1) Unitree robots are largely made by hand.
2) Labor is approximately 8% of cost of manufacturing these robots. Because these costs are not prohibitive, there is little incentive to automate.
3) Labor costs are higher in America.
4) Therefore, American companies have higher incentive to automate.
5) Therefore, the West will capture most of the robotics opportunity.
Arguments 1-4 are reasonable, but 5 is a non-sequitur. Higher incentive to automate does not imply a better ability to automate & scale manufacturing.
I believe Unitree is currently assembling robots by hand for practical reasons:
1) Labor is still relatively cheap.
2) Humanoids and robots are evolving rapidly, changing every few months.
3) Custom assembly lines are expensive, and become obsolete when the product changes. It's difficult to maintain an assembly line when the product is rapidly evolving.
4) Tooling is inadequate. Some robotic parts are delicate, complicated, and difficult to automate manufacturing of. American companies have hit the exact same problem: Tesla is assembling the hand/forearm of Optimus by hand because it hasn't figured out how to automate manufacturing them. https://www.theverge.com/tech/1016492/tesla-optimus-robots-p... . Apparently, Tesla has hundreds of handless Optimus robots just standing around, waiting for hand manufacturing to catch up.
5) Demand is still relatively niche, these are not mass market products. Unitree only sold 5,500 robots last year. There is not enough demand to justify massive automated lines.
The author also ignores the biggest counterpoint: the Chinese have already demonstrated mastery in automated manufacturing, and have proven they can run dark factories (factories without humans) at a better scale than the west.
When humanoid robots become a mass market product (they are not ready today because the software side is majorly lacking), Chinese manufacturers are in an excellent position to rapidly automate.
Motor winding is an amusing problem. Everybody making motors has a powered winder. It's handling the wire ends that can be either manual or automatic. If you look at videos of winders, automating the wire end handling is most of the machinery.
Here's an overview of winding automation:
Full auto, robotic transfer.[1]
Full auto, manual transfer [2].
Semi auto. [3].
Manual, powered. [4]
Manual, unpowered motor overhaul.[5] (Country girl in China who fixes motors and engines.)
Those winding machines are all from the same company, NIDE. You can buy as much automation as you want, depending on your labor costs. Option [4] is cost-effective if you can have one machine tender per machine.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FiCQX0y7-A
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wZvSem4Cd8
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4vqLxMlvk0
Just to extend your point - chinese car manufacturers are not only producing more cars, they're innovating at a faster pace too. While I'm not an expert, there is enough and more on social media around this. Eg: https://x.com/dhh/status/2113500613082329576?a=fscIadYr4U1xm...
The key parts are R&D, design, intellectual property, engineering talent. The question is, how well are Chinese organizations doing in those capacities in regard to robotics. My impression is that the answer is, quite well.
The focus on manufacturing is (in many cases) a twisted approach of economics. In the mid-20th century the West did very well with mass production. It was an innovative technology at the top of the value chain. But in early-to-mid 21st century, it's (often) an old, ~commodity technology and the ROI is poor. It's also physically not good for workers in many cases. When looking for economic growth you want to aim for top of the value change, for the future, not what was done 70 years ago - it won't work the same way economically anymore. In economics, you can't return to what worked before.
“”” America has run this experiment before. In 1964 about half a million Mexican farmworkers were shut out. In 1965, 20% of California's tomatoes were picked by machine; by 1970 the figure was 99.9%.“””
I honestly had not considered closing down (legal) immigration as a forcing function for automation. Industrial policy as immigration law.
But I don’t think I get the rest …
Higher costs onshore mean machines give us an advantage - i get that. The rest I may be missing
The argument is that Unitree's assembly process is currently very manual because there is no incentive to automate, which is because labor cost isn't the bottleneck here, where in the US labor cost are much higher, therefore the US will have incentive to automate more. Those are reasonable so far, until you try to use that as a conclusion that this is why the West will win?
First of all, what does he think the other 92% of the cost of manufacturing is? A small portion of that is materials and electricity, but the biggest part of the remaining cost is assembly tooling/fixtures for the assembly line, and a fully automated assembly line is much, much more expensive compared to a semi-automated or manual production line.
In other words: it's not that Unitree couldn't build fully automated assembly lines if they wanted to, but spending tens of millions of dollars fully automated assembly line that takes up floor space and requires even more labor for manual maintenance for a product that is only being produced by the hundreds to thousands in quantity every month rather than millions simply does not make economic sense to begin with.
Second, why is he assuming that a fully automated assembly line will be cheaper to build in the US than in China, especially since he toured a factory with fully automated assembly lines at BYD in China immediately after? And sure, I would absolutely argue that American software engineering is more efficient than Chinese when looked at as a whole, but the cost of programming an assembly line is a minor portion of the cost compared to actually getting the assembly line fixtures and tooling built.
Third, his cost estimate is way off if he thinks you can get the same product manufactured in the US for only 50% more. From my own anecdotal experience, a more realistic cost for US manufacturing for pretty much anything is minimum 300% to 1000% more expensive if you are to make the in the US, and the lack of a mature parts supply chain in the US is honestly a bigger issue than worker wage.
(I'm not affiliated with the site in any way; I just found it useful and thought I'd share it here.)
You're assuming the US starts using robots to produce the things currently produced manually in the US, rather than using robots to produce the things currently produced manually in China.
Ok, but what drives the cost of the parts? I am sure the parts manufacturers spend on labor, and the parts the part makers buy depend on labor. Labor drives all vast majority of the expense if you go all the way down the supply chain.
If we automate more and more of that labor with robots, then it drives down all the costs.
If we get truly autonomous robots that have the mobility and precision of humans, they could replace all of the labor. The 'switching' cost goes way down compared to the machines that do the work today.
The conference venues have concrete flooring, so I just suddenly hear loud rhythmic thumping as these things stomp around a corner.
After the initial "huh that's a cool robot thing" thought, it really started giving me the heebeejeebees.
Uncanny Valley is an evolutionary advantage, I’ve surmised
Awkward to think about why tho
Probably too many pinch points though.
I’ve really become fascinated by the hypothesis that outlawing slavery supercharged industrialization, and that the global crusade against slavery is why we had this whole technology explosion.
Rome knew about steam power. There’s some tantalizing evidence some ancient cultures played with electricity and maybe even simple forms of electric lights. There’s Greek stories about automatons. But why try to build machines to do real work? Just have a slave do it.
If we’d abolished slavery in ancient Roman times maybe we’d be looking at photos of habitable exoplanets from probes arriving in the Tau Ceti system by now.
Tocqueville wrote a bit about this in Democracy in America. Despite the South having an edge in terms of "free" labor the institution of slavery greatly suffocated human potential to such an extent that the non-Southern states still had higher productivity.
What do you have in mind here? The Dendera light is a carving of a lotus.
"But the demand for robotics is being driven by government agencies and research institutions, rather than everyday consumers, for whom the products are still too expensive and not yet practical for home use. Humanoid robotics and robotic dogs have been popular in the entertainment industry but are yet to be useful in home settings.
Shares in Unitree, China’s leading robot-maker, have halved since they started trading in August."*
Especially when that American company is… Tesla!
West will outbuild china....
also author
> The next day, at BYD, I saw the other end of this: a car plant where everything I saw was automated.
Note there are no fully automated US car plants.
Unitree makes like 5 digit numbers chassis with high iteration, they use people because these are baby numbers where human iteration maximizes productivity, not lack of capability. They do it because they have this gear that west doesn't. Meanwhile PRC indigenizing all tooling to the highest end of precision. They're not going to use western robots for much longer. Indigenous replacement rate is basically J takeoff, even if we completely ignore that ABB/Kuka/fanuc all have massive assembling and R&D footprint in PRC.
Or take Tesla, one of the more competent US builders... ctrl+c, ctrl+v their model to PRC, a few rapid iteration cycles later, PRC plants > western plants (EU/US). Even SpaceX, forget payload/tempo/operational, PRC industry builds like 2-3x more first stages than US space program including SpaceX, i.e. when they figure out reusable they can put up 2-3x size reusable fleet... and that's basically them barely trying. The industrial lesson by now should be whatever West builds, PRC likely end up doing better, faster, cheaper, frequently pick all 3.
This argument generic copium by now - muh western imagination gap can somehow compete with PRC industrial gap... and robots that build robots is slightly more marketable and feasible than gray goo... until you realize one of PRC's core capability is just doing what west did better anyway.
What do you mean by this?
Labouring for the sake of doing labour is stupid. If robots can do it cost effectively, they should.
It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have to do menial labor. But unless you have something to fill the void, it's going to be a bad time for everyone involved.
Western culture ties the value of people to their work. The unemployed are "lazy" (itself a pejorative). The first question you ask someone you meet is "what do you do?" A lawyer is naturally more valuable than a postal clerk. (Despite an obvious example to the contrary. )
A lot of western jobs now are menial, or worse, useless. Lots of office jobs are, frankly, meaningless. Endlessly generating reports that no-one needs, or reads, isn't a path to massive self-worth.
In the US no job means no income. No health care. Your worth as a human approaches zero. In Europe, post war, there are far more social supports for the unemployed. That's a fundamental cultural difference. Asia is also culturally different in ways which are hard for US folk to comprehend.
For example there are 3 major political viewpoints; US capitalism, European socialism, and Chinese communism. Each appears to function well, and yet the US vilifies the others, while barely being able to tell them apart.
So, to return to your hypothesis of what "humans need", it may be less of that and more of "my culture needs". Which is perhaps going to come into play when predicting a post-labor economy in other cultures.
The people will always have something to do. What those somethings are is entirely up to the ruling class.
Ultimately, the whole point of an economy is to direct labour and resources in a way which allows people to have a good standard of living. If most labor can really be automated, then people can just spend more of their time enjoying their lives instead of working. The technology itself is not the problem. The only reason this becomes a crisis under capitalism is because the means of production are privately owned, and the people who own them require the rest of the population to sell their labor in order to live. Automation under private ownership frees people from a paycheck, while the owners keep the gains.
They have some political dilemma: people only accept the government because of economical growth, but they grew to a point where growth naturally slows down.
They have some financial and monetary stuff going on, but those are mostly non-problems. They have a bubble that is bursting too, that makes the other two problems larger.
All said, I wouldn't say they are in a knife edge.
And yes, China is aware of some slowing demand (although their exports are still impressive.) You can see this playing out in a couple ways.
Firstly they dominate production in key "future" technologies. Solar and EVs spring to mind as examples, but there are others.
Secondly they are investing in infrastructure (and goodwill) outside of China. Africa has a billion consumers-in-waiting.
While the US retreats from Africa (killing USAid, indulging racist theories about South Africa, etc), promoting isolationism (America First), activly alienating people via tarrifs, what is China doing?
China is quietly filling the void. They are building roads, ports, airports and other infrastructure. They are improving supply lines (Temu is expanding in Africa at a huge rate.) They are building cultural bridges, learning and teaching two very different cultures to work more easily together. In essence developing future customers, not antagonizing them.
It will be interesting to look back in 10, 20 or 30 years to see which strategy delivers better rewards.
Who here remembers when Japan was gonna take over and the West needed to adapt