Are we overestimating the practical application value of humanoid robots while underestimating the difficulty of their technical implementation?

Okay, regarding this question, let's discuss my perspective.

Humanoid Robots: Overhyped Expectations, or Overwhelming Challenges?

This is an excellent question, essentially pinpointing the core dilemma many people currently face regarding humanoid robots. My feeling is that the answer might lie somewhere in the middle. We've likely both overestimated its 'immediate usability' value and underestimated the technical difficulty of making it 'truly useful'.

I. Have We Overestimated the Value of 'Looking Like a Human'?

Many people, upon seeing a humanoid robot, instinctively think, "Wow, that's cool, it can work just like a human!" But if we pause to consider, in many scenarios, 'human-like' isn't necessarily the most efficient form.

Specialized tasks require specialized tools.
- Your home's robot vacuum, shaped like a disc, is far more efficient at cleaning than any humanoid robot.
- Industrial robotic arms on assembly lines, though oddly shaped, achieve screwing and welding speeds and precision that humanoid robots can't hold a candle to.
- In these specific scenarios, we already have cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable automated solutions. Having an expensive, complex humanoid robot do these tasks is a bit like 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' – the cost-effectiveness is simply too low.
'Jack-of-All-Trades' vs. 'Specialized Tools'
- Humanoid robots aim for 'versatility,' hoping to do a bit of everything like humans. But the result might be 'a jack of all trades, master of none'.
- It's like a Swiss Army knife; it has many functions, but if you really need to tighten a stubborn screw, a professional screwdriver will definitely be more effective.

Therefore, from a short-term application value perspective, humanoid robots offer no advantage in structured, clearly defined task environments. The widely anticipated 'robot butler' that can serve tea, clean, and care for the elderly is a beautiful vision, but it's still a long way off.

II. Have We Severely Underestimated the Difficulty of Making Robots Act 'Like Humans'?

Many of our seemingly effortless human actions are supported by incredibly complex 'algorithms' and 'hardware' that have evolved over millions of years. Replicating these capabilities in robots presents an exponential challenge.

'Walking' Alone Is Incredibly Difficult. Walking on two feet seems simple, but your cerebellum, nerves, and muscles are constantly making millisecond-level dynamic balance adjustments. For a robot to mimic this, it requires extremely complex sensors, motors, and control algorithms. When you watch Boston Dynamics' robot videos, they appear to walk very steadily, but that's the result of tens of billions of dollars and decades of research, and they are still a long way from widespread commercialization. Slightly more complex terrain (like gravel paths or stairs) poses enormous challenges for robots.
The 'Hand' Is Another Bottomless Pit. The dexterity of the human hand is a miracle of nature. We can pick up a soft piece of tofu, yet also lift dozens of kilograms; we can thread a needle, yet also swing a sledgehammer. Behind this lies complex haptic feedback and pressure control. For current robots to achieve this, the cost is extremely high, and they are very fragile. Making a robot pick up an egg without crushing it—this 'simple' action—represents the painstaking effort of countless engineers and scientists.
The 'Energy' Problem Is a Major Drawback. Humans can sustain activity for half a day after one meal. What about robots? Current battery technology is a huge bottleneck. A humanoid robot, packed with motors and sensors, has astonishing power consumption. It might very well be 'two hours of charging for five minutes of activity.' How could it then 'screw bolts' for a full 8-hour shift in a factory?
The Hardest Part, In Fact, Is the 'Brain'. Beyond the body, robots also need intelligence. They must be able to understand the world, distinguish between a table and a chair, a human and a pet. They need to comprehend your commands, not just keywords like 'turn on the light,' but natural language like 'please turn on the floor lamp in the living room.' Furthermore, they must be able to make decisions autonomously in complex, unstructured environments while ensuring safety. This challenge in artificial intelligence is far greater than the mechanics themselves.

Conclusion: So, Do Humanoid Robots Have a Future?

After all this, does it mean humanoid robots are useless? Not at all.

My view is: We might have overestimated its commercial value for widespread adoption in the short term (e.g., within three to five years), but we might also have underestimated its long-term, disruptive potential.

The greatest and most unique advantage of humanoid robots is: their ability to seamlessly integrate into a world designed for humans.

Our cities, factories, and homes—all tools, stairs, and doorknobs—are designed for 'human-shaped beings.' Wheeled robots can't climb stairs, and robotic arms can't reach high objects. Humanoid robots, in theory, can directly use all our existing infrastructure without requiring extensive environmental modifications. This is where their true core value lies.

So, current humanoid robots might be like the 'brick' cell phones or early personal computers of the 1980s—big, clunky, expensive, and seemingly not very useful. But they represent the right direction. Technical challenges are being overcome one by one, and costs are continuously decreasing.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. The various cool videos we see now might just be the first milestone in this marathon. The road ahead is long, but it's worth looking forward to.