Every new technology has pros and cons. Instead of only describing the technical aspect, it's important to give the context. A hammer for example is a tool which makes life easier, the same is true for CNC machines invented in the 1970s. Similar to cars and washing machines these devices are classical machines. In contrast the computer revolution since the 1980s has produced a new kind of technology namely robotics and artificial Intelligence. This AI -based system isn't working as a tool but it has a different social role.
A tool is by definition an invention which helps the people to do a task faster and with less costs. Using a car over walking the distance by foot is an improvement. This makes a car to a tool for solving the logistics problem. A naive assumption is to describe robotics as a tool as well. The idea is that the household robots helps in the kitchen. This kind of myth was transported in the popular culture but also visionary thinkers of the fifth computer generation imagined a world in which robots will become the tool of humans.
The main different between normal tools like a CNC machine and a robot is, that robots have a much greater complexity. The result is they can't be understand as tool, but they must be interpreted as games. The difference is, that the environment of a robot has to support the robot but not the other way around. The best example which explains what robotics is, is the robocup challenge. The idea is, that a team of 10 highly trained programmer has to write the software for a robot which can do a task. The task itself is useless, instead all the time for programming the machine is wasted. This is especially true, if more advanced robots are used for solving more demanding challenges. Robocup and similar challenges have negative energy balance, which means the projects costs a lot of ressources but nothing is delivered in exchange.
The problem is, that in modern business context each company has to prove that it is producing added value. If a company produces more costs than it is able to provide values, the company will go bankrupt. That is a standard rule in capitalism. The problem is, that robotics projects will produce more costs and no value which makes it impossible to build a company around a robotics project. We can imagine a robot as a machine which wastes ressources, similar to a fire which needs a lot of wood, but has no purpose. It's possible to throw more wood into the fire which makes the flame bigger, but it's not possible to utilize the flame for a meaningful task. The flame is burned without providing something back.
Under this constraints all robotics projects from the last 50 years are operating. It depends on the people and the technology how large the flame is, but at the end all the resources are gone. Why are new robotics projects get started, if it's obviously that they will fail? Because it's a lot of fun. The recent example is the fully autonomous cooking robot called “Moley kitchen robot”. The project was demonstrated on a fair two years ago, and the idea is to mount dexterous robot hands onto a UR5 robot arm. The project itself is great, it is using the latest vision technology combined with advanced motion capture and modern robothands. The problem is, that from an economical point of view it can be guaruanteed, that the robot won't find customers. The device costs a lot of money but doesn't provide any kind of value. It's a flame which burns down all the ressources and nothing will remain which makes sense.
The similarity between all the robot projects is, that they are telling a story about the future. The idea is, to explain the audience how societies gets improved within the next 10 years. And the presented show robot demonstrates the capabilities of modern technology. Roughly spoken, companies like Rethink robotics and Willow Garage aren't selling robots, but they are distributing stories about future robotics. The amount of sold robots is small. The reason is, that a customer has no advantage if he owns a household robot or not. Robots are making only sense if the idea is that the customer didn't expect anything from the device but tries to improve the technology. For example, biped robots are sold mostly to universities teams, which are programming the device so that the robot can attend the next robocup challenge.
That means, a universites spends 10000 US$ for a toy robot because they want to spend endless hours in programing the device. The idea is burn time and money for nothing. And at the end, all the ressources are gone.
Fully automated manufactoring
The interesting information is, that fully automation is in reach of today's technology and at the same time it's not. Suppose, a new robotics competition was started with the aim to build a factory which is using robots for automating all tasks. From a technical point of view, it's possible to build such hardware and program it with the help of the latest AI algorithm. A recent Starcraft AI challenge can be interpreted as a fully automated factory, but it's possible to build the same thing with Lego mindstorms robots as well.
The problem is, that the technology from the synthetic challenge can't be transfered into the needs of real factories. That means, if the aim is to use robots to make the assembly line in factory more efficient the team will struggle with the task. That means, robots are working great in synthetic challenges but they fail in real projects. This kind of gap can't be solved in the future. That means, we will see two domains at the same time. On the first field, a fully automated factory is available in which robots doesn't need humans to build something, and at the same time, the factories productivity doesn't improve in reality, because of missing robot technology.
For the beginner programmer on the fields it's hard to understand why the technology developed in the laboratory and in synthetic robot challenges can't be utilized for real world application. The reason is, that a robot in a lab works by it's own rules, while the requirement of a real factory is, that they need a robot as a tool for improving an existing workflow. A robot can't become a tool, and because of this reason robot automation fails in reality.
Perhaps it make sense to explain this point in detail. If a robot is used in a challenge for example Robocup, the robot is the super-hero of the event. He gets programmed by engineers, and the audience asks which algorithm was used exactly to control the servo motors. In a robocup challenge, the robot has a certain social role. The idea is, that around 10 human programmers has to improve the robot, and the robot has to demonstrate, that he can play soccer very well. Such a role model can be fulfilled by the robots and the programmers as well. That means, the overall robocup challenge is perceived as a success and the participants have learned a lot.
If a robot is utilized in a practical application the social roles are the opposite. In factory automation, the robot shouldn't become a superstar, but a handy tool which is supporting the overall workflow. It's not possible to put a robot into such social position. Only simple tools like a hammer or a CNC machine can become a tool.
Assume the idea is to create a video about a robot superstar. The idea is, that the robot has the role of a popstar and demonstrates what he can do. It's possible to build such a robot and equip the device with the ability to walk like a human, and even to react to natural language. That means, such a video can be created, and such a robot can be programmed. The problem is, that the social role is fixed. The robot will become only a super-star but nothing else. The problem is, that real factories doesn't need robotic superstars, but they are focused on productivity. That is the reason why the technology from synthetic robot challenges can be transfered into the reality.
Robocup at home
Let us take a look at the robocup @ home challenge. What is seen in the video are household robots who are able to serve a drink of water. All the actions are generated with software, that means, the robot is not using teleoperation but it's an autonomous robot. On the first look, this is a great success which supports the story that in the near future household robot are available in the mainstream. A closer look into the situation will show, that household robots are not realistic. Instead, the robocup@home challenge has a different purpose.
The challenge is doing two things, first it tells a story what future robots will do and how society will profit from it, and secondly, the challenge teaches humans how to do the task. Basically spoken, the social role of the robots is to educate / manipulate humans. Apart from educational purpose, robocup@home has no further purpose. The presented robots can be bought in the store, and even if a customer buys on of the devices, he won't profit from it. The most interesting issue is, that this kind of limits can't be overcome with better software. Instead the social role which a robot is able to play is fixed. That means, all robots in all robot challenges are made for educational purposes, but not as a tool to increase the productivity of humans.
For a potential customer the situation is very easy. If a tool doesn't increase the productivity it's not used anymore. Even if somebody owns a household robot he will serve the drink manually without a robot, because this is the fastest choice. The main reason why robotics challenges were invented is to provide a stage for robots. WIthout a stage a robot has no purpose. He makes only sense in a certain social role.