Dave Rahardja
I think humanoid robots are attractive to techbros precisely because they allow them to further disrespect people, to make laborers work without rest, to give no consideration to their wellness and aspirations, and yes, to literally fuck them whenever they so desire. In other words, to conjure up a race of servants, mechanical or otherwise.
We already live among robots. But with humanoid robots, techbros want us to live among a race of slaves, only some of whom are mechanical.
/end
Dave Rahardja
Humanoid robots are a great solution when you’re a capitalist: not only do they do the work of a human worker without complaint, they pose an existential threat to the human laborers that remain working for you. Humanoid robots keep your workers threatened and afraid, even more than factory automation already do.
4/
Dave Rahardja
Proponents of humanoid robots often hawk a Utopia in which every poor and middle-class household has a humanoid servant that frees them from tedium. But this sort of relief has been a promise of *every* technology of automation for several generations, and last I checked, workers have not become more wealthy and leisurely at all. In fact, the majority of the fruits of productivity borne by automation has so far accrued to the very wealthy, and very little to the poor. There’s no reason to believe this time it will be different.
5/
Dave Rahardja
While humans are fantastic generalists, we are not very good at any repetitive chore. Human-shaped robots will not only inherit our flexibility, but also our limitations. Our lanky, limbed bodies evolved to satisfy evolutionary pressures that robots aren’t subject to, so why bother making robots that are constrained to the human form, teetering on two tiny feet, doomed to never be very good at any task in particular?
I believe the reason is simple: *because humanoid robots devalue human labor.* By inserting robots into environments meant for humans, you directly displace human labor.
2/
Dave Rahardja
Look, if you want to make a robot that cooks fried rice faster and more cheaply than a human, you wouldn’t make one that looks like a human who manipulates woks and spatulas; you’d make a big box into which you pour ingredients, and invent simplified mechanisms that do the job. But if you want to make a robot that *directly devalues the worth of a human cook*, you’d make one that looks like the human cook. After all, a human cook could plausibly claim that their food has a special touch that the big industrial box cannot replicate; but they can’t make the same claim against a robot that uses the same implements and methods they use to make their products.
3/
Dave Rahardja
We already live among robots; machines that autonomously relieve us of tedious chores have existed for more than a century. We lived among robots when James Watt sold steam engines that milled wheat tirelessly all day. Our cars have lane-keep assist, adaptive cruise control, and automatic headlights. At home, we have washing machines, rice cookers, thermostats, and automatic floor sweepers. In factories, robots make and assemble everything from ramen noodles to automobiles. Robots are already everywhere.
But none of these robots look like *people*; and that’s for a good reason: their shape is dictated by their purpose. They are optimized to do *one or two jobs very well and economically*, and as every generation of robots get better at what they do, their shapes become more optimized for their intended jobs.
So why do a certain class of folks continue to lust after a future of robots that look like humans?
Blog post form: https://www.humancode.us/2024/10/11/robots-should-not-look-like-people.html
1/
Dave Rahardja
@FlashMobOfOne I know it’s difficult to deal with humans sometimes, but hoping for a humanoid servant who obeys your whims leads to a very dark place.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.