←back to thread

223 points codekansas | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.66s | source

Hi HN, I'm Ben, from K-Scale Labs (https://kscale.dev). We're building open-source humanoid robots.

Hardware video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhZi9rtdEKg

Software video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXi3b3xXJFw

Docs: https://docs.kscale.dev

Github: https://github.com/kscalelabs

HN thread from back in May: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44023680

I started K-Scale because I really wanted a humanoid robot to hack on, so I knew that if I built one, I would have at least one customer. It was before the Unitree G1 came out so the cheapest option at the time costed over $50k, but I figured I could build one for about $10k using COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) components, which would be a much better price point for indie hackers and developers.

We built the first version using some 3D printers and parts that I bought off of Amazon and Alibaba. It was not great, but it let us build out the full pipeline, from designing and building the hardware to training control policies in simulation. We actually did most of this in about two months, and had a standing, waving robot by YC Demo Day (although it wasn't good for much else!).

Since then, our focus has been on figuring out how to go from a hobby-grade robot to a consumer-grade robot, without inflating our BOM (Bill of Materials, i.e. cost of all the parts) or having to set up our own factories. This is surprisingly difficult. A lot of the supply chain for robotics components currently goes through China, but tariffs have made it difficult to rely on Chinese suppliers for components. Also, even a $10k price point is pretty expensive for most customers, for a humanoid robot that has fairly limited capabilities.

Our solution to this is to open-source our hardware and software. This makes it easier for us to navigate tariffs and manufacturing challenges. By making our reference design public, our suppliers have a much easier time figuring out how to offer us competitive solutions, and our manufacturing partners are able to more easily adjust our design for their production processes.

On the demand side, the basic problem with humanoid robots is that they're mostly useless right now, and it will probably be a long and fairly capital-intensive journey to make them useful. My expectation was that there is a large pool of latent interest from people like me who are interested in hacking on humanoids, and that this customer segment is a much better customer segment to sell into than more traditional business-focused robotics applications. As someone in this customer segment myself, I felt that open-source software and hardware would be a strong value proposition, particularly for developers exploring bringing humanoids into their own business verticals.

More philosophically, I think it is important that there is a good, open-source humanoid robot. I think the technology is likely to mature much more rapidly than many people currently expect, and the idea of armies of humanoids owned by some single company walking around is pretty dystopian.

Right now, we're selling our base humanoid robot, K-Bot, for $8999. The main reason we're selling it now, instead of waiting to do more R&D, is because we're trying to negotiate volume prices with our own suppliers before we do final DfM (Design for Manufacturing). For example, we are able to negotiate better volume pricing for actuators and end effectors than what the average indie developer would be able to get for low-volume orders.

However, a lot of the people who want to buy a humanoid robot today do so because they want a completely autonomous robot to do all their chores, which is a pretty hard (although exciting) thing to build. To square this circle, we're offering a "Full Autonomy" option - it is the same robot hardware, but we will provide free hardware and software upgrades until we are able to make the robot fully autonomous. This way, we can have some extra cash upfront to kickstart development, and start to build a core group of people who are aligned with helping us improve the robot's capabilities across a diverse set of environments. From our customers' perspective, it's a way to de-risk buying a first-generation product from a young hardware company, and to have a bigger influence on how the technology unfolds.

The best part about building open source software and hardware is getting torn apart by people smarter than us, so we'd love your feedback!

Show context
randomNumber7 ◴[] No.44459616[source]
What ML algorithms do you intend for full autonomy? Multi Modal LLMs for planning that control the robot by generating s.th. like code? Or s.th. that requires more learning from the environment?

When I click "get in touch" on your github I just land on the website where I can buy the robot. Building the hardware for an autonomous robot is orders of magnitudes easier than the control. Do you think anyone with the capability do develop an autonomus robot will buy this and then just give you the code because its open source?

replies(1): >>44459911 #
1. codekansas ◴[] No.44459911[source]
My overall plan is basic joystick control -> VLA with RL -> self-supervised embodied representation -> end-to-end RL -> end-to-end control. I suspect there will be some very good multi modal models coming out in the next few years which we might use as base models, although more likely, we will adapt their techniques to work on data from our own robot.

I agree that the hardware is easier than the software - I am a software guy, personally, but I felt that it was important to do the hardware first so at least we can have a baseline product which we can offer to people. I would personally like to work on this software problem (or rather, build a company to work on this problem), and this seems like the right way to go about funding working on this problem.

replies(1): >>44460069 #
2. randomNumber7 ◴[] No.44460069[source]
I like the K-Sim Gym. Im looking forward to fiddle with it a bit when I have more time. I could see that you get something usefull out of people competing on your leaderboard xD

It's my hot take that the next big ML breakthrough needs s.th. that learns from its own actions in an environment, so this goes in the right direction imo.

On the other hand a lot of big companies struggle with self driving cars even though they predicted to build this years ago. Also probably all big AI companies work on AI for autonomous robots. Where do you intend to do s.th. different to get a shot at competing with them (when they have so much more capital)?

replies(1): >>44460723 #
3. codekansas ◴[] No.44460723[source]
I really do think that building through the open source community is the best way to compete with the big players, even without having a lot of capital. Of course, it doesn't mean we can't execute well, but I do think it's a good way to make a lot of progress without spending a lot of money.