I'm starting from the assumption the vast majority of people won't want a robot in their home, even just on principle. Then most people will not need it to do every possible action an human does.
For the remaining people in the target, having adapted/compatible cabinets or furniture is probably less of an issue. If someone requires assistance for instance, they'll probably also don't want hard to access shelves or crazy weird stairs.
The same way people have started choosing furniture that can accommodate a roomba(RIP irobot), we'll adjust our newer homes to whatever makes sense when we get the next wave of home robots.
Except it won't happen, so the amount or people wanted a pretty flawed and compromised yet expensive robot will be pretty low.
The xiaomi-robotics-1 concept is but one that seems very doable and very near term.
Something to get the laundry from each room, wash, dry, fold, put away.
Cut and cook ingredients then do the dishes.
Mow the lawn, water the plants and do basic weeding etc.
Maybe even climb a ladder to empty the gutters / clean windows.
A non-humanoid will never be able to accomplish that without dedicated implements.
That would be cool. But also a little scary if it has an onboard AI which, based on it's embodiment, decides to develop a cat-like personality. Pretty sure if my cat had a better world model and long-horizon planning, it would kill me in my sleep.
I agree from an engineering and cost perspective that matching the embodiment, degrees of freedom and performance to the use case tends to be optimal. But entertainment, fun and inspiration can also be economically valuable use cases - even if less common.
That said, there are use cases which require navigating environments built for humans and the adaptive flexibility to perform unpredictable tasks as a human proxy. And those robots will probably be broadly humanoid shaped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFMJ514lz5w
The ED 209 is still cool, and only outclassed on screen by the T-800. =3
Or just some dude on remote. (Get in the robot, Shinji!)
Based on what? Do you think humans evolved into what we are based purely on aesthetic? Of course it may be suboptimal, but given enough time and ingenuity, so could literally everything be. Not sure that should stop anyone.
Agreed, those were designed by humans (mostly) for humans. I don't think we as a species "adapt to things" so much anymore, and instead we adapt our environment to us.
A modern house is a very different environment to the savannas of Africa.
We built the world for us, not for the most sensible robot.
So for generalized solutions, a good biped will have some advantages.
Reminds me of the engineer who accidentally strangled himself with his contraption:
> He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. He became entangled in the ropes and died of strangulation at the age of 55. However, he is better known for two of his other inventions: the tetraethyl lead (TEL) additive to gasoline, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). - "The Man Who Accidentally Poisoned the Planet Twice": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
"Grunthos was reported to have been "disappointed" by the poem's reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his 12-book epic entitled "My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles" when his own major intestine, in a desperate attempt to save humanity, leapt straight up through his neck and throttled his brain. "
For instance with wheels on the legs (so that the legs are used only for stairs or for stepping over obstacles) and with at least 3 arms. Only 2 arms are frequently insufficient for many tasks, when you do not have a mate to help you.
Given abliterated open models, Stringman is coming for our last remaining job!