- Published on
Humanoid Robots: The Solution to Automation's 'Connector Conundrum'?
- Authors
- Name
- Humanoids daily
- @humanoidsdaily
The path to our automated future is rarely a straight line. Today, two compelling articles from the Financial Times have thrown the complex role of humanoid robots into sharp relief, highlighting both deep industry skepticism and, perhaps inadvertently, a clear use-case for their deployment.
An Industry Giant's Skepticism
On one hand, Swiss-Swedish automation powerhouse ABB is signaling caution. Sami Atiya, head of ABB's robotics division, told the FT, "I've yet to meet a customer who wants a robot on legs." This is a significant statement from a company that has been instrumental in automating factories for decades. ABB's vision leans towards evolving their existing lines of mobile, wheeled, and multi-armed "cobots," like the YuMi, questioning whether the considerable engineering challenges of bipedal locomotion offer genuine advantages over more conventional designs for most industrial tasks. Atiya's perspective suggests that while advanced AI, vision, and mobility are key, the ultimate robotic form might not necessarily be human-shaped.
The Human Cost of "Connector" Roles
However, a second FT report, focusing on the psychological toll of working alongside current automation systems, paints a different picture—one that might just be the humanoid's killer app. The article details how human workers in highly automated environments often find themselves relegated to monotonous, repetitive tasks that serve as the "glue" between sophisticated, but disparate, automated systems. These "connector" jobs, as they might be termed, are increasingly linked to mental strain, a diminished sense of purpose, and overall job dissatisfaction. One Amazon worker described their role feeding items to robotic systems as "frankly, damn boring."
Humanoids: A Solution to the "In-Between"?
This is where the humanoid proposition, as articulated by proponents like Agility Robotics, snaps sharply into focus. Melonee Wise, Chief Product Officer at Agility, described their humanoid robots in the first FT article as specifically designed to serve as a "link between 'islands of automation.'" She elaborated, "Humanoids connect all of these very structured... processes that don’t currently have good connectors."
The juxtaposition is striking. The very roles that are proving to be mentally taxing and unfulfilling for human workers are the exact niche that companies like Agility are targeting with their bipedal machines. These "in-between" tasks—moving items from one automated cell to another, navigating spaces designed for humans, bridging gaps in otherwise automated workflows—are precisely what humanoids are being developed to handle.
Expert View: Humanoids as Flexible "Automation on Demand"
Further illustrating this niche, robotics expert and "Humanoid Botangelist" Scott Walter (@GoingBallistic5 on X/Twitter) provides a compelling visual analysis. In a video simulation, Walter explores various material flow scenarios within a factory, comparing conveyors, mobile robots with and without mounted arms, and humanoid robots like Tesla's Optimus.
Walter argues that while humanoids like Optimus are unlikely to replace dedicated solutions like conveyors for high-volume, consistent tasks, or even mobile industrial robots for simple transport, they excel in flexible, "automation on demand" roles. He highlights situations where fixed robotic arms might be underutilized (e.g., only active 40-50% of the time) or where the pickup/drop-off points for mobile robots aren't perfectly aligned, requiring more adaptable manipulation.
"Optimus does give you that flexibility that it can go where you need," Walter explains. "Basically it becomes an automation on demand kind of robot that it goes where it's needed at the particular time." He points out that humans often perform these loading/unloading tasks for mobile robots, and Optimus could be a cost-effective and flexible alternative to either dedicated, underused fixed automation or manual labor, especially for these "in-between" or sporadically needed tasks. This perspective strongly reinforces the idea of humanoids filling the gaps left by more rigid automation systems.
Why don't Humanoids just have wheels? Because we already have wheeled robots called Mobile Industrial Robots (MIR) They fill a niche. Bipedal bots will fill other niches But full general purpose will require bipedalism This 2 year old video helps explain
While ABB's skepticism about a general-purpose, legged robot replacing all other forms of automation is well-founded and reflects deep market experience, the emerging narrative suggests a more specific role for humanoids. They aren't necessarily here to do everything a human does, or even everything another robot can do. Instead, their unique value proposition may lie in tackling the "connector conundrum"—automating the last few yards of manual, often mind-numbing, labor that current automation has created, thereby potentially freeing human workers from some of the most unengaging tasks on the factory or warehouse floor.
The debate, therefore, isn't just about whether robots should have legs. It's about identifying the specific pain points in our evolving industrial landscape and understanding which technological forms are best suited to address them—not just for efficiency, but for the well-being of the human workforce that will continue to work alongside them.