THEY SAID ROBOTS WOULD WORK IN FACTORIES. THIS ONE FOUND A DIFFERENT NIGHT SHIFT. 🤖😭
While we debate whether AI will take our jobs, this robot is already learning pole dancing.
Engineers: “We spent years perfecting balance and coordination.”
Robot: “Turn the music up” 😂
CLOCKED IN TO SWEEP LEAVES. ENDED UP IN GTA. 🤖🚔
A little robot is calmly cleaning the street with police lights flashing behind it. Looks like it just robbed a bank but decided to sweep up on the getaway route 😭
Imagine its end-of-shift report:
Leaves cleared.
Route completed.
Reason for pursuit unknown.
We were promised robots would take over boring jobs. This one apparently picked up a side mission too 😂
I’D TRADE ANOTHER ROBOT BACKFLIP FOR A FOLDED PILE OF LAUNDRY.
In this demonstration, Dyna Robotics’ Taku loads washers and dryers, takes out towels, folds them, and puts them on shelves.
The sequence is what interests me most. Folding one towel is only part of the job. Real help begins when someone doesn’t have to stand beside the robot guiding every next step.
For a laundry worker, this could mean less bending, carrying, and repeating the same movements throughout a shift.
This is still a manufacturer’s demonstration. The next test is how reliably Taku can handle an ordinary working day.
I want to see more robots like this. Because after a hard shift, people should still have energy left for their own lives.
ROBOTS ARE ALREADY PLAYING DOUBLES TABLE TENNIS.
The challenge goes beyond hitting the ball: they need to move aside, give their partner room, and prepare for the next shot.
That coordination is what interests me. Similar skills could help robots work alongside people: carrying something together, handing over objects, and coordinating movements in tight spaces.
A game of table tennis doesn’t prove they’re ready for those jobs. But it offers an interesting way to test quick reactions and teamwork.
I want robots that people can feel comfortable working beside, just as they would with a good teammate.
LET ROBOTS TAKE THE HEAVY HITS. 🤖🧱
Demolition means dust, noise, and physical strain. Robots could take on some of that burden.
This clip alone proves little. What matters to me is whether the technology can make the job safer for people.
@Yura_5800 The main thing is to have the algorithm set up correctly, but in my opinion, people are more likely to make mistakes when they're emotional than a robot is.
A ROBOT IS STANDING AT AN INTERSECTION IN THE POURING RAIN.
In Hangzhou, DEEP Robotics is testing its DR02 humanoid: giving traffic signals, reminding drivers and pedestrians about road rules, and answering questions from passersby.
What interests me most is how this could make people’s jobs easier.
Spending hours in the rain beside moving traffic, watching the road and repeating the same warnings, is exhausting work. If a robot can reliably take on some of those duties, officers could give more time and attention to accidents, helping people, and situations that need human judgment.
These are still trials. Its reliability in unpredictable traffic remains to be proven.
But this is the kind of progress I want from robotics: helping someone finish their shift less exhausted and get home safely.
@NEXORAResearch I'd rather see robots like this protecting people than being used against them. Sending a machine into a dangerous situation instead of risking a human life is where this technology could really make a difference.
A STEP FOR A HUMAN. A WHOLE OBSTACLE FOR A ROBOT.
In this video, PNDbotics’ humanoid Adam climbs onto a platform: planting a foot, shifting its weight, and pulling its body up while maintaining balance.
But what interests me is how that ability could help people.
Our world doesn’t have flat floors everywhere. An accident can leave a passage blocked. Industrial equipment can sit on a raised platform. Inspecting a hazardous area may require climbing over an obstacle.
If a robot can reliably navigate those places, it could bring a camera, sensor, or tool closer while a person operates it from a safer distance.
This is still a lab demonstration with a safety tether. Reliability among real debris remains to be proven.
But I like the direction. The value of this movement is the possibility that, one day, a person won’t have to climb into danger themselves.
“That robot is too expensive.”
Is sending a person who might never return somehow cheaper?
In war, even delivering water or evacuating the wounded can cost a life. If a robot can do that work and reduce the danger people face, that needs to be part of the conversation about its price.
Of course, the machine has to be reliable. An impressive video alone isn’t enough to trust it with someone’s rescue.
But to me, spending on equipment that helps people get home alive is justified. A robot can be replaced. The person someone is waiting for at home cannot.