afaik, they also have their own steel making factory and mill. Pretty much vertically integrated. Hyundai is a major threat for Tesla

Another car company making robots. The link can easily been made. Everyone knows that Tesla has ambitions in robotics. Few know Hyundai has been making robots for decades.

> We'll probably see this start to come together in 2026.

Thus far I see no evidence that robot manipulation will come together by 2036, let alone 2026.

I think the big differentiator for this one is the carrying capacity. They list 50kg instant/30kg sustained carrying capacity which is very impressive and I can't think of other humanoids with similar capability off the top of my head.

Could you post some links to the most impressive demo(s)? thanks

> The value it brings to the table is mass-manufacturing expertise.

I don't see how that squares with the ramp-up and QC issues that are well-documented at this point.

I think that you're just off on timing. The previous poster didn't mention the even worse news for Tesla: its sales declined for the second straight year, and it's no longer the leading manufacturer of electric cars. (BYD is.)

> Tech CEOs and their breathless AI hype have demonstrated to everyone how dreadfully effective it is to weaponize anthropomorphization and pareidolia.

Read my paper, It's called "AI Consciousness: The Asymptotic Illusion of Artificial Agency—A Quantum-Topological Proof of Consciousness Non-Computability via Orchestrated Objective Reduction and Penrose-Lucas Arguments" You'll find it on Academia & Zenodo

It pretty much shuts that crap down into fantasy land where it deserves to stay.

Here's the abstract:

This paper challenges the prevailing assumption that computational escalation can bridge the ontological gap between artificial intelligence and genuine consciousness, presenting the "Asymptotic Illusion Thesis": simulation, regardless of fidelity, cannot transmute into phenomenal reality due to a fundamental topological obstruction.

We establish that neural networks operate within Class P (Polynomial) complexity—deterministic, syntactically defined systems—while conscious experience maps to Class NP (Nondeterministic Polynomial) complexity, possessing an interiority that resists algorithmic compression.

This is not a technical limitation but a geometric mismatch: the linear structure of computation fundamentally cannot access the high-dimensional manifold of qualia.

Our analysis demonstrates that organizational closure, not code, defines sentience.

Biological systems exhibit autopoietic constraint-generation in continuous thermodynamic struggle (f(f)=f), creating intrinsic necessity absent in artificial systems governed by programmed teleology.

We invoke Penrose-Lucas arguments and Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory to establish that genuine free will and agency require non-computable quantum processes in neuronal microtubules—a computational capacity Turing Machines cannot replicate.

Recent neuroscientific debunking of "Readiness Potential" signals vindicates top-down veto control as the locus of volition, supporting quantum indeterminacy models of free will.

The hard problem of consciousness—the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience—represents a topological barrier, not an engineering problem.

Current large language models represent "Stochastic Parrots" proficient in syntactic manipulation but devoid of semantic comprehension.

Our conclusion: the consciousness-computation boundary is physical and absolute, necessitating a reorientation of technological development toward preservation of biological consciousness rather than simulated existence.

If that's the case, just scrap the demo. They literally kept the script "let us show you what it looks like".

Disagree, it was a bad move in two different ways. It was anticlimactic emotionaly and it didn’t convey the right message rationaly either.

Anticlimax because the first robot hyped up the entrance of the second robot. It was emotionaly conveying that “hey you think these groovy movements are great? Check out this guy.” But once it become clear that the next guy is just a dumb statue it deflated. How lively the first one was made the second one that much worse in context. A step back.

That is the emotional fail. But perhaps you don’t care about that. Think about what additional message the stage presence of the second robot conveys. The first robot estabilished that they can make a smooth robot. They drove home that the robot is usually autonomous, but in any way it is not pupetted by a guy in a motion tracking suit. The presentation covered how the robots will be used, who will be the first pilot costumer, how will it be introduced and how will it be manufactured. These are all great answers to a concern someone from the audience might have.

But what is the concern to which the second robot is the answer for? Did you doubt even for a second their ability to make the same robot you can already see on the stage but in blue? Because i didn’t. Not before they shown the static demonstration. If they just said “we are working on a production optimised, and streamlined v2” i would have totaly accepted that they can do it.

The only message the second non-working robot communicates is that they are having trouble with their production model. They couldn’t even make it stand in one spot and wave politely! Something is cooked with it and badly. It adds nothing positive to the message of the presentation while introduces the very visible sign that something is wrong.

Now, do I think they won’t be able to solve the problems eventually? Of course not. Heck maybe it will be up and running within days. But why show something which is not working? It is such an unforced error. The first robot could have just done the dance then pointed at the screen and then walked out and nothing would have been less about the whole presentation.

real kicker was

>"We just couldn't pry the actual production samples out of our engineers hands at the lab this week. "

sounds like "Our CEO ordered samples to be shipped but those pesky engineers just wouldnt do it guys!"

>"Um, so we're going to be showing you videos"

Except they didnt even show videos, just some bad CGI aka "We rented this huge ass auditorium to show you our pet. Golden elephant is currently in our basement, he is tired right now so instead look at all those cool drawings my nephew made"!

Maybe folks where still confused by memories of the Australian breakdancer from last summer olympics (?)

What they are stating is:

# Initial robot tai-chis towards the right of the video

# This is a stage act that "cues up" the second robot

# One can expect that this "ta-da" moment will have the presented robot do something

# Instead, the presented robot stands there doing nothing

# We have statues that are hundreds of years old easily accessible. Hence a new statue is not interesting

The second robot is broken. It is not moving. Why show a broken robot? That is what we are on about.

This, and ease of transition. I imagine if you're buying a robot for a factory/complex/rig/jobsite, you would want one that can access anywhere a human can. You can't just rebuild a factory for a couple robots

I don't know why this keeps getting repeated. Honestly I'm taking the exact opposite bet and am going to work on making it as easy as possible to build specialized robots and machines.

People seem to misunderstand how easy it is to build a humanoid robot and how hard it is to program robots in general. Even if you build a humanoid robot that is perfectly general purpose mechanically, you will still need to program it like a computer that just happens to have arms and legs.

Why does Hyundai need "general purpose" bots, do they want to create a robot civilization? They don't need a robot to "do everything", they need robots to efficiently make cars. What do you even mean "do everything? Does it need to take the bus home and make love to its robot wife, walk its robot dog around the block? It doesn't need legs, you have drunk the koolaid, snap out of it. AGI isn't around the corner and your fantasy robot world isn't real.

Just curious about the price of these once the roll of the line. I would pay 150k for it today, not 500k. So I wonder if I will have one next year or not.

And for now; who knows if it can fold laundry, literally the only demos we get is dancing and marial arts, 2 things I could not care less about. I want my house painted in whatever hot weather (painters don't work in the summer here because too hot), laundry picked up, stairs cleaned etc. I don't need a 100k robot doing Korean dances.

But I think this 56 DoF might be more interesting than whatever the consumer product will be, as the consumer products seem to be vastly worse even than the industrial ones and both had 'sketchy' demos of doing very simple tasks (slow, parkinson like, many takes, often with someone controlling it with vr glasses and controller).