RoboForce CEO and co-founder Rez Soorzay has always been open about his disdain for humanoid robots. In a Twitter post, he proclaimed, “There is a great invention called wheels” —an assertion that serves as more than a mere joke; it underscores his commitment to developing functional and efficient robotic solutions rather than mimicking human form.
Soorzay’s skepticism towards humanoid robots stems from a belief that they overlook fundamental principles of robotics. He argues that these robots move at a slower pace than their wheeled counterparts. He highlights that while humanoid robots may list jobs they can do in a company’s product literature, these robots rarely perform those tasks on this planet (despite being perfect mimickers of humans—they remain cripplingly slow and not tremendously effective).
He states that robots are meant to enhance efficiency, and humanoid robots, with their complicated design and slow movement, do not align with that goal. He stresses that the true innovation in robotics should focus on utility and capability rather than aesthetics. In essence, robots should provide value to the user.
Soorzay’s stance aligns with key principles of robot design that emphasize functionality over form. The use of wheels, in this case, offers a more efficient and reliable means of locomotion compared to the intricate mechanics required for humanoid movement. For instance, consider the mars rovers. Their primary purposes are to explore the surface of Mars, make scientific discoveries, and send the data back to earth. They are controlled from millions of miles away and are working 24/7/365 under extreme conditions. If they wore humanoid bodies, they might look cool, but they simply wouldn’t work.
The emphasis on wheels resurfaces RoboForce’s core competency: developing task-specific robots. These robots are designed for precision in specific operations such as warehouse automation, inventory management, and material handling. There is no need for these machines to have legs or humanoid appearance to accomplish their tasks. Their primary function is to meticulously move objects from point A to point B.
In the end, the objective of leveraging robotics in different applications is to elevate efficiency, accuracy, and productivity. Human-like robots don’t achieve these goals as they struggle to manage complex tasks while moving at slower speeds. They’re more likely to fall apart making them more expensive to run than their non-humanoid counterparts—geologically ineffective and overwhelmingly energy-intensive.
In practical deployment scenarios, a company is far more likely to gain better returns investing in a fleet of wheeled robots rather than humanoid robots. Wheeled robots are more stable, maneuverable, and maintainable—in addition to having faster process speeds.
Soorzay’s views place him in opposition to the growing trend of humanoid robots becoming increasingly popular for consumer-facing roles. For instance, robots such as Hiroshi Ishiguro’s Geminoid and the robot tours at Tokyo’s Palet Summit have engaged with people in a more human-like manner than expected. However, the efficiency of these humanoids—measured by their practical competence in their intended roles—falls short.
Moreover, Soorzay sees aesthetics as misaligned with potential cost/benefits. They present a distinct advantage on stage—serving an audience for brand-impact. However, practical applications where they are is rather costly and inefficient—this shows their incompetence and clear disqualification.
In contrast, Soorzay suspects larger efficiency than wheeled. Soorzay’s views underscore that while humanoid robots may capture attention, they do not serve practical, operational needs as effectively as robots engineered for specific tasks.
What are your thoughts on this? I’d love to hear about your own experiences in the comments below.