Talk:Optimus (robot)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Substance

This thing reads like a gossip page, not an encyclopedia page. I noticed that it was suggested for deletion and that was overruled. But could you at least delete the gossip and guesses and opinions and marketing hype and find something of substance to record? At least point to the company's Optimus website, whatever it is called. I looked and could not find one, but there must be one somewhere. I came to this article not to argue or criticize, but to learn about this machine. I'm leaving pretty disgusted. FatBear1 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is next to nothing know about "the machine" outside of Tesla's PRs, that is why all statements about it are couched as claims or reactions. QRep2020 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good reason to discuss it in social media, but not in an encyclopedia. Perhaps it was premature to create this article... FatBear1 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize this was written a while ago, but today I think it can be argued that the Optimus robot itself is culturally significant. There are far more vague wikipedia articles, the apple car page comes to mind, a project which hasn't even been officially acknowledged, and there's Tesla Roadster (second generation), of which there is no current evidence of development. This page is regularly discussed, and it is obviously in active development, so I think it should stay. It's comparable to Asimo, in that neither have sold any units, just rolled out for flashy demonstrations. 300AD (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Optimus (robot).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinions

Carl Berry: a lecturer from a random university with unknown reputation of engineering

Gary Marcus: an expert of robotics? Gary Marcus is an expert of pretending to be an expert of something and nothing else.

Filip Piekniewski, Cynthia Yeung: has anyone ever heard any achievements from those two AI/robotics experts?

Tom Ryden, a director of Mass Robotics: is this director capable making a toy robot? Tuskla (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to find some sources of other expert opinions to add to the article, if feel the article could be more balanced, that would be the best way to do it! 300AD (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that its an R&D project and thus outside experts don't even know what the intent of the design is for and the people working on it aren't going to say. My guess is that the point of it is to be used on unmanned space stations or other areas where a directly-controlled avatar can allow a real human to do things from many miles away. However, this is a guess based on the fact that its designed to be remote controlled by a person. I have no faith in the words of any 'expert' who himself or herself has no incentive to be honest or open-minded. This is especially the case because this project looks less like an actual autonomous robot and more like the 'surrogate' robots from the 2009 film of the same name.

Unless an expert is legally required to be honest, their words have no meaning in today's day and age where the respect society has for experts has been misused and abused by members of the expert community. This is a fact and the evidence is the litany of failed predictions experts have made in the last few years. 2604:2D80:6305:600:2825:7288:EDA0:ECA7 (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]