- Published on
1X's NEO Launch Splits Tech World, Sparking Heated Debate on Autonomy and ''Selling the Dream''
- Authors
- Name
- Humanoids daily
- @humanoidsdaily
The announcement that 1X's NEO humanoid robot is available for pre-order has captured massive mainstream attention, with the company's launch tweet accumulating tens of millions of views. But the high-profile launch, priced at $20,000, has also ignited a fierce debate, splitting observers into two distinct camps: those who see a transparent, pragmatic step toward autonomy, and those who see a premature "hype reel" for an unfinished product.
The division highlights a fundamental philosophical split in the race to build humanoids, most notably between 1X's data-first approach and the "autonomy-first" doctrine championed by its rival, Figure.
The "Gap" Problem
The most visible critique came from prominent tech YouTuber Marques Brownlee (MKBHD), who brought the debate to a head. In a widely circulated tweet, Brownlee called the launch "a hype reel for a thing that they're hoping to be able to make someday," pointing to a Wall Street Journal demo where "100% of its actions are tele-operated."
So to be clear, this is a preorder for a humanoid home robot that will cost $20,000 or $500/month when it (maybe) ships next year, and currently is not finished. Joanna Stern got to do a demo in its current state, and 100% of its actions are tele-operated
NEO The Home Robot Order Today
In a follow-up video, Brownlee elaborated on his core issue: "the gap between what it's actually capable of today and what they're promising as they take your money today".
He argued that 1X is "selling the dream", a strategy he likened to other AI products like the Humane Pin and Rabbit R1, which promised revolutionary capabilities but delivered a product that was far from finished.
Brownlee's critique centers on 1X's "Expert Mode"—the system that allows human operators to remotely control the robot for tasks it can't yet perform autonomously. This, he argues, effectively turns $20,000 early adopters into beta testers who must accept significant privacy trade-offs, such as remote operators viewing video feeds from inside their homes to gather training data.
This sentiment was echoed, albeit satirically, by the popular YouTube channel Fireship, which characterized NEO as a "cloud connected device that can watch and listen to your family all day" and mocked the teleoperation feature as paying "20K for a robot that occasionally needs tech support from a human wearing a VR headset".
A Defense of Transparency
1X and its supporters have pushed back, arguing that this criticism misses the point. 1X CEO Bernt Børnich responded directly to Brownlee, stating, "Just to clarify, all actions portrayed as AI in the video (text layovers from the AI planner) is 100% autonomous."
Børnich framed the company's strategy as one of transparency, not deception: "We hope to ship a mostly fully autonomous robot in 2026, but chose to not promise anything that does not already works today. Hopefully breaking with the trend."
This aligns with 1X's public communications, which have presented "Expert Mode" as a core feature, not a hidden catch. The company has described its strategy as a "social contract" with early adopters, who knowingly provide real-world data to help the AI learn.
Investor Chris Camillo defended this approach, tweeting, "Skepticism’s fair, but calling the Neo humanoid slow or imperfect misses the point." He praised 1X for its "unedited for hours" press demos, arguing, "That kind of transparency, however the bot performs, is what we in this space have been asking for. It’s still unbelievably early. Celebrate progress, not perfection."
Two Competing Visions
The controversy has drawn a sharp line between two of the industry's leading competitors. As Humanoids Daily noted in a recent tweet, two competing visions emerged: Figure's "no teleoperation" approach versus 1X's human-in-the-loop training model.
Figure CEO Brett Adcock, whose company has staked its reputation on solving "general purpose... intelligence" before commercialization, has been an outspoken critic of teleoperation, previously dismissing it as "soy stuff".
In a pointed reply to Humanoids Daily's tweet, Adcock escalated his critique of 1X's strategy, stating: "Interesting…I didn’t realize it was possible to skip autonomy entirely, stage fake videos with human teleoperators in the next room, and call that a company vision. Sounds much easier!"
Interesting…I didn’t realize it was possible to skip autonomy entirely, stage fake videos with human teleoperators in the next room, and call that a company vision. Sounds much easier!
Adcock's comment solidifies the deep ideological divide. Figure is betting that "true autonomy" is the only path forward, viewing teleoperation as a distraction. 1X is betting that "true autonomy" is impossible without the massive, real-world data flywheel that only a teleoperation-assisted commercial launch can provide—a model MKBHD compared to Tesla's strategy for developing Full Self-Driving.
With pre-orders open, 1X's launch has successfully forced a public referendum on the right way to build a humanoid robot. The question is no longer just if these robots will arrive, but how—and how much "selling the dream" customers are willing to fund.