I like the world of robotics and I have been following its evolution for years, from robotic arms on assembly lines to sophisticated surgical robots. The current surprise is the large number of different humanoid robots that appear on the market. Most of which are in various stages of development.
Their appearance, increasingly frequent at fairs and presentations, generates a mixture of astonishment and expectation. However, from my perspective, and after years observing the development of robotics, I think it is necessary to ground certain expectations and pragmatically analyze the true role of humanoids in our future.
Humanoid robots are liked by people because of their resemblance to us, but their usefulness is quite limited within the vast world of robotics, and their practical applications will end up being whatever they are, but not as numerous as some proclaim to the four winds.
The appeal of these machines is undeniable. Their similarity to us, their ability to imitate our movements and gestures, leads us to imagine a future where we live with robotic replicas that assist us in everyday tasks. However, this aesthetic appeal should not overshadow the true essence of robotics: the efficient and reliable resolution of specific problems. And in this respect, humanoid robots, at least in their current state, present significant limitations that call into question their supposed omnipresence in the future.
Form follows function, a basic principle of design, and in robotics it is strictly adhered to. The optimal configuration of a robot depends on the task it must perform. If we look at industry, where automation is more advanced, we find clear examples of this premise.
Logistics companies, pioneers in the implementation of robots, mostly use wheel- or rail-based systems for the transport of goods. Why? Simply because they are more efficient, robust and less complex than a bipedal system. Moving on wheels requires less energy, offers greater stability, and simplifies robot design and control.
This same reasoning applies to most industrial environments. An articulated robotic arm, for example, is much more effective at welding, painting, or assembling parts than a humanoid robot. The human form, while attractive, introduces unnecessary complexity that makes it difficult to optimize the process.
While it is true that humanoid robots may find specific applications in some niches, such as assisting certain elderly people or performing tasks in hazardous environments, their scope, in my opinion, will be limited.
I find particularly striking, and somewhat disconcerting, the discourse of certain “experts” who predict a future where humanoid robots will be a regular feature in our homes. They imagine a robotic butler who makes us breakfast, cleans the house, and looks after the children. However, these futuristic visions seem to be more influenced by science fiction than by a realistic analysis of technological needs and possibilities.
Do we really need a humanoid robot to vacuum the floor or do the laundry? Current solutions, such as robot vacuum cleaners or smart washing machines, already offer a high degree of automation without the need to resort to complex and expensive humanoid structures. In addition, interacting with a humanoid robot in the home poses numerous challenges, from security to privacy, which are still far from being satisfactorily resolved.
In the end, as in almost all areas of life, reality prevails. Decisions are based on efficiency, reliability and cost. And in most cases, the most pragmatic solution has nothing to do with a humanoid robot. Perhaps in the distant future, with technological advances that we cannot even imagine today, humanoid robots could become a part of our lives.
But for now, and from a realistic perspective, their role seems closer to fantasy than to a true technological revolution in our daily lives. Robotics will continue to advance, no doubt, but the form it takes will be determined by the function it is meant to fulfill, not by our desire to replicate ourselves in metal and silicon.
At least that's what I think.
EN 
ES