Objects constructed by robots are ubiquitous. If you’ve used a car, household appliance, or smartphone today, you’ve used an object constructed at least in part by robots. The more products that manufacturers want to produce (and consumers want to consume) at lower costs, the more industrial robots will be needed.
There are over 4 million industrial robots in use worldwide, according to the International Federation of Robotics. And researchers predict that number will grow to over 16 million by 2030, as manufacturing rapidly increases. But what’s going to happen when they start breaking down? A new system designed by researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), in Karlsruhe, Germany, can predict the defect in a broken product and disassemble it while protecting valuable parts from damage. To continue robotic development sustainably, the industry should prepare for the dismantling, recycling, and rebuilding of our robotic systems.
The system consists of a predictive algorithm that guesses how a product is broken, along with robotic manipulators that actually take the broken product apart. At every stage of the process, the system checks to see if the results align with its predictions, and updates its methods if necessary. For example, in the video below, the system begins by unscrewing a broken component. To simulate a stuck screw, the researcher replaces the screw. When the system observes the screw still in place, it switches to milling away material to remove the part.
Building a product with new parts is easy, says Jan Baumgärtner, one of the designers of the system. Each step is clearly outlined, and there are no expected deviations. But taking apart something that’s broken is unpredictable. “We can imagine 100 ways that something can go wrong.” And if you start taking something apart without knowing how it broke, you might have to undo part of your work when you find the problem. For example, if you have to unscrew 100 screws holding two parts together, but the last screw is stuck, you’ll have wasted time unscrewing all those screws when you should have used a different method to remove the part in the first place.
How to Take Apart a Product
KIT’s robotic disassembly system relies on a CAD model of the broken product and of each part, so it can see how the parts should behave and understand if anything is out of the ordinary. It also uses a mathematical model to predict the damage done to a broken part.
When you give the system a broken device and a CAD model, it first guesses how each part of the broken device should move. The axes each part can move along are called degrees of freedom (for example, a screw should rotate, but not move side to side). The disassembler nudges each part to see if it moves as expected. Based on how the part actually moves, it then uses the mathematical model to predict what went wrong with the part: A corroded part might move less than you think it should, a loose screw may move more, and a deformed part might have different degrees of freedom than expected.
At the beginning of disassembly, the system formulates a plan. It guesses what might be wrong with the device it’s taking apart, and then can change its guess based on observing each piece it takes apart. For example, if there was a screw loose in the part, that might be hard to guess from an initial photograph of the broken part. But when the system moves the screw, it will notice that it can move in more ways than a screw should move, and take that loose screw into account when deconstructing the device. You can also tell the disassembly system which parts are most important to salvage intact from a broken device, and it can adjust its strategy to preserve those specific parts.
The Automated Circular Economy
Baumgärtner’s motivation behind the design of the robotic disassembler is to help create a circular economy, where old devices are repaired instead of thrown away, reducing waste. “The big future is saving our planet,” he says.
Baumgärtner envisions scaling up this one system, composed of a few robotic arms, to have many robotic disassembler arms, each with different tools. These arms will specialize in a different part of the disassembly process so that an entire factory could use different robotic limbs to disassemble a wide range of products. Think of an industrial robot factory that creates cars, but instead is specialized to take them apart. Or, as he puts it, “as a giant robot with 100 arms.”
Ultimately, if this system works as intended, it would be a fully automated way of extracting a broken part from a system, replacing it, and rebuilding the device. Then the circular economy would really shine, as people replaced broken parts in old devices instead of buying new ones all the time. “That’s why we need to think about scaling this,” he says. “Because it means it becomes so cheap that it’s cheaper to repair this [electronic device] than to produce it. That’s the goal.”
This research was presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 2026 in Vienna.
This story was updated 11 August 2026 to clarify that the disassembly system works for products in general, not only robots.
For a while there, it seemed as though robotics as a whole was stuck in a mad rush towards building humanoid robots mostly because it was very possible (and very lucrative) to do so, even without near-term goals that were necessarily realistic. Some of the magic of those first couple of years of the humanoid explosion has stuck around, but there’s also been an industry-wide sobering leading to pointed questions about practicality and value. In other words, starting a commercial humanoid company now is a much different proposition than it would have been just a few years ago.
On 15 July, Walden Robotics emerged from stealth with US $300 million in funding at a valuation of $1.1 billion. Walden is a spinout of Toyota Research Institute (TRI), and it’s spent the last 10 or so years working on hard problems in robotics with the goal of transitioning from research to real-world applications. That seems like the amount of time and experience that it might reasonably take to develop a practical and value-driven approach to deploying general-purpose humanoid robots, and Walden has chosen an excellent starting point by skipping the legs.
“It’s ironic,” says Walden cofounder and CEO Russ Tedrake. “I thought about legs for 20 years; that’s the class I teach at MIT. There are many reasons to build a robot with legs. But the question is, what’s the addressable market? And what percentage of it is covered by a wheeled base?” It’s this focused, practical thinking that sets Walden somewhat apart from many (if not most) of the other companies in this space. Rather than developing a robot first and searching for a viable commercial use case second, Walden instead identified applications where robots can provide value now, and designed a robot that could safely and efficiently meet those needs.
Walden Robotics
Walden Robotics’ Manufacturing Focus
Russ Tedrake is the CEO and cofounder of Walden Robotics.Walden Robotics
Tedrake is light on the details about what specific applications Walden is targeting at this point (citing confidentiality with current commercial partners). Manufacturing and logistics environments where there are a lot of relatively simple and repetitive tasks that aren’t friendly to conveyor belts and preprogrammed robot arms are a good bet. Even in these environments, however, robots still have to find a useful niche because they’re going up against human workers who are more flexible while also cheaper to employ. So the question is: How do you make an argument to a customer that a robot is actually a better solution than their existing human workers?
“You need to find applications with high utilization—where the robot is used 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” says Tedrake. “Manufacturing is a global imperative right now, and it makes the economics work.” Economic viability is a necessary condition, but it’s not a sufficient one for Walden, or for their partnership with Toyota. People are a big part of Walden’s plan, too.
One of Walden’s major strengths is the company’s partnership with Toyota, which is not all that surprising given that Walden is a spinout from TRI, which is Toyota’s Silicon Valley–based R&D arm. “Toyota was very proud of the work we had done at TRI, and was ready to go big in this space,” says Tedrake. “Part of the excitement of having Toyota as a partner is that their culture is deeply people-first. When talking to Toyota’s leadership, I was never asked how much money this is going to make, but I was asked how it will improve the quality of life for all people.”
The robot’s chonky design allows it to meet the high-payload requirements of useful manufacturing work.Walden Robotics
In this context, at least in the short term, Walden’s approach to improving the quality of life for people is to take over those aforementioned repetitive manufacturing tasks with robots. Tedrake hopes that this will lead to workplaces where skilled craftspeople are able to do even more with their hard-earned expertise, increasing their efficiency, productivity, and happiness all at the same time—a noble goal, although there’s only so much Walden itself can do to make this happen, and not all customers will share Toyota’s priorities.
Wheeled Humanoid Robots in Factories
Many other humanoidroboticscompanies are also targeting these logistics and manufacturing spaces with general-purpose robots, and they’re doing so by making robots that are as humanlike as possible. The theory is that a humanoid form factor is necessary when operating in human environments. And there are certainly arguments in favor of a humanoid with legs—stairs exist, for one, and legged robots have a smaller footprint compared with ones that have wheels.
But a large wheeled base offers some significant advantages, as Tedrake points out. You’re incentivized to cram the base full of batteries, since more weight near the floor keeps the robot stable, which also solves the problem of running out of power during the middle of the workday. More importantly, a statically stable robot that moves around on a wheeled base can bypass the safety challenges that are currently keeping legged humanoids physically separated from real humans—most prominently, the fact that legged robots can fall over. “Factories already have autonomous mobile [wheeled] robots,” explains Tedrake. “They already have safety cases built around AMRs. You can piggyback on that with a wheeled base.”
Simple, rugged grippers make the robot suitable for commercial deployment.Walden Robotics
Walden’s perspective on manipulation is similar. Many humanoid companies are using five-fingered hands that are highly dexterous but also highly complex, which Tedrake believes is not a pragmatic approach in the context of commercial deployments. “There’s a question of what you need to do the tasks, but the real question is just durability,” Tedrake says. “We have been deployed in a Toyota factory, and at the end of the week, the hands take a beating, so we built hands that can take that. I have not seen a more dexterous hand that could have done the work our hand has done.”
Walden’s long-term plan is to build “general-purpose robots.” It’s not always clear what a general-purpose robot is, because (I would argue) nobody is quite sure what “general purpose” means. It’s certainly not referring to robots that can do everything; I think the closest we can get are robots that can be taught to do a useful number of different skills, which is why I prefer the term “multipurpose.” It’s a little pedantic, I know, but I think the distinction is important because it moderates expectations in the near term.
Part of where Walden’s optimism towards general purposeness comes from is TRI’s earlier research on diffusion policy, which helps robots learn new skills more quickly by leveraging previously learned skills as a foundation. “Fundamentally, multitasking is a way to get to a general-purpose robot,” Tedrake says. “I believe there is a single platform that can do a lot of tasks that are of high value for real customers. That will give us the experience we need to give birth to this deployed general-purpose capability.”
Imagine running your fingertip over the surface of a U.S. penny. You would feel the ridges of the raised letters and numbers, Abe Lincoln’s bearded side profile, and, if it’s tails, the fluted columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Getting a robot to sense the same things is an imposing task, often requiring gathering data on pressure and force at many spatial locations at once. But that’s just what a team of scientists in Europe has now managed to do, using an unusual, colorful robotic skin that provides high-resolution sensing in real time.
“To be honest, when they showed us this, we thought it was, and pardon my French, [expletive] cool, because it’s a distinctly different approach,” recalled Rich Walker, director of Shadow Robot, the U.K.’s longest-running robot company, which primarily focuses on robotic hands.
The research team, which hails from Queen Mary University of London, the University of Florence, the University of Trieste, and the University of Trento, designed a robotic fingertip with a synthetic skin that reflects different colors of light in response to mechanical deformation. By reading the light reflected off the skin, the fingertip generates maps of topology, strain, and contact pressure. The team has already used the sensor to generate maps of a human fingertip, a penny, and a leaf.
Giacomo Sasso, a postdoctoral research associate in the lab of Federico Carpi at Queen Mary University of London, came up with the idea for the sensor. He had been researching optics when he stumbled upon an interesting paper published in the journal Nature. It described the “mechanochromic material” that would eventually make up the reflector in the skin.
Following the method described in Nature, Sasso exposed a light-sensitive film to a 5-megawatt, 635-nanometer (red) laser for seven minutes. The laser beam creates an interference pattern which causes the film to polymerize in alternating densities, creating layers with different refractive indices.
This structure is called a Bragg reflector. The alternating densities and refractive indices in the polymer cause specific wavelengths of light to be reflected. When the reflector is deformed by contact with an object, its layers are stretched, becoming thinner and reflecting light of a different wavelength.
It took Sasso less than a week to re-create the material in the lab. “From there, we started seeing how we could translate these color patterns into something that was useful for us,” he says. Soon, they realized that the color produced by the material was all they needed to be able to sense the topology of objects.
In the robotic finger, the Bragg reflector is sandwiched between a layer of silicone, which protects it from the outside, and a transparent, fingertip-shaped silicone finger with a camera and LED light embedded inside of it.
The light from the LED shines through the clear polymer of the finger. When the fingertip is deformed by an object, the reflector bounces light back to the camera, with wavelengths depending on the level of deformation—red for least deformation, shifting to green, and then to blue when most deformed.
The team also made adjustments to increase the sensitivity of the skin and help the camera to better read color differences. The silicone of the outer layer of the fingertip is colored black to increase the color contrast, allowing the camera to better translate color into the morphology. The rigidity of the camera inside the finger also enhances the deformation of the reflector, producing greater differences in reflected wavelengths.
After all that optimization, the finger provided 100-micrometer resolution with no computational latency, the researchers determined.
What robot fingers need
Human skin takes in a variety of tactile information in order to successfully move and manipulate objects, including temperature, texture, pressure, and vibration. But engineering a robot to do the same is challenging because of spatial constraints. There often isn’t enough room in a robotic fingertip to incorporate more than one type of sensor. The question then becomes: Which type of sensor should be used?
“And the answer to that is…that’s a really hard question. No one knows yet,” says Walker. Carpi’s team’s robotic finger is exciting because it presents yet another option for roboticists to experiment with, Walker says.
Although Carpi’s team isn’t the first to use soft materials for tactile sensing, its technology is unique because it is able to extract quantitative information about depth and size from the topologic maps it generates. According to Walker, most sensors can only generate topological maps, which reveal the relative sizes of object features.
To Sasso, another key advantage of this robotic finger is that it embeds tactile sensing directly into the material of the finger, rather than using taxels, or pixels that measure force or pressure at specific spatial points.
“The core aspect of the sensor is that we’re essentially [moving toward] having the sensing element at the material level,” he says. “The camera, which is a very highly optimized electronic component, is translating whatever the material is already doing directly into digital signals.”
Michael Wang, co-founder and chief scientist at Daimon Robotics, which, unlike Shadow Robot, primarily uses vision-based sensing, echoed Walker’s sentiment that it’s beneficial to explore new methods of sensing, which may bring unique advantages. But he also explained that soft materials often face challenges with durability, and that the significance of the team’s work would be revealed when the finger is integrated into real robot hands.
“The practical and useful benefits, especially in the context of robot hands, remain to be tested and validated,” he says.
When the materials of soft sensors, like the silicone in Carpi’s team’s fingertip, become eroded or damaged after repeated use, the signals measured by the sensors may not reflect objects’ topography as well.
“Especially if you have the electronics embedded into the material layer itself, that becomes a very challenging engineering problem. And I haven’t seen [many] good soft electronics materials that really can undergo long periods of usage,” Wang says.
However, because the Bragg reflector isn’t in direct contact with objects itself, the outer layer of silicone material acts as a protective barrier, Sasso says. The silicone can also be made more durable using certain chemical coatings, according to Wang.
The team has already been talking to companies that could potentially employ the new sensor. They also hope to improve the sensor so that it can sense objects that don’t lie flat on surfaces. That could open up its use in surgical instruments that require precise contact mapping of tissues and organs, Carpi says.
“There are significant developments that we expect with a clear path toward transition to real world applications,” he says.
There are many words that I would never, ever use to describe a drone. Stealthy. Subtle. Whatever the opposite of obnoxious is. Much of this is because of the giant angry bee sound that drones tend to make, but it’s also the way that they look in flight: With uncannily linear movements and an even less canny ability to hover perfectly still, they tend to draw the eye as affronts to nature.
In a paper presented this week at Robotics Science and Systems 2026 in Sydney, roboticists from Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., demonstrated a drone called Phantom Twist that is essentially invisible to humans, being an order of magnitude more difficult to see in flight than a typical quadrotor. They accomplished this with the aid of computational design, and while the resulting hardware is, I would argue, also an order of magnitude more of an affront to nature than a typical quadrotor represents, it’s pretty amazing how well it works.
Phantom Twist spins so fast, it’s practically invisible.Michael Rubenstein/Northwestern University
The trick here is easy to see, even if the drone isn’t. By spinning in flight at between 15 and 25 hertz, Phantom Twist takes advantage of humans’ decidedly mediocre visual system to turn a solid spinning object into an opaque smear. Human eyes take some amount of time (typically about 100 milliseconds) to integrate what we see before sending the full scene off to our brains for processing. Moving objects can cause problems for this system, because if the movement is fast enough, our eyes are forced to average that motion across the scene, combining it with whatever is in the background and resulting in a transparent blur. This effect is called persistence of vision. For something that spins like Phantom Twist, that motion blur comes from the drone’s rapid rotation, and it works because most of the drone is cleverly designed to be empty space.
Drones that spin in flight are nothing new—we’ve covered a bunch of them in the past, including Picolissimo and any number of samaradrones inspired by the spinning flight of maple seeds. What makes Phantom Twist unique, and also very odd, is that the design was computationally optimized for low visibility.
Controlling how drones like this fly
Before we get into that, though, a quick note about how drones like this can even fly controllably, because it’s not at all obvious. With just a single motor and no control surfaces, the only possible control input is through the motor itself, and by pulsing the motor speed up or down at just the right time during each rotation, the drone can translate in any direction. Altitude control comes from changing overall motor thrust, and the drone‘s spinning nature makes it passively stable.
Carbon fiber rods connect batteries, a controller, some counterweights, and a motor and propeller. The research robot also includes optical tracking tags.Michael Rubenstein/Northwestern University
The bits that you need for this kind of drone include the motor and propeller, a couple of batteries, a controller, some counterweights (which could be replaced with more batteries or payload), 0.8-mm carbon fiber rods to tie it all together, and a connector for the handheld launcher that gets the whole thing up to speed. The actual arrangement of these components is surprisingly flexible, and that’s where the invisibility comes in.
“The design space is high dimensional,” explains Northwestern’s Michael Rubenstein. “It’s very difficult for a human to reason through all the trade-offs between the physical constraints required for stable flight and the visual appearance of the spinning drone, and I don’t think we would have easily arrived at this low-visibility design ourselves.”
The visibility (or not) of Phantom Twist is primarily driven by the extent to which different components line up with each other from the perspective of someone looking at the drone. The more components that line up with each other as the drone flies, the less background you see through the spinning drone, and the more visible the drone becomes. Because you might be looking at the drone from a number of different angles, and also because the drone has to be stable enough for controlled flight, there are a bunch of different things that need to be optimized all at once, which is why computational design is effective here.
Phantom Twist’s final design was generated using an iterative optimizer which had a goal of minimizing a metric called learned perceptual image patch similarity, or LPIPS, while making sure that the design could still physically work. LPIPS is the difference between two images: a background image, and a background image with an overlay of the simulated spinning drone. The smaller that difference is, the more invisible that design is. It’s tricky for a human to consider all of the variables at once, but Rubenstein says that the final design does make intuitive sense, because “the automated pipeline prefers placements where components don’t visually overlap as it spins, or where the components are too close to the center of rotation.”
Two iterations of Phantom Twist drones are shown with their handheld launching mechanisms. The better-optimized version [bottom row] relocates the launcher interface to remove components that are too close to the central axis, making them more visible.Michael Rubenstein/Northwestern University
Out of a starting set of around 20,000 feasible Phantom Twist configurations, the optimized design (the one that you see or don’t see in the pictures and videos) has a LPIPS score of 0.0104. A human-designed Phantom Twist is about twice as visible, with a LPIPS score of around 0.2, and a conventional quadrotor (of the same size) would be over 10 times more visible. And there’s still a bit more optimization that could be done with the electrical wiring as well as increasing the baseline transparency of the components themselves.
Phantom Twist is currently controlled using an optical tracking system, which means that it’s not yet capable of flying outside of a controlled environment. But Rubenstein has built other drones along similar principles in the past, which have successfully flown outside, and he’s optimistic about using those techniques to break Phantom Twist out of the lab. The spinning behavior might even enable some useful sensing capabilities, he says. “An interesting possibility is mounting a camera on the spinning body. As the vehicle rotates, it could capture imagery in every direction, effectively creating a 360-degree view of its surroundings that could be used for onboard navigation and control.”
As for what a drone like Phantom Twist could be used for—assuming that the sound can be mitigated somewhat (and there are potential approaches to making that happen), a stealthy microdrone could do all sorts of things with covert surveillance being the most obvious application. For his part, Rubenstein says that he’s personally excited about the potential for watching wildlife, “where a less-intrusive drone could observe animals while minimizing its impact on their natural behavior.” The elephants in particular would certainly appreciate that.
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.
For the first time, two full teams of humanoid robots played an 11-vs-11 soccer match on hardware, bringing one of robotics’ most ambitious long-term visions closer to reality. Never before have two full-sized humanoid robot teams played a soccer game against each other.
Engineers at MIT and EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, have designed a robot that can swim underwater and flap out of the water to continue flying through the air, much like a diving bird. The robot can help scientists study the mechanics that enable these actions in aquatic aviators and may help launch a new class of aerial-aquatic drones and vehicles.
We’re excited to announce our breakthrough robotic hands for the NEO platform: hands that match or exceed human-level dexterity, strength, safety, and reliability. Designed from the ground up, these 25-DoF hands combine 25 fully actuated degrees of freedom with a tendon-driven system, rich tactile sensing, and built-in compliance. The result is a hand capable of true in-hand manipulation, precision tool use, and delicate interaction.
Atlas arrived pitchside at NYNJ Stadium in front of 80,000 people gathered to see Brazil vs. Norway. After performing some of the sport’s most memorable player celebrations, Atlas helped kick off the second half by delivering the match ball!
Navigating discrete terrain such as stepping stones remains a major challenge for legged robots. Conventional approaches often rely on dense environment reconstruction from cameras or lidar, which can be affected by latency, occlusions, and significant computational overhead. We show that proximity sensors integrated into the bottom of a quadruped’s feet enable safe, terrain-seeking autonomous locomotion.
On this holiday, Digit is on grill duty. It turns out precise force control is good for more than payload handling. Happy 4th of July from all of us at Agility.
We’ve created GEN-1, our latest milestone in scaling robot learning. We believe it to be the first general-purpose AI model that crosses a new performance threshold: mastery of simple physical tasks. It improves average success rates to 99 percent on tasks where previous models achieve 64 percent, completes tasks roughly 3x faster than state-of-the-art, and requires only one hour of robot data for each of these results. GEN-1 unlocks commercial viability across a broad range of applications—and while it cannot solve all tasks today, it is a significant step toward our mission of creating generalist intelligence for the physical world.
Reachy Mini is becoming your real AI companion. The Conversation App makes it able to talk fluently with you, help you with your to-do list, remind you of important tasks, and even chat about music. Long-term memory, voice interaction, always ready to help.
This is very delicate work, although the real challenge would be picking those nuts out of a jumbled bin full of randomly sized nuts, which is how most of us live our lives.
In this presentation, Brendan Schulman, vice president of policy at Boston Dynamics, outlines the critical role of government engagement in driving the success of the humanoid robotics industry. He demonstrates how legged robots like the Spot quadruped and Atlas humanoid are moving beyond factory settings to deliver real-world value in infrastructure inspection, industrial manufacturing, and public safety. Schulman highlights the intersection of AI and robotics, showcasing how large behavioral models and reinforcement learning enable robots to navigate slippery floors and autonomously avoid workplace hazards. Ultimately, he calls for a proactive national robotics strategy focused on workforce training, safety standards, and ethical frameworks to support supply chain resilience and global competitiveness.
Toshio Fukuda has been blazing trails for most of his career. He is considered to be one of the most prolific scholars in robotics, writing more than 2,000 research papers and authoring several books on the field. He’s an influential figure thanks to his pioneering work developing biomedical robotic systems, industrial robots, micro-nano robotics, mechatronics, and AI-driven automation.
Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology, in Alexandria
Title
Professor and vice president of research
Member grade
Life Fellow
Alma maters
Waseda University, in Tokyo; University of Tokyo
An IEEE Life Fellow, he is a professor emeritus in the department of micro-nano systems engineering and a visiting professor at Nagoya University, in Japan, where he taught for nearly 25 years. Currently, he is a vice president of research at the Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology, in Alexandria, Egypt.
Within IEEE, Fukuda has held top volunteer positions including the organization’s highest office: He served as IEEE president in 2020, becoming the first person of Asian descent to hold the role.
He’s a former program director of Japan’s Moonshot program, which by 2050 intends to develop advanced AI robots.
IEEE honored him with this year’s Richard M. Emberson Award for “distinguished service advancing the technical objectives of IEEE, especially in the area of robotics.” The IEEE Board-level award is sponsored by the IEEE Technical Activities Board. Fukuda received the award on 24 April at a ceremony in New York City.
As a former IEEE president who has served as a master of ceremonies at several of the organization’s major award events, Fukuda noted that he is more accustomed to bestowing awards than receiving them.
“It’s very interesting to be on the receiving end,” he says.
The journey into robotics research
As a teenager, Fukuda spent his summer breaks teaching himself how to build things including transistor radios and steam engines.
“It was very nice to have a hands-on hobby and make these kinds of things myself,” he says. His experimentation led him to study engineering.
He earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering in 1971 from Waseda University, in Tokyo. He says one of his professors there—Ichiro Kato, regarded as the father of Japanese robotics research—was a good mentor who made a positive impact.
Fukuda’s research interests were robotics and mechatronics, a field that combines robotics, electronics, computer science, and control systems.
He went on to earn a master’s degree and a doctorate in science from the University of Tokyo, in 1971 and 1977. During those years, he also attended Yale, where he conducted research on advanced control theory in 1973.
He reflects fondly on his time at Yale: “It was a very nice environment and a kind of free-thinking atmosphere. It motivated me to study more.”
“IEEE doesn’t care who you are, what you do, what country you are from, or whether you are male or female. IEEE accepts people who have energy and passion.”
While at Yale, Fukuda served as an assistant to his advisor—which led him to consider a career in academia, he says, because he enjoyed the freedom that research work afforded him.
But he realized that such freedom comes with a price. University researchers are expected to raise the money that funds their work. He compares researchers to small-business owners who have to bring in money to keep their enterprise afloat.
That realization led him to select robotics as his field because he intended to develop technologies useful to industry, he says.
“There was a lot of research going on at the lab, including practical robotics and theory,” he says.
He left Japan in 1979 to become a visiting research fellow at the University of Stuttgart, in Germany. During his year there, he studied systems, software problems, and related topics.
He returned to Japan and was hired as an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the Tokyo University of Science. He conducted research into practical uses for robots by visiting industrial plants. He decided to develop robots that inspect industrial equipment such as those used in assembly plants, oil refineries, and power stations—places that “can be hostile environments for humans,” he says.
His work drew interest from chemical, oil, and utility companies.
“I got a lot of money from them for this very practical application, which funded my research,” he says, laughing.
Developing popular robotic systems
Fukuda grew tired of making those robots, he says, so he switched to creating ones for scientific applications. He developed many techniques, but he probably is best known for his modular, cellular robotic systems (CEBOTs), which he introduced in 1985.
The CEBOT system is composed of a number of autonomous robotic cells that stick together like interlocking Lego plastic bricks, he says.
Each cell is a fundamental modular unit that has a function. When a simple task is given, the system can analyze it and generate the structure of the cellular manipulator. The cells connect to and detach from each other through connection mechanisms and cooperate mutually, creating complex structures and configurations.
“You start developing from the component-wise to the cell-wise to a small functional unit—and then you come up with clusters that make bigger systems. We can make a society of robot beings like that,” he explained in his oral history published on the Engineering and Technology History Wiki. “It’s a distributed robotic system, a self-organized robotic system, and also an evolutionary robotic system.
“It’s also a fault-tolerant robot system because if something is wrong, you just remove those things and make a new one. You keep the system working. That’s a great thing.”
Today CEBOTs are used for a variety of tasks such as delivering medication in hospitals, assisting with planting crops, and transporting products in distribution centers. Check out IEEE Spectrum’s Robots Guide for news from the world of robotics.
In 1989 Fukuda joined Nagoya University as a professor of mechanical engineering and micro-nano systems engineering. During his 24-year career there, he was director of the university’s Center for Micro-Nano Mechatronics. He developed a long list of technologies at the university, including many for medical applications. He also conducted groundbreaking research into intelligent robotic systems and micro- and nano-robotics.
Another technology he is known for is brachiation robots, which he helped develop in 1988. He calls them monkey robots because they’re based on the pendulum-like movement of monkeys swinging from tree to tree. The gravity-based locomotion enables continuous movement.
Brachiation robots now are inspecting high-voltage transmission towers and bridges, searching damaged buildings for survivors, and performing maintenance on pipelines and cables.
Fukuda retired from the university in 2013 and was named professor emeritus.
He didn’t stay retired for long, though. He next held a teaching appointment at Meijo University, in Nagoya, until he left in 2022 to join the Egypt-Japan University.
A prominent volunteer
He joined IEEE in 1980 at the encouragement of one of his research advisors, Professor Fumio Harashima, now an IEEE Life Fellow. After attending conferences and reading the organization’s publications, Fukuda says, he looked forward to becoming more involved.
“I wanted to know how to organize a conference and how to edit a paper for one of its Transactions,” he says. “I wanted to know what was going on from inside the organization, not just the outside.”
In 1988 he was the founding chair and organizer of IROS, in Tokyo. The conference had 330 attendees that year, and was supported by Harashima. Today it is one of the largest and most prestigious conferences on the topic, attracting more than 9,000 people annually. Out of 120,000 conferences, it was the only conference in the Nature Index database for this year, Fukuda says.
He was the founding president of the IEEE Nanotechnology Council, which was established in 2002. He is considered a pioneer in nanotechnology research, particularly regarding how it relates to robotics.
Over the years, he has held numerous volunteer positions on IEEE editorial boards and committees.
He was director of IEEE Division X (2001–2002 and 2017–2018), which covers intelligent systems, biological engineering, robotics, control systems, and photonic technologies. He served as the 2013–2014 director of IEEE Region 10 (Asia-Pacific).
As the 2020 IEEE president, Fukuda saw the organization through the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of travel restrictions, he realized IEEE should change how it offered its in-person services, specifically educational programs. He encouraged IEEE Educational Activities to develop an online learning platform. The IEEE Learning Network started with just three courses and now offers nearly 2,000 courses, webinars, and learning materials.
He says he feels strongly that IEEE should be a diverse organization that is welcoming to all. As IEEE president, he led efforts to devise a diversity, equity, and inclusion program. Several policies, procedures, and bylaws were revised to give members a safe, inclusive place for discourse.
“It’s important for IEEE to make everyone feel comfortable,” he says. “DEI programs are important. All people should be equal. IEEE doesn’t care who you are, what you do, what country you are from, or whether you are male or female. IEEE accepts people who have energy and passion.
“It accepted me, from the Far East. That’s why I like it.”
“In the future, the relationship between humans and robots will deepen, and the distinction between them will probably disappear.” This prediction, from one of the attendees at the recent Humanoids Summit in Tokyo, might have been unremarkable had it not come directly from an android that was first introduced to the world 20 years ago.
Geminoid HI-6 is the sixth-generation of a robot originally designed in 2006. The mechanical twin of Osaka University professor Hiroshi Ishiguro, Geminoid HI-6 is now equipped with a large language model trained on Ishiguro’s own writings and interviews. It has advanced conversational skills and can even have a chat with its creator, an eerie spectacle. But at the Humanoids Summit, Geminoid was one of the few humanoid robots from Japan, the country that pioneered the form factor.
While the event in Tokyo had only about 40 robots on display, Chinese systems outnumbered Japanese by roughly three to one. Some Japanese robotics firms were even using Chinese robots in their own technology demonstrations, something that would have been unthinkable in the recent past—one Japanese engineer described the situation as “sad.” The conference was a stark reminder of how Japan has ceded its early lead in humanoid robot development to overseas competitors, and the challenge it now faces to secure a place in an ecosystem increasingly dominated by general-purpose robots powered by AI.
Twenty-five years ago, Japan was turning out groundbreaking humanoids that were showstopping in their abilities, but they were not commercialized as practical machines in any meaningful way. Heavily influenced by science fiction and lacking practical applications, they were mostly expensive technology demonstrations that were eventually mothballed. What Japan retains, however, is robotics design and know-how, which it must leverage to be a key player in the rapidly evolving humanoid ecosystem.
“You cannot sell these bipedal systems in Japan for safety and compliance reasons,” says Shuichi Nagao, a frequent visitor to China as CTO of Omakase Robotics, a division of Zeals, a Japanese humanoid robot developer. Omakase was exhibiting a G1 modified with an external PC controller, a dextrous hand, a suction-cup manipulator and a sensor “hat” with an extra speaker, mic, and camera.
“In China, the government is pushing humanoid development. They didn’t have an industry 20 years ago. The people pushing it are young, in their 20s and 30s. It’s a really different mentality out there,” says Nagao. “Big players in Japan are still looking for use cases for humanoids. In China, they’re already doing mass production and reducing the cost, so other countries can’t compete with them anymore.”
Another Japanese company showing off G1 bots was summit sponsor GMO AI & Robotics, a subsidiary of Japanese internet company GMO. It’s using the robots in partnership with Japan Airlines to load and unload cargo containers at Tokyo’s Haneda airport. The cargo project is a trial—like many other humanoid experiments—but the fact that Chinese machines have penetrated so far into Japan’s ecosystem upends a long history.
In 1973, scientists at Waseda University in Tokyo built WABOT-1, considered the first full-scale humanoid robot, which was capable of slow bipedal locomotion, grasping objects, and simple communication. It inspired Honda’s groundbreaking Asimo humanoid, but Asimo was never commercialized. It was eventually retired in 2022, the year ChatGPT was released. Two years later, Unitree’s G1 went on sale for US $16,000.
China’s High Torque Technology Co. showed off its Mini Pi biped, customized with an anime-inspired head, at Humanoids Summit in Tokyo. The regular version is priced at $3,500. Tim Hornyak
Supply and Demand
Japan’s development of humanoids happened before practical applications or widespread demand were in place, but bad timing is only part of the story—Japan also has a history of developing technologies that might appeal to domestic consumers but not necessarily those overseas. For example, decades after its highly engineered multifunction toilets first appeared, they have only recently found a following abroad.
Japan’s humanoid prowess was partly built on the back of its legendary industrial automation, yet even that stronghold has eroded. Ani Kelkar, a partner from McKinsey & Company in Boston who produces analytical reports about the robotics industry, told the summit audience that while Japan occupied the top spot in the world in manufacturing robot density (the number of multipurpose industrial robots in operation per 10,000 employees) from at least 1994 to 2009, it then slipped to second in 2014, third in 2019, and fifth in 2024. In that year, South Korea was at the top of the leaderboard with a robot density of 1,220 compared to Japan’s 446.
The International Federation of Robotics estimates China now has the most operational industrial robots in the world, with around 2 million total units, approximately 4.5 times more than Japan. “The annual installation numbers are impressive too: 54 percent of all robots installed worldwide in 2024 were deployed in China,” the IFR said in a release in April 2026.
“I think the loss of Japanese leadership is more to do with the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse including for sectors that Japan had high export levels,” Kelkar said in an email interview. “The recovery has not yet happened as Japan “missed” the rapid acceleration in AI for robotics and is now playing catch-up.”
How Japan Can Adapt
Kelkar believes Japan has a $100 billion opportunity in general-purpose robotics, which are machines that can perform a wide variety of tasks, and it cannot rely on the slower-growing industrial robot market, which is centered on factory machines that do one simple and predictable task like welding car parts. He points to a McKinsey white paper suggesting that while Japan has much of the hardware and technology experience needed to support general-purpose robot development, it must change its strategy to capture a larger share in AI, software, data collection, and robotics platforms.
Tetsuya Ogata is a professor of engineering and director of the Institute for AI and Robotics at Waseda University, the birthplace of humanoids in Japan. He briefed the summit on how a nonprofit he chairs, the AI Robot Association (AIRoA), is working with Toyota and other members to develop foundational technologies for collaborative use.
For instance, AIRoA has collected some 80,000 hours of data on remote operation of mobile manipulators, which Ogata believes is the largest dataset of its kind. Using the data, it built and verified vision-language-action (VLA) models, and it has also started data collection for dual-arm mobile manipulation. In an interview, Ogata acknowledged Japan’s struggle to find its place in the changing landscape.
“The world of AI is inherently a game of scale,” says Ogata. “Therefore, Japan’s absolute prerequisite is to secure a competitive baseline of scale—in data, computing resources, and talent. Beyond that, what I consider most critical is a mind-set shift: Rather than trying to hoard scale within a single nation or company, we must grow stronger by collaborating with a diverse ecosystem of domestic and international players.”
Specifically, this means creating a “collaborative domain” to address data—the single biggest bottleneck—through industry-wide cooperation rather than data siloing. By collectively nurturing a precompetitive, shared data infrastructure and foundation model, individual companies can then compete on top of it with their own applications. “By offering this open ‘data ecosystem’ to the world, we can engage global players and establish a ‘third pole’ alongside the U.S. and China,” says Ogata. “I believe this is how Japan can reclaim its global presence.”
In 1999, Japan introduced the world’s first mobile internet services platform. But being first didn’t turn Japan into a smartphone manufacturing or design center—it’s now merely a supplier of parts to other countries that are leading the smartphone industry. If Japan can avoid a repeat of that experience and successfully deregulate, diversity, and commercialize its original humanoid dreams, it stands a better chance of influencing the direction of the industry and reaping billions in value. As automobiles and electronics were pillars of Japan’s industrial strategy in the last century, Japan could make humanoid robots one of its key value generators in the 21st century, an approach that would not only deliver economic benefits but give Japan greater clout in how the industry will evolve. Just like Japanese cars, electronics, and even toilets, Japanese humanoids could stand for craftsmanship and reliability. It’s a legacy that Japan can’t afford to give up.
This article appears in the September 2026 print issue as “Japan Seeks a Humanoid Robot Comeback.”
In 2018, Amazon brought me in as the lead UX Sound Designer for Astro, its first consumer home robot. Astro used cameras and other sensors to map and navigate your home and workplace, and could proactively patrol, check up on loved ones, and transport small items using its built-in cargo bin. While there was a well-defined feature set and form factor, initially there was no character direction. In fact, even before Astro had a name, there were two main questions—was it simply Alexa on wheels, or was it a robot with its own character?
The Astro team was divided. One option was to focus on Alexa, and treat the mobile robot simply as an added utility. Along with the majority of the UX team, I argued for Astro to not focus on Alexa. Our belief was that a thing that moves through your home and turns toward you with intent can never be just an appliance. People would ascribe character to it whether we wanted them to or not, and so the only question was whether we shaped that character or let it happen by accident.
Ultimately, Astro became Astro rather than Alexa, and user testing backed up our decision. People didn’t see the robot as Alexa. They saw it as its own character, and that’s what they wanted it to be. Alexa on the device felt somewhat strange and creepy, but building Astro its own voice was too slow and expensive in 2018. So, we settled on Alexa as a supporting character that handled any actual talking, while Astro was the main character, communicating as much as it could without words, through sound, motion, and facial expressions.
I had been brought on to the Astro team to define the robot’s sound design language and voice. But there was no one to flesh out the robot’s actual character. You cannot make a single real decision about a character without defining it first. Every choice about how Astro moved, sounded, paused, or reacted was a character choice, and those choices required all disciplines working together. As sound lead, I was weaving together sound, motion, and character, and how they played together inside each story moment. The animators, who programmed Astro’s motion and facial expressions, were extraordinary at what they did, but the emotional arc they were animating came from the sound (and therefore character) work first. So I stepped into that role, which is where my real work started. What I learned about building character for robots applies to nearly everything being built in embodied AI right now.
Character Is a Design System
Developing a character for Astro meant answering questions that had never been asked about a product at Amazon: What is the emotional range of this robot’s baseline state? How does this robot communicate uncertainty without eroding trust? Where is the line between being expressive and annoying? What are the vulnerabilities of this device’s character?
These are design questions. They have real answers, and every team working on the product has to build from them. For example, Astro’s emotional range was designed to be relatively small at first. We never wanted Astro to get too sad or too angry. It could play sad, but would snap out of it quickly and end the reaction on a high note to keep things positive.
Character leaks out of every seam and can create a disjointed experience if not defined correctly. Even if it’s just animation timing that’s slightly off, or a response that’s technically correct but contextually tone-deaf, users feel every one of these inconsistencies, even if they can’t name them. Watch what happens at the beginning and end of this Sing sequence:
Astro goes from nothing, into the emotional moment, and then lands back on nothing. No buildup, no cooldown, no sense that the feeling came from somewhere or had anywhere to go. I pushed hard for better character stitching, the transitions in and out of expressive moments that make a performance feel continuous rather than assembled, but it never got implemented. The moment itself works. But without the stitching, it reads as a clip playing on a robot rather than coming from within the robot character itself.
Story and Sound at the Beginning
We had decided that Astro would have no spoken dialogue, but it had something that functioned the same way: a vocabulary of sounds, tones, and rhythms that acted as its voice. This vocabulary became the leading output of the character’s personality. The robot’s motion and facial expressions were built around it.
Astro’s wake-up sequence is a great example. Waking wasn’t just a boot animation on the screen; it was an entire performance. Slow and humble at first, the robot oriented itself quietly, then stretched its screen, checked its wheels, and finally, with an upward gesture toward its telescoping mast, it popped it up slightly, and did a little dance of joy. Sound, motion, and eyes hit every beattogether in full choreography.
The character’s output in that sequence was first written as a story. Astro is waking up in its new home for the first time. Its main aspiration is to be part of a family, so this is the moment it has been waiting for, this is its purpose. Being the responsible character that it is, it wants to make sure everything is good to go before it introduces itself and starts learning its new home.
This narrative came first because it drove every other decision that we made. After the story was written, sound gave that story a metaphorical voice: the excited tones, the pacing as it checked its wheels, and the bright melodic phrase as Astro looked up at its new family for the first time and introduced itself. Once the sound was laid down, the animation team did their thing with motion and facial expressions, taking cues from the emotional arc the sound had established. Motion didn’t lead—it followed the feeling of the story and the sounds, the same way an animator follows a recorded vocal take.
That wake-up sequence became one of the most-discussed moments in early user testing. People described it as “alive.” What they were responding to wasn’t any single element. It was all three channels (sound, motion, and facial expressions) expressing the same defined character in harmony.
Context Is Where Character Becomes Real
The most compelling characters are defined not by a fixed disposition but by how they respond to their environments and the people in them. They’re still recognizably themselves even as they adapt. This is what I call contextual character. A robot living in a home doesn’t occupy a single emotional state. It moves through rooms with different energy, encounters people in different moods, operates at different times of day, and responds to an endless range of social situations it was never explicitly designed for.
We got close to a contextual character output with Astro’s sound. When a specific piece of environmental context was fed in, the system adapted beautifully, and Astro felt completely alive. But every state like this was still a prediction we made by hand—a situation we had to imagine in advance and design a response for. A random home throws more situations at a robot than anyone can possibly predict, so there was always a longer tail of moments the system was never prepared for.
The difference between a product people describe as “smart” and one they describe as “aware” often comes down to this. Smartness is capability. Awareness is context. Presence is character. And character is always in reaction to the people around it, to its environment, to its own evolving state. That’s what makes it feel like something is emotionally present with you.
This is where AI changes the game for character design in ways that go well beyond what was possible with Astro. AI-driven adaptation doesn’t require the contextual predictions that we relied on. It learns the specific rhythms, preferences, and emotional context of the people it lives and works with. The character doesn’t just respond to context. It grows into it.
What Industry Is Missing
The character and soul of the impending wave of embodied AI products appears to almost always be an afterthought. And character defined late is character defined by default. It becomes the sum of a thousand small decisions made by different people thinking about anything but character. People project character onto devices whether you plan for it or not, especially if those devices move—a robot that moves is already a character. If nobody has designed this character, the result will be products that feel like nothing, or worse, feel confusing and not trustworthy. Technically impressive, but lifeless.
We did not get this fully right with Astro. So many things were moving in parallel that character was rarely treated as a utility, and it made sense why. When you are building a first-of-its-kind product, the things that are the loudest are the ones that break, the deadlines, the costs, the features a customer can point to on a box. Character is quieter than all of that. It’s easy to assume it can come later. On a team as large as the Amazon Astro team, it’s lucky to get any idea onto the road map when it is competing with a hundred others that all feel more urgent in the moment. None of this came from people not caring. It came from character being the kind of thing that is hard to prioritize until you see what its absence costs you.
My Asks to Product Leaders
If you are building a product that will share physical or conversational space with people, three things are worth considering:
Define character before you define interactions. You need a defensible character with enough emotional logic to answer hard questions consistently. Find answers to character questions early, and have every discipline build from the same foundation.
Build story and sound into the character pipeline, not the production pipeline. Story and sound developed alongside character definition has the chance to inform motion, expression, and interaction logic. This requires a different kind of collaboration, and a different kind of hire.
Design for adaptation, not just consistency. A consistent character is necessary, but the products that will matter most in people’s lives are the ones that deepen through use. The infrastructure to support that is more and more accessible, but the design thinking to take advantage of it is still rare.
An expanded version of this story is available on Medium.
How did Honor do it? Is there some magical technology or technique that unlocked this performance? How did the company beat the significantly better-known Unitree (which reportedly had to supply its robot with an ice backpack to try and complete the race without overheating)? My doctoral thesis involved building and controlling hopping and running robots, and since then I’ve tried to design and build efficient commercial legged robots, giving me a decent idea of the constraints involved. In this article, we take a look at the fundamental underlying constraints to try and answer these questions.
The Physics of Running
Running consists of alternating phases of a leg pushing against the ground (“stance phase”) and the body flying through the air (“aerial phase”). In the aerial phase, the body falls due to gravity, losing vertical momentum. The leg in stance phase pushes against the ground to redirect the vertical momentum upward, while the other leg swings forward to reposition for the next foothold.
Electric motors use energy to produce torque—the higher the torque, the more energy is lost as heat. Adding a gear train after the motor amplifies its torque and reduces its speed. A large reduction helps with torque production, but since the rotor of the motor itself has to spin faster, it becomes very sluggish at accelerating its output. This is obviously bad for the swing phase described above. These competing effects mean that for a particular motor, there is usually a sweet spot for the gear ratio:
The power consumed by a robot leg is minimized at an optimal gear ratio (30:1 in this example).Avik De/Datawrapper
How Honor Did It
While the Lightning’s motor specifications are not published, the hip and knee motors roughly have a 110-to-150-millimeter outer diameter. For an approximate set of motor parameters, I looked to the ILM115x25 motor due to its relevant size and detailed specifications.
We can use a simple physics model to estimate the power consumption for running at 7 meters per second (the Lightning’s average half-marathon speed) as gear ratio varies:
The light blue curve shows how to pick the optimal gearing (45:1). The dark blue curve shows how much heat will be produced in the knee motor, ~150W for the optimal gearing.Avik De/Datawrapper
We see that the drivetrain is not magical: with a gear ratio chosen for this task (we’ll return to this below), the approximate robot power consumption would be a very reasonable 400 watts.
However, the dissipated knee power ( typically the main thermal limiting factor) is approximately 150 W. This is almost an unavoidable consequence—running at human speeds with a humanoid-size robot will inevitably generate this amount of heat! Over a prolonged period, keeping the motor from overheating would be a challenge, but the Lightning has a trick up its sleeve:
According to Honor, the liquid-cooling pipes penetrate deep into the motors like capillaries. The high-power liquid pump has a heat-exchange flow rate of more than 4 liters per minute. Each of the four drive motors in the lower limbs is equipped with an independent liquid-cooling circuit.
Liquid cooling is not new, but it’s definitely not a commodity. It has shown up in research periodically, and on the commercial side Apptronik tried it for a few of its prototypes but (to my knowledge) does not use it on its main Apollo platform. Basic air-convection-based cooling would not continuously be able to extract 150 W out of the knee motor, and so the cooling technology is a key enabler of this type of performance.
We can use the same model to generate an equivalent energetics plot for walking at 1.5 m/s, a much more modest but potentially more common activity for a commercial humanoid robot:
The solid and dashed light blue lines show a running-optimized design, while green lines show a walking-optimized design. The optimal ratio for walking is much lower (30:1 vs. 45:1). However, the power dissipated in the knee motor while running [dark blue] is much higher at 30:1 vs. 45:1—the price to pay for running with a walking-optimized design.Avik De/Datawrapper
The plot adds a new green curve for the walking power, and the optimal gearing is significantly different!
Let’s say you design your robot to excel at the normal walking task and choose the green design with 30:1 gearing. The knee motor power to run a half marathon is over 300 W (red arrow), more than two times what we had with the running-optimized design. It wouldn’t be so surprising to need ice packs!
Conversely, visually following the green curve shows that the running-optimized robot wastes more power for walking. Using larger motors sized for running increases the weight of the robot and wastes power when it is standing or walking. The larger motors also pose practical issues like bumping into objects while operating in homes or factories.
Closing Thoughts
Honor’s half-marathon performance was an impressive engineering effort and result. It didn’t need any magical leaps in technology, but the deployment of the capillary motor cooling solution is a notable advance without which this running pace would have been unsustainable. The cooling, weight optimization, and robustness advances may well be useful for more practical purposes like carrying heavy payloads down the line.
The Honor Lighting robot [right] has much larger motors driving its legs than the Unitree H1 robot, making it a more efficient runner but a less efficient walker.Left: Wei Zhiyang/Zhejiang Daily Press Group/VCG/Getty Images; Right: VCG/Getty Images
However, the Lightning is not as well-suited to other tasks as a robot designed for greater versatility. Engineering is always characterized by trade-offs, and making the correct ones separates good products from great ones. With consistently improving AI language models, this very human skill is becoming the most valuable one an engineer can have.
The news coverage seemed to overly focus on the fact that the human half-marathon record had been broken by a robot. Machines and humans have very different capabilities and constraints, so why should we ever have expected the half-marathon time for a robot and human to be related? As in Deep Blue’s 1997 defeat of Garry Kasparov in chess, where it couldn’t physically move the pieces, the Honor robot’s capabilities are much narrower than a human running elbow to elbow with other runners while visually navigating the course without GPS. Comparing the robot runner to a human runner is just an apples-to-oranges comparison, which only risks diminishing Honor’s engineering achievement on one hand and human athletic achievement on the other.
As robots advance in terms of dexterity and other physical capabilities, it becomes more likely that humans may find themselves working alongside them. If that happens, how will robots’ emotional capabilities need to advance for them to successfully work with people?
In a recent study, researchers trained collaborative robots to read human emotions by not only accounting for facial expressions, but also contextual factors in the interactions as well. Through experiments with 40 volunteers, the researchers then evaluated how a robot’s ability to read human emotions and adjust its behavior in turn impacted a human’s perception of the robot and its capabilities as the two collaborated on tasks. The results—which show that the emotional capabilities of robots only go so far with humans—were published 18 May inIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.
Seung Chan Hong led the study as part of his undergraduate thesis while studying at Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia. He notes that, while there has been a lot of hype in the advancing physical abilities of robots, this is only one piece of the puzzle. “We need to also innovate when it comes to them actually interacting with humans, not just their physical capabilities,” he says.
This prompted him to dig deeper into the emotional aspects of human-robot interactions. First, Hong and his co-authors decided to train a robot to read human emotions using a vision language model (VLM), which is similar to large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, but which can also take visual inputs.
Training VLMs for Human Emotion Recognition
To evaluate their VLM, which used Gemini 2.5, the researchers had volunteers watch videos of robots handing over objects to humans—with varying degrees of success—and describe the emotions the humans were expressing. Importantly, the volunteers labeling these videos were able to take into account more context in these interactions, rather than reporting solely on the facial expressions of the humans in the video. For example, a person pausing to think with a furrowed brow may simply be concentrating on their task at hand and not necessarily be angry. Contextual factors such as drumming their fingers, pursing their lips, or other behaviors can point to the real cause of a person’s furrowed brow.
The researchers then compared their VLM to a conventional AI system that relies on standard facial analysis and object tracking that is used in human-robot interactions. They found that the VLM outperformed the traditional approach. On a scale from 0 (no similarity in meaning to the emotion identified by the human volunteers) to 1 (a perfect match in meaning), the conventional AI system achieved a score of 0.77. In comparison, the VLM achieved a score of 0.86.
Hong says, “I think [the VLM] was able to align with what human observers were seeing a lot better, because it wasn’t just looking at the person’s face for a brief amount of time, but seeing the whole scene—where the person was and what they were doing, and how they were interacting with the robot.”
In a second experiment, the research team asked 40 volunteers to interact with a robot using their VLM—but purposefully programmed the robot to make an error. The robot then had to offer either an emotionally adaptive apology that accounted for the human’s perceived response to the mistake or a pre-scripted spoken apology.
Participants overwhelmingly preferred the emotionally adaptive response, with 31 out of 40 people favoring this approach over a boilerplate apology.
However, their survey responses underscored how this emotional adaptivity was far less important than the robot’s functionality. After collaborating with a robot that failed in its task, many participants ranked their trust in the robot as lower, regardless of how it apologized for its mistake. “A personalized apology acts as a social lubricant, but it cannot repair the trust lost by the robot failing its physical task,” Hong says.
Interestingly, the VLM classified the emotions of its human partners similarly to human volunteers who observed an interaction from a third-party perspective. But when the VLM’s assessments were measured against humans’ self-reported emotions during the second experiment—the most accurate descriptions of their true emotions—its ability to accurately predict emotions dropped significantly.
“While the VLM is a good observer of outward social cues, it isn’t a mind reader,” Hong says. “It matched third-person human observers well, but it didn’t always align with the users‘ internal, self-reported feelings.”
Together, these results show that robots are not perfect at reading human emotions. So while people might appreciate their efforts, they still ultimately will want competent co-workers.
This story was updated on 15 June 2026 to correct where the research was conducted and clarify that the researchers evaluated the performance of a pre-trained model.
An examination of how socially assistive wellness robots could support the seven dimensions of senior wellness, and how a framework can measure their autonomy.
What Attendees will Learn
Why the senior care crisis exceeds incremental automation. Demographic pressure, workforce shortages, and a daily wellness-programming gap all strain traditional care models.
What defines a wellness robot as a category. The seven ICAA wellness dimensions and eight properties separate these robots from companion and medical devices.
How autonomy can be measured with CRAS. This six-level scale, modeled on the SAEJ3016 driving standard, evaluates four care dimensions.
What maps the road to full autonomy. The paper examines technical capabilities, clinical evidence, and a three-phase roadmap toward the early 2030s.
When a group of academics started making open-source robotics hardware, a generation of roboticists got years of their lives back. Now, the bigger challenge is getting robots to think—and that’s starting to be open sourced too.
The shift is still early, but companies including Hugging Face, Nvidia, and Alibaba have all made significant bets on open-source robotics in the last two years, releasing tools and models aimed at the higher-level work of getting robots to reason, decide, and act.
The open source movement that accelerated other AI applications is now being applied to the problem of making robots smarter. If these attempts to bring AI to robotics with open-source platforms succeed, the barrier to building a capable robot could fall as fast as the barrier to building an AI application did.
The world ROS built
Open-source robotics software has been around since the mid-1990s, with early projects like Carnegie Mellon University’s Inter-Process Communication package and the Player Project in the early 2000s laying the groundwork. But these were often tied to specific research groups, and the field remained fragmented.
The Robot Operating System, ROS, changed that when it made its debut in 2007. By bundling tools and attracting more users, it became the de facto standard. The story of open-source robotics, in many ways, starts there.
Despite its name, ROS is not actually an operating system. Rather, it is a software framework that sits on top of Linux and handles robotic fundamentals like moving data between components, talking to hardware, building maps, planning paths, and supporting developer tools, such as data logging and visualization. Before ROS, every robotics team wrote that infrastructure themselves. It often took a year or two before a lab could get to the research it actually cared about.
Brian Gerkey, who helped build ROS in the mid-2000s, says he was drawn to the project because of how much open source had already changed the world, pointing out that nearly the entire internet is built on it.
“I’m a tool builder, and I like to share everything as openly as I possibly can, because I think that’s where we get the most impact out of what we build,” says Gerkey, board chair of Open Robotics and now CTO at Intrinsic, a robotics and AI unit of Google.
As it was developing, the AI community largely took the same approach, sharing research, models, and data openly, and the field accelerated faster than almost anyone predicted. Now some of those same advancements are arriving in robotics.
Open-source AI for robotics
Computer vision, once a hard problem, has advanced dramatically in just a few years, says Spencer Huang, Nvidia’s director of product for robotics. What once required significant expertise can now be done in a few lines of code. Simulation tools have become accurate enough to be useful for training, and access to the tooling that once required a specialized lab is now widely available, much of it open source.
“To get into robotics, you no longer need a Ph.D.,” he says. The result is a much larger pool of people who can contribute, and the field is starting to look less like a specialized discipline and more like a platform that anyone can build on.
Nvidia has built out an open-source robotics stack that covers the full development pipeline. Its Cosmos world models generate synthetic training data and simulate physical environments. Its GR00T models give robots the ability to reason through and execute complex tasks. And its Isaac frameworks handle the orchestration that ties training, simulation, and deployment together. Not everyone needs to train the robots from scratch, Huang says, and most people probably shouldn’t.
“If you gate pre-training, the field just never grows,” he says. “We should be able to provide a high-quality, state-of-the-art pre-trained model that anyone can go and take and fine tune for their own purposes.”
All of Nvidia’s open-source models live on Hugging Face, the open-source AI platform that has become the default place to share models and datasets. Hugging Face launched LeRobot, a community platform for robotics AI, in May 2024. Since its launch, the number of robotics datasets on the platform grew from 1,145 at the end of 2024 to more than 58,000 today, making it the single largest dataset category on the hub.
Hugging Face has also moved into hardware, acquiring robotics company Pollen Robotics. The acquisition came from a realization that software alone was not enough, according to Clement Delangue, Hugging Face’s CEO. The goal, as with the software, was to bring more people in.
The contributors to LeRobot include the biggest names in the industry, academic labs, and hobbyists building robots in their spare time. For instance, earlier this year, Alibaba released RynnBrain, an open-source foundation model for physical AI that the company claims outperforms comparable offerings from Google and Nvidia on benchmarks. That diversity of projects, Delangue says, is important.
“It is not just one model or one dataset or one hardware,” he says. “It is a lot of small contributions that everyone can be part of.”
Commercial incentives muddle the field
The stakes, Delangue says, go beyond convenience. A world where only a few proprietary systems control the robots in people’s homes is a concerning one. “Having robots at home that you don’t really understand, that you don’t really control, that a few people in Silicon Valley control is a scary thought,” he says. “Open source gives an alternative path.”
But getting there is not straightforward. The open sourcing happening now looks different from what produced ROS, which emerged largely from academics pooling their work with no commercial stake in the outcome. The biggest contributors today are companies with clear business reasons to want more people building on their platforms. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, says Bill Smart, a professor at Oregon State University, in Corvallis, who was part of the early open-source robotics community. But the incentives are worth being aware of.
He also worries that the lowered barrier to entry has a downside. Researchers coming from AI without a robotics background are sometimes solving problems the field already solved. A newcomer might spend a week training a neural network to move a robot’s hand from one point to another, unaware that the same task can be accomplished with a few lines of code using decades-old techniques. The incentives are not always pointing in the same direction as the progress.
Smart is not without hope though. Whatever the motives behind the open sourcing, he says, the effect is real. More people are in the field than ever before, the tools are genuinely easier to use, and the community is bigger and more diverse than anything that existed when ROS was getting started.
“Anyone can make a robot move now,” he says. “As an old tech guy, that makes me happy and sad, because I’m no longer special.”
Over the next few decades, billions of autonomous, AI-powered robots will work alongside people in factories, perform tedious tasks in warehouses, care for the elderly, assist in unsafe disaster areas, deliver packages and food to our doorsteps, and eventually help out in our homes. Some will look like us, and many won’t. What is certain is that regardless of form factor, robots will all rely heavily on AI in order to deliver real-world value.
In 2025, total investments in robotics companies reached a record US $40.7 billion, accounting for 9 percent of all venture funding. The multibillion dollar question therefore is this: What will it take for AI-powered robots to begin to have a serious economic impact? Many of today’s robotics and AI companies are making bold claims, such as that humanoid robots will soon be coming into our homes, but there’s still a big gap between promise and reality.
The promise of robots that live and work alongside us has been the stuff of science fiction for a very long time. And while many programmers have tried to make that promise a reality, the physical world is just too complicated for traditional computer programs to handle the endless complexity it presents. Thanks to AI, robots are no longer being programmed—instead, they learn to operate in the real world. With enough practice, they can learn to perceive and understand the world around them, reason about that world, and use that reason and understanding to perform tasks that are useful, reliable, and safe.
The two of us have worked at the forefront of AI and robotics for the last decade, as a Professor in Robotics at Oregon State University and Co-Founder of Agility Robotics, and as former CEO of the Everyday Robots moonshot at Google X. Our experience deploying AI-powered robots in real-world settings has given us a perspective on where AI can be used to great benefit in complex robotic systems in the near term and where we are still on the frontier of science fiction. We believe AI will enable an inflection point in robotics advances, but that it will be through the well-engineered application of coordinated systems of different AI tools rather than a single ChatGPT-style breakthrough.
As the excitement around AI is matched only by the uncertainty of what will be possible, here are five hard truths that will define AI in robotics.
1. The YouTube-to-Reality Gap Is Real
For years, we have been seeing videos on YouTube with humanoid robots performing amazing moves on everything from a dance floor to an obstacle course. The inside knowledge in robotics is to “never trust a YouTube robot video.” The gap between real robots that can perform real work in unstructured human environments and carefully scripted and edited robot performances remains significant. The latest performance to get a lot of attention was a martial arts show featuring Unitree humanoid robots performing with children at the Chinese 2026 Spring Festival Gala. While impressive, this falls into a long lineage of tightly scripted robotic performances, where everything has been carefully choreographed and planned in advance. The low-level controls, synchronization, and choreography were stunning, yet the Spring Gala robot performance showed a level of autonomy and intelligence much closer to industrial robots building cars in a factory than something that will show up in your living room any time soon.
Seeing these kinds of demos nevertheless raises questions about where robotics really is. If robots can perform kung fu moves and do backflips and dance, why aren’t they also showing up on factory floors yet? And why can’t they do the dishes in my home after dinner? The simple answer is this: Making AI-powered robots capable of performing general tasks in varied human environments is still really hard. While impressive technological feats like those at the Spring Festival may make it look like we could be very close, the use of AI in these demos is only for low-level motor control (to keep the robots from falling over) and therefore is only a small part of the solution for robots to be general purpose in the real, unstructured spaces where we humans live and work.
2. Data Is An Unsolved Challenge
Large Language Models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude were initially trained on an internet-scale database of text. The world woke up one day in late 2022 to ChatGPT demonstrating that AI computers could suddenly “speak” to us in prose or verse and about seemingly any topic. LLMs have turned out to generalize well and are now able to take multimodal input (text, images, video) and produce multimodal output. Importantly, the corpus of training data was both enormous and human-generated, which are characteristics that form the gold standard for AI training.
The fastest path to robots as part of everyday life may emerge through a range of robot forms performing increasingly sophisticated applications and employing a range of AI tools.Agility Robotics
Giving AI a body (in the form of a robot), so that it can engage with people in the physical world, continues to be a very difficult and broadly unsolved problem. AI models for general-purpose robotics must simultaneously satisfy multiple, often conflicting, physical, geometric, and temporal limitations while operating in unstructured, dynamic environments. In order to generalize, robot models need to be trained on data gathered in a high-dimensional configuration space, where “dimensions” represent text, lighting conditions, degrees of freedom, joint limits, velocities, force, and safety boundaries, just to mention a few. Importantly, this must be good data—it must contain many examples from what amounts to an infinite number of possible configurations in the physical world.
Since there are very few existing sources of data like this, approaches like teleoperation, video analysis, motion capture of humans, and self-exploration in simulation and in the real world are all seen as important ways to collect data. It’s a herculean task. For example, at Everyday Robots at Google X, we ran 240 million robot instances in our simulator over the course of 2022 to collect training data, mostly to train a trash-sorting model. Similar amounts of data will be needed for every skill to get to a similar level of capability, which is not yet human level.
3. There Will Be No Single Robot AI
We are far away from a moment where a single AI model might allow general-purpose robots to live and work alongside us.
General-purpose robots can have wheels or legs. They can have one, two, three, or more arms. Some have propellers and can fly, while others may be designed to operate under water. Some will drive on busy roads. The physical world is infinitely varied and complex. And then there are all the people and other animals that will be surrounding the robots. How do you train a model to operate a robot safely and reliably in all of these settings? The simple answer is: You don’t. At least not for quite some time.
We believe the winning AI architecture leading to the next big breakthroughs in general-purpose robotics will be “agentic AI” for robots, which are high-level coordinating models that can reason, plan, use tools, and learn from outcomes to execute complex tasks with limited supervision. Agentic, high-level models running on robots will invoke a system of specialized ones for different types of tasks. We will likely soon see multiple robots collaborating and coordinating with each other through their onboard agentic AI models.
AI tools are unlocking new and powerful capabilities in robotics, which in turn will enable new solutions and new markets. It’s encouraging to see these new models being made broadly available, some even as open-source solutions. This availability is akin to what happened with the internet: Real progress occurred when it became ubiquitous. We anticipate an inevitable democratization of complex behaviors in robotics with wide access to these AI tools and technologies.
4. Hardware Is Still Very Hard
Robots are complex systems with many parts that all need to work together with great precision. For a robot to be useful and safe, every part of it must be coordinated, from its perception systems to the computer controlling it, all the way down to its individual actuators.
Actuators—that is, the motors and gears—are a good example of an important part of the robot where what got us here won’t get us there. The actuators used at scale by most industrial robots will not work for robots that will operate in human environments. If these robots accidentally collide with an obstacle, the resulting impacts are harsh, forces are high, and things break. Humans don’t move in this way. We are far more compliant in how we interact with the world, and we’re constantly making contact with our environment and using that contact to help us accomplish things.
Consider the challenge of inserting a key in a lock: Humans typically don’t do this by aligning the key perfectly with the keyhole. Instead, we just feel for the edge of the keyhole and jiggle the key in. Robots need to be able to operate in novel ways to achieve comparable capabilities by using a new class of actuators that are sensitive to force and able to have a compliant interaction with the environment. While these kinds of actuators do exist, they are not yet generally available at scale for robot systems designed to operate around people.
5. Real Value Comes From “Easy” Tasks
There’s a big difference between tasks that look impressive and real-world tasks that provide value. Robotics is a perfect example of Moravec’s paradox, which states that tasks that are hard for humans are easy for computers (like multiplying two big numbers), and tasks easy for humans (like a toddler’s movements) are extremely difficult for computers and robots.
Serving customers is an unforgiving reality check, because customers only care about solving the real problems they have. If we are to deploy AI-based robot solutions, they must outperform the way things are currently done while demonstrating reliable performance metrics and safety. Agility Robotics’ early work to deploy our humanoid robot Digit in customer locations led to the realization that our first obstacle was safety: Robots that balance and manipulate objects in human spaces bring new types of risk to the workplace. In the first humanoid deployments, physical barriers were necessary, and Agility kicked off a multi-year engineering effort to solve the safety challenge, touching nearly every aspect of robot design and relying heavily on new AI-based approaches to human detection and behavior control.
Everyday Robots at Google deployed robots in 2019 that worked autonomously in office buildings doing chores like cleaning cafe tables and sorting trash. We quickly learned how “messy” and difficult the real world is for a robot. This experience informed the architecture and deployment of our AI systems while also gathering real-world data that could be combined with simulation data for training and improving models.
This focus on creating a product to meet specific customer needs and deploying robots in real-world settings is the only way to inform the structure of the AI tools and infrastructure for near-term utility on a path towards long-term broader capability and generality. There will be no “aha” moment, no silver bullet algorithm, and no volume of data sufficient to produce a general-purpose robot without extensive real-world experience.
AI Robots Are Coming, One Step at a Time
As we look to the future, there is no doubt that the world is bringing AI into the physical world through robots. We are at the beginning of a “Cambrian explosion“ of useful, intelligent machines. We believe AI is not one tool, but a huge frontier of technical approaches that is unlocking new capabilities so powerful, they will define our economy moving forward. This will happen not in one single definitive moment, but as an ongoing set of small and large breakthroughs, where AI-driven robots begin to provide real value in a few tasks, and then a few more, with impacts unfolding across numerous $100 billion-plus markets that will dramatically improve the quality of our lives.
Electronic waste is moving up on regulatory agendas in 2026. New European waste-shipment rules, expanded recycling fees on products with non-removable batteries in California, and an e-waste import ban in Malaysia, for example, are all increasing pressure to recover more value before electronics are shredded or exported.
The world is projected to generate 82 million tonnes of e-waste annually by 2030, according to the United Nations’ most recent Global E-Waste Monitor report in 2024. The report estimated that current e-waste management captures less than a third of the recoverable metal value contained in discarded electronics.
For recyclers, much of that lost value is a consequence of what happens before a circuit board ever reaches a smelter or shredder. Boards contain a mixture of components such as memory chips, processors, magnets, and capacitors, as well as valuable raw materials such as copper, aluminum, tantalum, and precious metals. Conventional recycling often mixes everything into bulk streams and destroys components that might otherwise be reused.
Tuurny, a startup based in San Francisco, is developing an automated system to remove and separate reusable chips from circuit boards before the remaining material is shredded. In April, the company announced it had designed a robotic system, called Nantul, to identify and extract RAM integrated circuits, claiming each machine can recover 300 intact RAM ICs per hour.
Sina Ghashghaei, Tuurny’s founder, says the company is preparing its first field deployment with dozens of machines through a six-figure deal with Areera, a television recycler in the United Kingdom, which processes 1,500 tonnes of televisions per month. The deployment is planned for early 2027.
Tuurny’s first target is recovering RAM ICs and other chips used in legacy systems where replacement components can be difficult to source. Ghashghaei says the company is talking with a few legacy chip suppliers and pursuing potential agreements to supply aluminum and copper recovered from circuit boards to smelters and refiners. He declined to identify the companies involved.
Robots for Automated RAM Recovery
Traditional electronics recycling often begins by shredding boards and sorting the mixed output afterward. Tuurny aims to do the opposite: Identify and remove components first, sort them by model or material, then reroute the recovered items to testing labs for potential reuse as new chips or to refiners and smelters for further processing.
Nantul comprises three robotic systems in one. The first is an arm to continuously feed the component-removal robots, paired with two tabletop machines similar to 3D printers or computer numerical control (CNC) machines. A neural network identifies and catalogs components, then searches the internet for manufacturers’ thermal-profile specifications. Nantul uses those specifications to employ a combination of suction, controlled heat, computer vision, and robotic controls to remove chips while minimizing damage. Recovered items are then sorted by model number in material-specific groups.
“We’re creating a new supply chain from old feedstock that didn’t exist before,” Ghashghaei says, adding that manual recovery is expensive and difficult to scale.
Tuurny’s recovery system includes a computer vision system that identifies specific RAM components to assess them for recovery.Tuurny
Minghui Zheng, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M University, in College Station, who studies robotic disassembly and electronics recycling systems, says Tuurny’s approach appears technically feasible, especially when focused on the narrow, valuable target of recovering RAM from more controlled e-waste streams.
“RAM is a good starting point because it has relatively high reuse value and is more standardized than many other electronic parts,” Zheng says. The harder challenge, however, is removing chips “without heat, mechanical, or electrical damage, and making sure it still works reliably afterward.”
Used circuit boards can vary by layout, markings, age, contamination, solder condition, or prior damage. A robot has to identify the correct component, choose a removal strategy, apply heat locally, lift the part cleanly, and preserve enough information about the part for downstream testing and resale.
E-Waste Recycling Strategies
Ghashghaei says Tuurny is building small modular machines using off-the-shelf parts, custom controls, and Nvidia Jetson Nano hardware. The company is trying to keep costs down by reducing hardware complexity to arrive at a price point far below centralized industrial equipment used at large facilities. He says the biggest challenge from an engineering perspective has been developing the autonomous computer vision and robotic control.
Last year, the four-person startup received a NASA-funded grant to support an AI-powered repair assistant for printed circuit boards that used computer vision and a custom large language model (LLM) to guide technicians.
Ghashghaei says Tuurny pivoted from board repair to e-waste processing after concluding that discarded electronics represented a larger market amid growing interest in the U.S. around on-shoring capacity for critical minerals and rare earths. The pivot also positions Tuurny to potentially address supply chain concerns around legacy chips for systems in telecom, aerospace, defense, and other industries where equipment remains in service long after chips leave mainstream production.
In practice, Zheng says the main challenge in making robotic disassembly of electronics commercially viable is ensuring it’s adaptable enough to handle the large variability in e-waste while keeping costs reasonable.
“Every electronic product is different, and used boards may be damaged, dirty, or arranged differently. The robot must be able to find the right parts, remove them carefully, and avoid damaging them in real time, which creates major challenges for robotic perception, decision-making, planning, and manipulation,” Zheng says. “Economically, the recovered parts should be valuable enough to justify the costs of the robot, sensing, testing, maintenance, labor, and scaling up the process.”
For smelters and refiners, the question may be whether Tuurny can supply predictable material streams at commercial volumes. Ghashghaei acknowledged that Tuurny’s scaling efforts could run into its own supply chain constraints in trying to acquire enough components to build more robots.
Zheng called Tuurny’s approach promising but still early. “For now, it is more realistic as a targeted recovery strategy for valuable components like RAM,” Zheng says. “The key question is whether the robotic disassembly technology can work reliably, affordably, and at scale.”
For years, the field of robotics has used the terms “dull, dirty, and dangerous” (DDD) to describe the types of tasks or jobs where robots might be useful—by doing work that’s undesirable for people. A classic example of a DDD job is one of “repetitive physical labor on a steaming hot factory floor involving heavy machinery that threatens life and limb.”
But determining which human activities fit into these categories is not as straightforward as it seems. What exactly is a “dull” task, and who makes that assumption? Is “dirty” work just about needing to wash your hands afterwards, or is there also an aspect of social stigma? What data can we rely on to classify jobs as “dangerous?” Our recent work (which was not dull at all) tackles these questions and proposes a framework to help roboticists understand the job context for our technology.
First, we did an empirical analysis of robotics publications between 1980 and 2024 that mention DDD and found that only 2.7 percent define DDD and only 8.7 percent provide examples of tasks or jobs. The definitions vary, and many of the examples aren’t particularly specific (for example, “industrial manufacturing,” “home care”). Next, we reviewed the social science literature in anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology to develop better definitions for “dull,” “dirty,” and “dangerous” work. Again, while it might seem intuitive which tasks to put into these buckets, it turns out that there are some underlying social, economic, and cultural factors that matter.
Dangerous Work: Occupations or tasks that result in injury or risk of harm
It’s possible to measure the danger of a task or job by using reported information. There are administrative records and surveys that provide numbers on occupational injury rates and hazardous risk factors. While that seems straightforward, it’s important to understand how this data was collected, reported, and verified.
These caveats are an opportunity for robotics to be helpful. If we went out and looked for it, we could probably find some less obviously dangerous work where robotics might be an important intervention, not to mention some groups that are disproportionately affected and would benefit from more workplace safety.
Dirty Work: Occupations or tasks that are physically, socially, or morally tainted
Colloquially, most people might think of dirty work as involving physical dirtiness, such as trash removal, cleaning, or dealing with hazardous substances. But social science literature makes clear that dirty work is also about stigma. Socially tainted jobs are often servile or involve interacting with stigmatized groups (for example, correctional officers), and morally tainted jobs include tasks that people commonly perceive as sinful, deceptive, or otherwise defying norms of civility (like a stripper or a collection agent).
“Dirty work” is a social construct that can vary across time (like tattoo industry stigma in the United States) and culture (such as nursing in the U.S. versus in Bangladesh). One way to measure whether work is “dirty” is by using the closely related concept of occupational prestige, captured through quantitative surveys where people rank jobs. Another way to measure it is through qualitative data, like ethnographies and interviews. Similar to “dangerous,” we see some hidden opportunities for robotics in “dirty” work. But one of our more interesting takeaways from the data is that a lower-ranked job can be something that the workers themselves enjoy or find immense pride and meaning in. If we care about what tasks are truly undesirable, understanding this worker perspective is important.
Dull Work: Occupations or tasks that are repetitive and lacking in autonomy
When it comes to defining dull work, what matters most is workers’ own experiences. Outsiders can make a lot of false assumptions about what tasks have value and meaning. Sometimes things that seem boring or routine create the right conditions for developing skills and competence, such as the concentration needed for woodworking, or for socializing and support, when tasks are done alongside others. Instead of assuming that repetitive work is negative, it’s important to examine qualitative data on how people experience the work and what purpose it serves for them.
DDD: An actionable framework
In our paper, we propose a framework to help the robotics community explore how automation impacts individual jobs. For each term—dull, dirty, and dangerous—the framework gathers key pieces of information to reflect on what physical or social aspects of the task are, in fact, DDD. Worker perspective is an important part of all three considerations. The framework also emphasizes awareness of context—meaning the physical and social environment of an occupation and industry that can influence the DDD nature of a task. Our corresponding worksheet suggests existing data sources to draw on and encourages us to seek out multiple perspectives and consider potential sources of bias in the information.
What makes tasks dull, dirty, or dangerous depends on the perspective of the humans doing those tasks.RAI
The job is also repetitive, but there are aspects that make it not dull. Specifically, workers cite the day-to-day interaction with their coworkers (which includes extensive insider vocabulary, work hacks, and mutual aid groups) and task variety as two of the most enjoyable aspects of the job. Task variety includes inspecting their vehicle and equipment, driving their truck, coordinating with crew members, lifting bins and bags, detecting incorrect sorting of waste, and unloading at the end destination.
This finding matters because some types of robotic solutions will eliminate the parts of the job that workers most appreciate. For instance, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends the adoption of automated side loader trucks and collision avoidance systems. This innovation increases safety, which is great, but it also results in a sole worker operating a joystick in a cab, surrounded by sensor and camera surveillance.
Instead, we should challenge ourselves to think of solutions that make jobs safer without making them terrible in a different way. To do this, we need to understand all aspects of what makes a job dull, dirty, or dangerous (or not). Our framework aims to facilitate this understanding.
Finally, it’s important to note that DDD is only one of many possible approaches to classify what work might be better served by robots. There are lots of ways we could think about which types of tasks or jobs to automate (for example, economic impact or environmental sustainability). Given the popularity of DDD in robotics, we chose this common phrase as a starting point. We would love to see more work in this space, whether it’s data collection on DDD itself or the creation of other frameworks.
At RAI, we believe that the fusion of robotics and social sciences opens a whole new world of information, perspectives, opportunities, and value. It fosters a culture of curiosity and mutual learning, and allows us to create actionable tools for anyone in robotics who cares about societal impact.
This presentation highlights recent efforts at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory to advance agentic AI for collaborative robotic teams. It begins by framing the core challenges of enabling autonomy, coordination, and adaptability across heterogeneous systems, then introduces a scalable architecture designed to support agentic behaviors in multi-robot environments. The talk concludes with key challenges encountered and practical lessons learned from ongoing research and development.
Key learnings
Provides an introduction to LLM-based AI Agents
Describes an approach to applying LLM-based AI Agents to robotic teams
Provides demonstrations of the approach running in hardware with a heterogeneous team of robots
Presents lessons learned and future work in this area
Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.
Sony AI’s latest research, published on the cover of Nature, addresses a long-standing challenge in physical AI: Can a high-speed autonomous system master the complex perception and dynamic control required to compete against professional athletes?
In this video, we present Ringbot Quad, a novel monocycle robot with four legs that combines wheeled and legged locomotion on a single platform. Ringbot Quad is designed as a unique monocycle mechanism that replaces the traditional drivetrain with four individually actuated driving modules, each integrated with an articulated leg. Ringbot Quad aims to provide versatile and efficient mobility through two distinct locomotion modes. In driving mode, the four legs assist with balance and steering, while in walking mode, they fully support the body for quadruped locomotion. By switching between these modes, Ringbot Quad can navigate diverse terrains and overcome obstacles that are difficult for either wheeled or legged systems alone.
Humanoid robots have beaten human runners in a Beijing half-marathon, marking a breakthrough in China’s rapidly advancing robotics industry. More than 100 robots competed alongside 12,000 people in the 21-kilometer race, with three crossing the finish line ahead of any human.
Watch AthenaZero juggle barehanded using on-board sensory feedback only. No motion capture. No funnels. No help adding the third ball. The robot learns to adapt to the uncertainties from contact and the appropriate hand-eye coordination.
From the look of this, it’s based on data capture from humans. What I want to know is, what this will look like when it’s not based on data capture from humans.
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems propose a method to measure the efficiency of soft electrostatic actuators, enabling systematic evaluation of electrical-to-mechanical energy conversion. Using Peano-HASEL actuators, they demonstrate efficiencies up to 63.6%, over three times higher than previously reported, and validate the approach across other actuator types, paving the way for more energy-efficient soft electrostatic robotic systems.
Already deployed in North America, quadruped robots provide continuous patrol, real-time monitoring, and faster incident detection across residential communities—day and night.
This CMU Robotics Institute talk is from CMU’s Raj Reddy, on “The Future of AI : Doomers vs. Abundance.”
The last decade has seen extraordinary advances in AI. The potential arrival of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has profound implications for future of our society. We anticipate a world where AI assistants and humanoid robots will perform most of the tasks requiring human expertise and skill at 10% of current costs. In this paradigm, essential services—including food, housing, energy, education, healthcare, and transportation—will be provided via Universal Basic Services, signaling a historic shift from a society of scarcity to one of abundance. This transformation raises a critical concern: widespread displacement of traditional labor. What is the human role when AI can do everything? This talk presents an alternative scenario: a “Human-in-the-Loop” evolution. In this model, humans transition into high-level supervisory roles, collaborating with AGI to train robots in novel skills and adapt them to unforeseen tasks. We explore this as the “Maharaja Model” where technology serves humanity so comprehensively that work will be optional for humans. Finally, we will discuss how institutions like the Robotics Institute must lead this transition, developing the hybrid technologies and ethical frameworks necessary to bridge the gap between our current economy and a robot-assisted future.
Tom Burick has always considered himself a builder. Over the years he’s designed robots, constructed a vintage teardrop trailer, and most recently, led a group of students in building a full-scale replica of a pivotal 1940s computer.
Burick is a technology instructor at PS Academy in Gilbert, Ariz., a middle and high school for students with autism and other specialized learning needs. At the start of the 2025–26 school year, he began a project with his students to build a full-scale replica of the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, or ENIAC, for the 80th anniversary of the historic computer’s construction. ENIAC was one of the world’s first programmable electronic computers. When it was built, it was about one thousand times as fast as other machines.
Before becoming a teacher, Burick owned a robotics company for a decade in the 2000s. But when a financial downturn forced him to close the business, he turned to teaching. “I had so many amazing people help me when I was young [who] really gave me their time and resources, and really changed the trajectory of my life,” Burick says. “I thought I need to pay that forward.”
Becoming a Roboticist
As a young child in Latrobe, Pa., Burick watched the television show Lost in Space, which includes a robot character who protects the family. “He was the young boy’s best friend, and I was so captivated by that. I remember thinking to myself, I want that in my life. And that started that lifelong love affair with robotics and technology.”
He started building toy robots out of anything he could find, and in junior high school, he began adding electronics. “By early high school, I was building full-fledged autonomous, microprocessor-controlled machines,” he says. At age 15, he built a 150-pound steel firefighting robot, for which he won awards from IEEE and other organizations.
Burick kept building robots and reached out for help from local colleges and universities. He first got in touch with a student at Carnegie Mellon University, who invited him to visit campus. “My parents drove me down the next weekend, and he gave me a tour of the robotics lab. I was mesmerized. He sent me home with college textbooks and piles of metal and gears and wires,” Burick says. He would read the textbook a page at a time, reading it again and again until he felt he had an understanding of it. Then, to help fill gaps in his understanding, he got in touch with a robotics instructor at Saint Vincent College, in his hometown of Latrobe, who let him sit in on classes. Each of these adults, he says, “helped change the trajectory of my life.”
Toward the end of high school, Burick realized that college wouldn’t be the right environment for him. “I was drawn to real-world problem-solving rather than structured coursework and I chose to continue along that path,” he says. Additionally, Burick has dyscalculia, which makes traditional mathematics more challenging for him. “It pushed me to develop alternative methods of engineering.”
The ENIAC replica Burick’s students built precisely matches what the original computer would have looked like before it was disassembled in the 1950s. Robert Gamboa
When he graduated, he worked in several tech jobs before starting his own company. In 2000, he opened a computer retail store and adjacent robotics business, White Box Robotics. The idea for the company came when Burick was building a “white box” PC from standard, off-the-shelf components, and realized there was no comparable product for robotics.
So, he started developing a modular, general-purpose platform that applied white box PC standards to mobile robots. “The robot’s chassis was like a box of Legos,” he says. You could click together two torsos to double its payload, switch out the drive system, or swap its head for a different set of sensors. He filed utility and design patents for the platform, called the 914 PC-Bot, and after merging with a Canadian defense robotics company called Frontline Robotics, started production. They sold about 200 robots in 17 countries, Burick says.
Then the 2008 financial crisis hit. White Box Robotics held on for a couple of years, shuttering in late 2010. “I got to live my life’s dream for 10 years,” he says. After closing White Box, “there was some soul searching” about what to do next. He recalled the impact his own mentors had, and decided to pay it forward by teaching.
Neurodiversity as a Superpower
In 2013, Burick started working in a vocational training program for young adults living with autism. The program didn’t have a technical arm, so he started one and ran it until 2019, when he was hired to be a technology instructor at PS Academy Arizona.
Burick and one of his students assemble the base for one of ENIAC’s three portable function tables, which contained banks of switches that stored numerical constants. Bri Mason
Burick feels he can connect with his students, because he is also neurodivergent. Throughout his childhood, he was told what he wasn’t able to do because of his dyscalculia diagnosis. “People tell you what it takes, but they never tell you what it gives,” Burick says.
In adulthood, he realized that some of his strengths are linked to dyscalculia, too, like strong 3D spatial reasoning. “I have this CAD program that runs in my head 24 hours a day,” he says. “I think the reason I was successful in robotics, truly, was because of the dyscalculia…. To me, [it] has always been a superpower.”
Whenever his students say something disparaging about living with autism, he shares his own experience. “You need to have maybe just a bit more tenacity than others, because there are parts of it you do have to fight through, but you come through with gifts and strengths,” he tells them.
And Burick’s classes aim to play to those strengths. “I didn’t want my technology program to feel like craft hour,” he says. Instead, through projects like the ENIAC replica, students can leverage traits many of them share, like the abilities to hyperfocus and to precisely repeat tasks.
Recreating ENIAC
Burick has taught his students about ENIAC for several years. While reading about it, he learned that the massive, 27-tonne computer was dismantled and partially destroyed after being decommissioned in 1955. Although a few of ENIAC’s 40 original panels are on display at museums, “there was no hope of ever seeing it together again. We wanted to give the world that experience,” Burick says.
He and his students started by learning about ENIAC, and even Burick was surprised by how complex the 80-year-old computer was. They built a one-twelfth scale model to help the students better understand what it looked like. Seeing the students light up, Burick became confident in their ability to move onto the full-scale model, and he started ordering supplies.
ENIAC was composed of 40 large metal panels arranged in a U-shape that housed its many vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, and switches. Twenty of the panels were accumulators with the same design, so the students started with these, then worked through smaller groupings of panels. The repeating panels brought symmetry to ENIAC, Burick says, but it was also one of the main challenges of recreating it. If one part was slightly out of place, the next one would be too and the mistake would compound.
The students installed 500 simulated vacuum tubes in each of the panels here, for a total of 18,000 vacuum tubes.Robert Gamboa
Once they constructed the panels, they added ENIAC’s three function tables, which stored numerical constants in banks of switches, then two punch-card machines. Finally, they installed 18,000 simulated vacuum tubes. In total, the project used nearly 300 square meters of thick-ream cardboard, 1,600 hot-glue-gun sticks, and 7 gallons of black paint.
The scale of the machine—and his students’ work—left Burick in awe. “By the time we were done, I felt like I was in a room full of scientists,” he says.
Previously, Burick’s students built an 8-foot-long drivable Tesla Cybertruck (“complete with a 400-watt stereo system and a subwoofer”) and he plans to keep the momentum with another recreation—maybe from the Apollo moon missions.
“I go to work every day, and I feel passionate about robotics [and] technology. I get to share that passion with the students,” Burick says. “I get to feel what it’s like to be in the position of the people that helped me. It closes that loop, and I find that really rewarding.”
When the robotics engineering field that Maja Matarić wanted to work in didn’t exist, she helped create it. In 2005 she helped define the new area of socially assistive robotics.
As an associate professor of computer science, neuroscience, and pediatrics at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, she developed robots to provide personalized therapy and care through social interactions.
Maja Matarić
Employer
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Job Title
Professor of computer science, neuroscience, and pediatrics
Member grade
Fellow
Alma maters
University of Kansas and MIT
The robots could have conversations, play games, and respond to emotions.
Today the IEEE Fellow is a professor at USC. She studies how robots can help students with anxiety and depression undergo cognitive behavioral therapy. CBT focuses on changing a person’s negative thought patterns, behaviors, and emotional responses.
For her work, she received a 2025 Robotics Medal from MassRobotics, which recognizes female researchers advancing robotics. The Boston-based nonprofit provides robotics startups with a workspace, prototyping facilities, mentorship, and networking opportunities.
When receiving the award at the ceremony in Boston, Matarić was overcome with joy, she says.
“I’ve been very fortunate to be honored with several awards, which I am grateful for. But there was something very special about getting the MassRobotics medal, because I knew at least half the people in the room,” she says. “Everyone was just smiling, and there was a great sense of love.”
Seeing herself as an engineer
Matarić grew up in Belgrade, Serbia. Her father was an engineer, and her mother was a writer. After her father died when she was 16, Matarić and her mother moved to the United States.
She credits her father for igniting her interest in engineering, and her uncle who worked as an aerospace engineer for introducing her to computer science.
Matarić says she didn’t consider herself an engineer until she joined USC’s faculty, since she always had worked in computer science.
“In retrospect, I’ve always been an engineer,” Matarić says. “But I didn’t set out specifically thinking of myself as one—which is just one of the many things I like to convey to young people: You don’t always have to know exactly everything in advance.”
Maja Matarić and her lab are exploring how socially assistive robots can help improve the communication skills of children with autism spectrum disorder. National Science Foundation News
While pursuing her bachelor’s degree in computer science at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, she was introduced to industrial robotics through a textbook. After earning her degree in 1987, she had an opportunity to continue her education as a graduate student at MIT’s AI Lab (now the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab). During her first year, she explored the different research projects being conducted by faculty members, she said in a 2010 oral history conducted by the IEEE History Center. She met IEEE Life Fellow Rodney Brooks, who was working on novel reactive and behavior-based robotic systems. His work so excited her that she joined his lab and conducted her master’s thesis under his tutelage.
Inspired by the way animals use landmarks to navigate, Matarić developed Toto, the first navigating behavior-based robot. Toto used distributed models to map the AI Lab building where Matarić worked and plan its path to different rooms. Toto used sonar to detect walls, doors, and furniture, according to Matarić’s paper, “The Robotics Primer.”
After earning her master’s degree in AI and robotics in 1990, she continued to work under Brooks as a doctoral student, pioneering distributed algorithms that allowed a team of up to 20 robots to execute complex tasks in tandem, including searching for objects and exploring their environment.
Matarić earned her Ph.D. in AI and robotics in 1994 and joined Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., as an assistant professor of computer science. There she founded the Interaction Lab, where she developed autonomous robots that work together to accomplish tasks.
Three years later, she relocated to California and joined USC’s Viterbi School of Engineering as an assistant professor in computer science and neuroscience.
In 2002 she helped to found the Center for Robotics and Embedded Systems (now the Robotics and Autonomous Systems Center). The RASC focuses on research into human-centric and scalable robotic systems and promotes interdisciplinary partnerships across USC.
Matarić’s shift in her research came after she gave birth to her first child in 1998. When her daughter was a bit older and asked Matarić why she worked with robots, she wanted to be able to “say something better than ‘I publish a lot of research papers,’ or ‘it’s well-recognized,’” she says.
“In academia, you can be in a leadership role and still do research. It’s a wonderful and important opportunity that lets academics be on top of our field and also train the next generation of students and help the next generation of faculty colleagues.”
“Kids don’t consider those good answers, and they’re probably right,” she says. “This made me realize I was in a position to do something different. And I really wanted the answer to my daughter’s future question to be, ‘Mommy’s robots help people.’”
Matarić and her doctoral student David Feil-Seifer presented a paper defining socially assistive robotics at the 2005 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. It was the only paper that talked about helping people complete tasks and learn skills by speaking with them rather than by performing physical jobs, she says.
Feil-Seifer is now a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Nevada in Reno.
At the same time, she founded the Interaction Lab at USC and made its focus creating robots that provide social, rather than physical, support.
“At this point in my career journey, I’ve matured to a place where I don’t want to do just curiosity-driven research alone,” she says. “Plenty of what my team and I do today is still driven by curiosity, but it is answering the question: ‘How can we help someone live a better life?’”
In 2006 she was promoted to full professor and made the senior associate dean for research in USC’s Viterbi School of Engineering. In 2012 she became vice dean for research.
“In academia, you can be in a leadership role and still do research,” she says. “It’s a wonderful and important opportunity that lets academics be on top of our field and also train the next generation of students and help the next generation of faculty colleagues.”
Research in socially assistive robotics
One of the longest research projects Matarić has led at her Interaction Lab is exploring how socially assistive robots can help improve the communication skills of children with autism spectrum disorder. ASD is a lifelong neurological condition that affects the way people interact with others, and the way they learn. Children with ASD often struggle with social behaviors such as reading nonverbal cues, playing with others, and making eye contact.
Matarić and her team developed a robot, Bandit, that can play games with a child and give the youngster words of affirmation. Bandit is 56 centimeters tall and has a humanlike head, torso, and arms. Its head can pan and tilt. The robot uses two FireWire cameras as its eyes, and it has a movable mouth and eyebrows, allowing it to exhibit a variety of facial expressions, according to the IEEE Spectrum’s robots guide. Its torso is attached to a wheeled base.
The study showed that when interacting with Bandit, children with ASD exhibited social behaviors that were out of the ordinary for them, such as initiating play and imitating the robot.
Matarić and her team also studied how the robot could serve as a social and cognitive aid for elderly people and stroke patients. Bandit was programmed to instruct and motivate users to perform daily movement exercises such as seated aerobics.
Maja Matarić and doctoral student Amy O’Connell testing Blossom, which is being used to study how it can aid students with anxiety or depression.University of Southern California
Over the years, Matarić’s lab developed other robots including Kiwi and Blossom. Kiwi, which looked like an owl, helped children with ASD learn social and cognitive skills, helped motivate elderly people living alone to be more physically active, and mediated discussions among family members. Blossom, originally developed at Cornell, was adapted by the Interaction Lab to make it less expensive and personalizable for individuals. The robot is being used to study how it can aid students with anxiety or depression to practice cognitive behavioral therapy.
Matarić’s line of research began when she learned that large language model (LLM) chatbots were being promoted to help people with mental health struggles, she said in an episode of the AMA Medical News podcast.
“It is generally not easy to get [an appointment with a] therapist, or there might not be insurance coverage,” she said. “These, combined with the rates of anxiety and depression, created a real need.”
That made the chatbot idea appealing, she says, but she was interested to see if they were effective compared with a friendly robot such as Blossom.
Matarić and her team used the same LLMs to power CBT practice with a chatbot and with Blossom. They ran a two-week study in the USC dorms, where students were randomly assigned to complete CBT exercises daily with either a chatbot or the robot. Participants filled out a clinical assessment to measure their psychiatric distress before and after each session.
The study showed that students who interacted with the robot experienced a significant decrease in their mental state, Matarić said in the podcast, and students who interacted with the chatbot did not.
“Joining an [IEEE] society has an impact, and it can be personal. That’s why I recommend my students join the organization—because it’s important to get out there and get connected.”
She and her team also reviewed transcripts of conversations between the students and the robot to evaluate how well the LLM responded to the participants. They found the robot was more effective than the chatbot, even though both were using the same model.
Based on those findings, in 2024 Matarić received a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health to conduct a six-week clinical trial to explore how effective a socially assistive robot could be at delivering CBT practice. The trial, currently underway, also is expected to study how Blossom can be personalized to adapt to each user’s preferences and progress, including the way the robot moves, which exercises it recommends, and what feedback it gives.
During the trial, the 120 students participating are wearing Fitbits to study their physiologic responses. The participants fill out a clinical assessment to measure their psychiatric distress before and after each session.
Data including the participants’ feelings of relating to the robot, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and adherence will be assessed by the research team, Matarić says.
She says she’s proud of the graduate students working on this project, and seeing them grow as engineers is one of the most rewarding parts of working in academia.
“Engineers generally don’t anticipate having to work with human study participants and needing to understand psychology in addition to the hardcore engineering,” she says. “So the students who choose to do this research are just wonderful, caring people.”
Matarić credits IEEE Life Fellow George Bekey, the founding editor in chief of the IEEE Transactions on Robotics, for recruiting her for the USC engineering faculty position. He knew of her work through her graduate advisor Brooks, who published a paper in the journal that introduced reactive control and the subsumption architecture, which became the foundation of a new way to control robots. It is his most cited paper. Bekey, who was editor in chief at the time, helped guide Brooks through the challenging review process. Matarić joined Brooks’s lab at MIT two years after its publication, and her work on Toto built on that foundation.
“Joining a society has an impact, and it can be personal,” she says. “That’s why I recommend my students join the organization—because it’s important to get out there and get connected.”
Login
