Tesla Optimus Bots Were Remotely Operated at Cybercab Event

What does everyone think about 1X's NEO? [0] They began from the idea of compliant robotics,[1] which seems to me to be a requirement for safe operation in proximity to humans.

Did Tesla make attendees sign a hefty liability waiver, since Optimus is not a compliant robot, or did they address the inherent problems some other way?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUrLuUxv9gE (also remote controlled for now, while being trained)

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb6LMPXRdVc

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_robotics

Each robot had several human escorts, and the robots were limited to slow walking and a few slow hand gestures. The only danger would be if one fell over.

1x NEO looks awesome and far more advanced than this version of Optimus. I'm bullish on 1x. Tesla has a manufacturing advantage though. There were 50 units of Optimus at the event and I expect that there are only a few fully working units of NEO made so far. Also, Optimus has been improving quickly. It's possible Tesla could catch up in a few generations.

A few generations of what, pretending their robots work?

Right now, 1X and Tesla use entirely different mechanical architectures, don't they? Do you think that Tesla will end up with compliant robots?

Honestly, I don't know why I bother continuing to engage here. HN community, is this the quality of discourse you want to encourage?

Tesla is getting closer with tendon-based hands in the next generation of Optimus. Who knows where they will end up.

We had people swearing up and down that the Cybertruck would never be released because it was stock fraud. They already seem to be at a run rate of $1.5 billion in revenue per quarter despite launching in a limited fashion because of manufacturing ramp up.

>Each robot had several human escorts, and the robots were limited to slow walking and a few slow hand gestures.

More importantly, the robots were limited to doing no real work. They just feebly pick up objects and place them somewhere else, which I am pretty sure doesn't require AI.

For example, the vid shows the robot pouring hot water into a glass with a massive funnel strapped to it. Why not have the robot fill the kettle, place the teabag itself, etc? It seems like the kind of thing that should be developed before walking and talking and telling jokes.

What if the refrigerator, microwave, etc. could interface directly with the robot. For example, the refrigerator has some type of robotized shelf that is able to bring a rack of orange juice to the front before the robot comes over to grab it? What if the microwave is able to focus the microwave beam on the food to cook it evenly?

It also irks me how the robots are just humanoids. Like for example, why have a head with two eyes. Does it need to wear a helmet? Does it need exactly 2 eyes at exactly human-like placement to achieve stereopsis? Why not have 3 eyes? Did the designers think about the form of the machine at all, or did they just produce robots in the form that is associated with the most hype and thus will bring in the most investor capital? Is this really the ideal form for interfacing with humans? With other robots?

I am just very skeptical of these companies that want to go from zero to doing everything. By the time they accomplish a robot that can do "everything", who is to say that they will even be able to privatize it? The "everything robot" might just be built out of general-purpose components and software at that point. Why not just make a machine that does a limited set of tasks well and then build from there?

Sorry https://blog.comma.ai/a-100x-investment-part-2/ has me coping and seething at the AI space

Elastic tendons seem like a pretty reasonable solution to this problem, but can it be applied to all the joints (like ball-socket, etc.) I wonder?

I think the chassis of the robot should also have compliance, humans certainly do have squishy spines. I mean imagine you're on the street and you have to share sidewalk space with these things. Running into it would hurt.

I haven't really been tracking this, but aren't they selling at a price much greater than they originially announced? I would classify it as "mixed success"

The base model isn't entering production until next year but is quoted by Car and Driver as starting at $62,985. The original price was supposed to be $39,900. However there has been >20% inflation since then, and the base model should be eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit applied as an instant rebate at purchase time, which was not available at the time of announcement.

All that to say: the price actually paid will be $55,485, vs the inflation adjusted original base model price of $48,912 (possibly higher if there is more inflation before the release next year). So yes, the price you'd actually pay has gone up 13% in real terms over the announcement price. But I think the extra 4 years of delay (for the base model vs the announced availability date of 2021) is the bigger issue.

But ultimately all that matters from Tesla's perspective is that they are selling. My understanding is that even the current top end expensive models are selling about as many units as all other electric trucks combined.

The tendons are as inelastic as possible. The compliance comes from direct drive motors with no gearing (or as minimal as possible).

> The original price was supposed to be $39,900. However there has been >20% inflation since then

That price was announced with a significant lead time, so at least 5-6% inflation was built in already.

> and the base model should be eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit applied as an instant rebate at purchase time, which was not available at the time of announcement.

It wasn't available that exact moment, but it existed.

> All that to say: the price actually paid will be $55,485, vs the inflation adjusted original base model price of $48,912 (possibly higher if there is more inflation before the release next year). So yes, the price you'd actually pay has gone up 13% in real terms over the announcement price.

I'd put the inflation-adjusted price at $46k, and not use the $7500 to reduce the difference, making $63k a 36% increase. Or I'd apply the $7500 to both and get 44%.

The $7500 existed only for other manufacturers. It had expired entirely for Tesla. No Tesla model was eligible for any more credits at that time and there was no particular reason to believe that Tesla would ever become eligible again in the future. Also, the credit back then did not directly reduce the price paid at purchase time the way it does today. I think it is fair to apply the credit when comparing to the announced price. Tesla certainly takes the credit into account when they set pricing and buyers account for it when purchasing.

Also it was announced at the end of 2019 for 2021 and the inflation rate in 2019 was 1.8% so there's no way they accounted for 6% inflation. 4% at most.

The discussion you’re looking for is happening over on X. It’s long been dead here.

Whether it'd be a true success remains to be seen, at least in terms of making a profit on total investment. My point was that it certainly wasn't vaporware, even if it didn't sell well.

The rebate had existed before, and the quota renewing at some point between announcement and release was not a crazy idea.

If Tesla's jacking up the price because of that rebate, they get NO credit for it. 63k is what they are charging and what I will judge them on.

And I don't think the exact moment it applies really matters.

As a fan of humanoid robots, humanoid robots only serve the human desire to experience another being in their likeness.

Boston dynamics went back to building arms on wheels.

>It also irks me how the robots are just humanoids. Like for example, why have a head with two eyes.

the risk-averse, cowardly, snivelling product design is really one of the most odious things about the whole Tesla shitshow. they had the opportunity to completely redesign the automobile from scratch, but chose to meekly clone the exact same bog standard sedan design everyone else converged on 50 years ago, clinging to some form response about safety despite the front of a Tesla crumpling like paper in any collision anyway

Though they can't move away too much from the teardrop design, it's one of the most aerodynamic shapes (and why so many production cars look like a decorated teardrop). Still agree they could have been bolder with other parts of the silhouette, it's unimaginative "futurism" coupled with some strange need to be branded Apple-esque.