drone or should I send my self-driving car over to pick it up? /s


kujasgoldmine t1_ivgztti wrote

I assume even now you could make a lot of money with robots. Even with ones that can't move, but just sit and listen to your problems and talk back. There's some very smart AIs even now, like that can talk to you even more effectively than a therapist. It even recognizes your voice, so there's no need to type. Only thing that is missing is text-to-speech, but that technology we have already.


cbxsix t1_ivh6l4b wrote

What did GS predict self driving cars would generate for revenue 15 years ago, out of curiosity?


NewsGood t1_ivh84ac wrote

Can we get our self driving cars first before we get ahead of ourselves? Isn't this article a repeat of the same kind market speculation we saw with autonomous vehicles?


CrasseMaximum t1_ivh8i5t wrote

So Goldman Sachs just invested in robotics and wants to be sure this investement will be fruitful. Ok thanks


DamonFields t1_ivhbni7 wrote

Generate that money for whom!? Will the robots be paid for their labor? Or will that money come from what used to be salaries for humans, now going to corporate profits?


Human_Comfortable t1_ivhgh4j wrote

I know and trust Goldman Sachs are working towards a positive harmonious future for us all, not pushing an angle for sales


mordinvan t1_ivhh9bf wrote

Wll we need more automation, but we also need to tax it, to have to provide for the human labor it will displace.


tetsuo-r t1_ivhjvit wrote

Great.... still measuring humanoids by their fiscal contribution to toxic economies

When are we going post-capitalist...? Please?


packsackback t1_ivix3a3 wrote

Sure as fuck this is getting reposted to r/boringdystopia


KelbyGInsall t1_ivjcegh wrote

Which is why we should be paying the people who are replaced by them.


CroutonShepard t1_ivjja9h wrote

That's just the sales of them, eventually they will also be extremely useful and add tons of productivity as well. First generations will be more like toys, but there is no long term obstacle to make humanoid robots that can do household chores and beyond.


Backseat_pooping t1_ivjjgv0 wrote

25-30k robot would pay it self off in its first years of life for a business that replaced workers if used at a rate a human could work. Throw in constant 24 hour tethered work the robot will easily take over some labor markets and completely transform how we view work.


LiberalFartsMajor t1_ivu4a9x wrote

Don't let them fool you. The robots are not being built to replace laborers, they are being built to kill laborers during the next next worker revolution.


Harbinger2001 t1_ivf4bdg wrote

The first company to make a general purpose humanoid robot that’s reasonably intelligent will become a trillionaire. I think we’re still quite a ways off however as there are still lots of engineering and software problems to solve.


squidking78 t1_ivfd5e0 wrote

Imagine cutting and eliminating paying actual people that much & being happy. What do those people do now?

Not happy until we have sex bots


kfractal t1_ivfdyt4 wrote

or they could not. how reliable are GS's previous predictions?


positive_X t1_ivfnuex wrote

I will not get any benefit ;
I do not own any capital .


Narethii t1_ivfp998 wrote

This is 100% fear mongering non-sense the human form is almost entirely a detriment to most of not all manual labour, unless we are making these machines persistence hunters it's better to just make purpose built machines. I mean Baxter has existed for 10 years and it's not replaced robot arms, conveyor belts and machine vision air ejection systems.

Companies don't hire humans because their body is a good shape they hire them because machines are not as good at making general intelligence decisions as a human is. People are already regularly replaced by machines, making them humanoid just makes it easier for people to compete


I_Kauser_I t1_ivga4gq wrote

And why I'm heavily invested in it.

But you won't get that ROI from Tesla....


JaxJaxon t1_ivge7jf wrote

What a miss statement! What things will these robots consume to generate revenue?


JefferyTheQuaxly t1_ivgfte6 wrote

Somewhere on earth Elon musk just got an erection at the thought of more revenue.


InfluenceTrue4121 t1_ivf58fq wrote

So whose jobs are going away so that billionaires can become even richer?


KitchenDepartment t1_ivfb1fg wrote

Whose jobs are going to be available when the population of people in elderly care doubles while the working population decreases?


ZeusTKP t1_ivh963g wrote

Why would a human shape magically be the optimal shape for any kind of a robot other than a sex robot?


mordinvan t1_ivhhfdk wrote

Mostly because we live in a human shaped world. Much of our stuff is designed to be used by human shaped things. For example, try driving a car while being tank shaped.


Fuylo88 t1_ivfmy17 wrote

This isn't true. Industrial robots perhaps, but this is the whim of finance choosing form over function. They aren't even making an educated guess on this one, the product doesn't exist. Hell a proof of concept of a prototype doesn't even exist, Boston Dynamics Atlas is the closest thing out there and it is still not anywhere near getting through the monumental breakthroughs required to scale it.

You may as well say "we're going to be a fully space faring civilization by 2027 and have Mars fully terraformed". It's asinine and just flat out wrong. Frustratingly unrealistic.


randomrealname t1_ivh3mco wrote

I would say in 15 years, not over the next 15 years. Will be a good few years before they leave a Tesla factory. Only when Musk is satisfied he has won the game of Monopoly that is capitalism.


AfghanHokie t1_ivevanq wrote

If it’s a Tesla, it’ll be right around the corner forever. Guess judgement day is still far away.


urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ivf8r06 wrote

Thank god for that unsung hero Sarah Connor delaying it again and again while most sleep suspecting nothing

I don't know how long she'll be able to keep at it thogthough, the latest models are becoming pretty sofisticated


Nogardtist t1_iveur7v wrote

yeah but a human dont have a warranty meaning cheap to replace and cheap to make

meanwhile they spend a lot of money on a robot that cant do anything that a human does and i dont count these robotics assemblers in factories i mean a walking skeleton terminator looking ass that probably can stop working permanently from just getting wet

and to see a real robot in common day life and i mean a real humanoid not these R2D2 on wheels would take about 100 years cause these idiots show you unrealistic expectations just to tryhard and bait investors and never thinking of consequences or long term


Orbital666 t1_ivfsovt wrote

Lol there will be zero humanoid robots in commercial use in the next 15 years, especially if the one pitching them is musk.