I am personally a bit skeptical of anthropormophic hands achieving similarly high reliability. There's just too many small parts that need to withstand high forces.
[0]https://robotsdoneright.com/Articles/what-are-the-different-...
I had always assumed that such a robot would be very specific (like a cleaning robot) but it does seem like by the time they are ready they will be very generalizable.
I know they would require quite a few sensors and motors, but compared to self-driving cars their liability would be less and they would use far less material.
When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour? As in, to make the actuator, I had to pay someone to assemble it and I had to buy the parts. Each part had a materials cost and a labour cost. So it goes for the factory that made the fasteners, the foundry that made the steel, the mine that extracted the ore.
Shudder to think of how to regulate resource extraction in a future where AI humanoid robots are strip mining and logging for free.
What about energy, real estate and taxes?
Even at the extreme end of automation, if you want iron ore, you need to buy a mine from somebody, pay taxes on it, and power the machines to extract the minerals and transport them elsewhere for processing.
Assume every motor has a 1% failure rate per year.
A boring wheeled roomba has 3 motors. That's a 2.9% failure rate per year, and 8.6% failures over 3 years.
Assume a humanoid robot has 43 motors. That gives you a 35% failure rate per year, and 73% over 3 years. That ain't good.
And not only is the humanoid robot less reliable, it's also 14.3x the price - because it's got 14.3x as many motors in it.
[1] And bearings and encoders and gearboxes and control boards and stuff... but they're largely proportional to the number of motors.
For example, do the motors in hard drives fail anywhere close to 1% a year in the first ~5 years? Backblaze data gives a total drive failure rate around 1% and I imagine most of those are not due to failure of motors.
But the neat thing about my argument is it holds true regardless of the underlying failure rate!
So long as your per-motor annual failure rate is >0, 43x it will be bigger than 3x it.
For example, an industrial robot arm with 6 motors achieves much higher reliability than a consumer roomba with 3 motors. They do this with more metal parts, more precision machining, much more generous design tolerances, and suchlike. Which they can afford by charging 100x as much per unit.
Plus they'll likely be modular and able to be replaced.
IMHO, the bigger design issue for humanistic is lowering the need for mechanical precision which requires lots more metals and instead using adaptive feedback and sensors to obtain accuracy similar to how humans and animals do it. AIs should be really good at that, eventually. I think the compute will need to be about 10x what it is now though.
So even though another robot could probably do the "jimmy up". it seems like overtime, the robots will "drift" into all being a bit different.
Even commercial airlines seem to go through fairly unique repairs from things like collisions with objects, tail strikes etc.
Maybe it's just easier to recycle robots?