The Humanoid Fallacy

The Humanoid Fallacy

We Are Building Mechanical Slaves, Not Better Robots

There is a fundamental lie at the heart of the modern robotics industry. It is the lie that tells us the ultimate machine must look like a man.

Walk into any modern factory, and you will see the truth of automation. You will see 4.66 million industrial robots working worldwide with a precision that biology can never match. They weld, they paint, they assemble, and they move with frightening speed. None of them have legs. None of them have faces. They are pure function, stripped of vanity.

Yet turn on the news or scroll through your feed, and you won’t see these machines. You will see Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos promising you a “buddy” that looks like a person, walks like a person, and supposedly does “tasks you don’t want to do.” The investment money — billions of dollars from the world’s richest men — is not flowing into making robots better at working. It is flowing into making robots better at looking like servants.

The obsession with the humanoid form is not an engineering decision. It is a psychological one. It is a persistent, expensive fantasy of the “perfectly obedient body” — a resurrection of the master-slave dialectic, dressed up in white plastic and lithium batteries. This essay argues that the humanoid robot industry is not primarily a technological project at all. It is a cultural and ideological project that happens to use technology, one whose roots stretch back through centuries of slavery, domestic servitude, and racialized labor hierarchies.

Part I: The Anatomy of Desire

Sociology, Slavery, and the Fantasy of Mastery

The robot is never merely a machine; it is a cultural artifact that reflects the anxieties, desires, and power structures of the society that produces it. To understand the current fixation on humanoid robots, one must look beyond the cleanrooms of Silicon Valley to the historical and sociological frameworks of labor, race, and subjugation. The “humanoid” is the ultimate expression of a specific desire: to possess a being that is human enough to serve, yet object enough to be owned without moral consequence.

The Genealogy of the Slave-Machine: From Robota to Chattel

The linguistic and conceptual origins of the robot are inextricably linked to servitude. The term “robot” was coined by Czech writer Karel Čapek in his 1920 play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), derived from the Czech word robota, referring to forced labor or serfdom. The related Slavic root appears in Russian rabota (work) and rabotnik (worker). This etymology is not incidental; it reveals the foundational function of the automaton in the human imagination: an entity created solely for labor, stripped of will, and bound to the command of a master.

But the conceptual roots run deeper, intertwining with the history of chattel slavery in the Americas. Historical analysis reveals that the rhetoric used to justify chattel slavery — the reduction of human beings to “walking personifications of the Negative” or mere tools — is seamlessly transferred to the mechanical bodies of robots. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, American writers and industrialists frequently drew parallels between the “undead” condition of the slave and the mechanical nature of the automaton. The slave was legally and socially constructed as a machine for production; the robot is technologically constructed as a slave for production. This conceptual bridge allows for the transfer of the “master” psychology from the plantation to the factory floor and the smart home.

The 19th-century abolitionist David Walker framed the condition of the African American slave as an “undead” state, a sentiment that resonates with the “uncanny” nature of the humanoid robot. The robot is the realization of the slaveholder’s fantasy: a being that works without complaint, exists without rights, and can be turned off — effectively killed — without legal repercussion. Contemporary scholars argue that the association between “slaves” and “robots” is not merely metaphorical but genealogical. The “tradition of representing slaves, workers, and racial ‘others’ as humanoid machines” provided the cultural soil in which Čapek’s concept of the robot took root.

Čapek’s play does not merely name robots; it bakes in a revolt storyline. That plotline has become the template for robot-uprising fiction and is often read as a retelling of slave rebellion and emancipation politics through a futuristic mask. Scholar Kanta Dihal argues explicitly for reading robot uprising stories as modern reworkings of slave revolts. The fear that animates these narratives — that the created servant class will rise up against its masters — is the same fear that haunted every plantation society in history.

Rastus Robot and the Jim Crow Fantasy

The racial coding of the humanoid robot was made explicit in the technological spectacles of the early 20th century. In the 1930s, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation developed a series of “mechanical men” to demonstrate their electrical components. Among them was “Rastus Robot,” a machine modeled after a racial caricature of a Black sharecropper. Westinghouse marketed Rastus explicitly as a “mechanical slave,” capable of sweeping floors, rising, and moving its hands at the master’s command.

Rastus was not a solitary anomaly; he was part of a “family” of robots that included “Willie Vocalite,” “Mr. Televox,” and “Katrina van Televox.” These machines toured the United States, performing at management clubs and department stores, spreading a message of “robotic slavery” to middle- and upper-class white families. The design of Rastus — dressed in stereotypical sharecropper attire, with exaggerated features drawn from minstrelsy — served to normalize the idea that the ideal servant is a racialized, mechanical “Other” who exists solely to please the white family.

This explicit racialization served a specific social function: it soothed the anxieties of a white populace fearing the loss of racial dominance during the Great Depression and the early stirrings of the civil rights era, offering a fantasy where the “servant” is permanently compliant and incapable of rebellion. The existence of Rastus Robot challenges any notion that humanoid robotics is a neutral scientific pursuit. It reveals that from the very beginning, the project of building artificial men was racially coded. The “mechanical slave” was designed to occupy the social space of the Black servant, effectively attempting to preserve the master-slave dynamic through technological means.

While modern robotics companies have moved away from such explicit caricatures, the underlying dynamic — the creation of a humanoid underclass to serve a privileged owner — remains the central value proposition of the industry. The black rubber of Rastus has been replaced with white plastic, but the promise is identical: a human-shaped body that is “totally available.”

The “White” Robot: Sanitizing the Slave Aesthetic

A critical examination of contemporary humanoid robots reveals a stark racial bias in their design. The vast majority of commercial and research robots — from the SoftBank Pepper to the NASA Valkyrie and the Tesla Optimus — are encased in smooth, white plastic. This “default white” is not a neutral design choice; it implicitly codes the “universal” human form as white.

Sociologists Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal have noted that the decision to utilize white material for humanoid robots serves a dual, contradictory function. First, it attempts to distance the machine from the historical imagery of Black slavery, sanitizing the master-slave dynamic by removing the explicit racial signifier that characterized robots like Rastus. By presenting the robot as a “white” entity, designers attempt to frame the interaction as one of high-tech collaboration rather than feudal servitude. However, this design choice simultaneously reinforces the notion that whiteness is the default normative state of humanity.

Furthermore, empirical research into the “Shooter Bias” phenomenon has shown that humans project racial stereotypes onto robots. Studies indicate that participants react differently to robots based on their color, with “black” robots being more frequently associated with threat or dehumanization than “white” robots. When robots are racialized as Black or Brown, they risk reinforcing the association of those races with service and manual labor. Conversely, when robots are designed as white, they are often perceived as having higher agency or status.

This racial coding extends to the AI systems that power these robots. Recent studies from Johns Hopkins have shown that when robots are equipped with AI trained on internet data, they reproduce virulent racist and sexist stereotypes. Robots asked to identify a “criminal” were significantly more likely to select images of Black men, while identifying women primarily as “homemakers.” The humanoid robot is not a tabula rasa; it is a vessel for the accumulated biases of the society that builds it. The physical form of the robot amplifies these biases by providing a body upon which race and gender can be projected.

The Master-Slave Dialectic in the Age of AI

The philosophical underpinnings of the human-robot relationship can be illuminated through G.W.F. Hegel’s “Master-Slave Dialectic” (Herrschaft und Knechtschaft) from the Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel describes a struggle for recognition where one consciousness (the Master) subjugates another (the Slave) to validate its own existence. The Master achieves self-consciousness only through the recognition of the Slave, yet because the Slave is objectified and dehumanized, this recognition is ultimately hollow.

In the context of contemporary robotics, humanity occupies the position of the Master, seeking to create a Slave (the humanoid robot) that can provide recognition and labor. However, this creates a paradox. If the robot is a mere machine (a “lifeless slave” in Aristotle’s terms), it cannot provide the “authentic” recognition that the Master craves — the feeling of being served by another being. The Master desires a servant that is human-like enough to simulate a meaningful relationship (hence the obsession with eyes, faces, and voices in social robotics) but remains an object that can be controlled absolutely.

This dialectic explains the deep psychological drive to make robots humanoid. A washing machine cleans clothes more efficiently than a humanoid robot ever could, but a washing machine cannot look at its owner and simulate respect or subservience. The humanoid form allows the human owner to enact the fantasy of lordship. The robot’s “emotions” and “personality” are engineered specifically to trigger the user’s social instincts, creating a simulation of mastery that a shapeless algorithm cannot provide. The user is invited to suspend disbelief and engage in a performance of power, where the robot plays the role of the compliant subject.

Philosopher Joanna Bryson has argued that “Robots Should Be Slaves” — a utilitarian position that robots should be viewed strictly as tools and property to avoid the moral hazards of granting them personhood. But this view ignores the corrupting influence of the “slaveholder” mindset on the human user. Research indicates that the habituation to commanding human-shaped entities can desensitize individuals and reinforce authoritarian social dynamics. If we accustom ourselves to treating humanoid entities as “mere means,” we risk transferring those behaviors back onto vulnerable human populations — historical “others” who have been treated as machines in the past.

Rosie the Robot and the Mammy Archetype

If the American image of “a servant” is historically saturated with racial meaning, from slavery through Jim Crow domestic labor, then that imagery becomes cultural shorthand in mid-century media: the cheerful, compliant helper whose life exists to support a (usually white) household.

Scholar Gregory Hampton argues that The Jetsons’ Rosie the Robot can be read through the Mammy stereotype: a domestic worker coded as safe, loyal, and non-threatening, designed to “belong” in the home as labor. Rosie speaks with a working-class accent, wears an apron, and exists solely to serve the Jetson family. She is the Space Age version of the antebellum house servant, sanitized by metal and circuitry but performing the identical social role.

This matters because modern consumer-robot marketing often slides into the same frame: “a helper” whose primary function is service and whose autonomy is intentionally limited. When you make the helper a body, a face, and a voice, you are not just shipping hardware; you are shipping a social role. The marketing language of contemporary humanoid companies — “companion,” “assistant,” “buddy” — deliberately invokes this domestic servitude tradition while attempting to drain it of its historical weight.

Part II: The Political Economy of the Humanoid

Capitalism’s Dream of the Perfect Worker

If the sociological driver of humanoid robotics is the fantasy of mastery, the economic driver is the capitalist imperative to eliminate “variable capital” (labor) in favor of “fixed capital” (machines). Karl Marx’s analysis of automation in the Grundrisse provides the essential framework for understanding why modern corporations are obsessed with the humanoid form. The humanoid robot represents the “Perfect Worker”: a laborer that possesses the versatility of the human body but is stripped of the human needs for wages, rest, and political resistance.

Fixed Capital and the Elimination of Labor Power

In the “Fragment on Machines,” Marx anticipates a stage of capitalism where the production process is no longer dependent on the skill and strength of the individual worker, but rather on the “general intellect” embodied in machinery. Automation is the capitalist’s ultimate weapon against the falling rate of profit. By replacing human workers (who demand wages and have biological limits) with machines (which only require maintenance and energy), the capitalist seeks to maximize surplus value extraction.

Humanoid robots represent the final frontier of this process. Traditional automation (conveyor belts, robotic arms) requires the factory to be redesigned around the machine. The humanoid robot promises something far more seductive to the capitalist: the ability to automate without redesigning the environment. It promises that the machine can simply be “dropped in” to existing workflows, replacing the human directly.

This is the core value proposition of companies like Figure AI and Tesla. Their marketing copy explicitly frames their robots as a solution to “labor shortages” — a euphemism for the capital class’s unwillingness to pay higher wages or improve working conditions. By creating a “general purpose” humanoid, capital seeks to break the bargaining power of labor permanently. If a strike occurs, or if wages rise, the human workforce can be swapped out for a robotic one that never sleeps, never unionizes, and never complains.

The Billionaires and Their Toys

The loudest voices pushing the humanoid fantasy are the men who stand to gain the most from a compliant labor class. Their marketing language reveals the ideology beneath the engineering.

Elon Musk and Tesla Optimus: Tesla describes Optimus as a “general purpose, bi-pedal, autonomous humanoid robot” for “unsafe, repetitive or boring tasks.” This is explicit replacement-labor framing, dressed as worker safety. Musk promises that Optimus will do “anything humans don’t want to do” and predicts a future where “work is optional.” He markets these bots as “buddies” and “companions,” deliberately blurring the line between tool and friend. Public demos have illustrated a recurring theme in humanoid hype: impressive stagecraft, limited autonomy. The Verge reported that Optimus units at Tesla’s 2024 Cybercab event were largely teleoperated, even when presented as capable performers. At a December 2025 Miami event, an Optimus collapsed the moment its teleoperator appeared to remove his VR headset — the viral video exposed what “autonomy” often means in demo conditions.

Brett Adcock and Figure AI: Figure’s public “Master Plan” is unusually blunt: it frames human labor as a major share of global GDP and predicts labor costs will fall until they match the price of renting a robot. That is the economic thesis in plain language. CEO Brett Adcock projects that “every home will have a humanoid… which will do domestic chores from emptying the dishwasher to making the bed.” He estimates the addressable market at $40 trillion — the value of all labor in the global economy. The company has raised $1.75 billion at a $39 billion valuation, with investors including Jeff Bezos ($100 million), Microsoft ($95 million), Nvidia ($50 million), and OpenAI. Figure’s website markets the Figure 03 as designed for “household tasks the way you would” — language that positions the robot as a surrogate human body, available on demand.

A November 2025 whistleblower lawsuit from former Figure safety engineer Robert Gruendel alleges the robots are “powerful enough to fracture a human skull” and that one “carved a ¼-inch gash into a steel refrigerator door during a malfunction.” The lawsuit claims the company had “no formal safety procedures, incident-reporting systems, or risk-assessment processes.” The gap between marketing fantasy and engineering reality could not be starker.

Jeff Bezos: Bezos is relevant less as a builder of humanoids than as capital: his investment participation in humanoid startups like Figure helps normalize the thesis that the next big platform is “labor as a service” delivered by robots. His existing Amazon empire already operates over 1 million robots — none of them humanoid — because when function matters more than fantasy, wheels beat legs.

The Marketing of Servitude

The marketing pattern is consistent across companies: “Tasks you don’t want to do” (universal), domestic chores (laundry, dishes, cleaning, cooking), “every home” (mass consumer deployment as inevitable), and “general purpose” (one body for all demands). This is the language of total availability — the human-shaped servant who does whatever is asked, whenever it’s asked, without boundaries between task categories. It is the plantation fantasy dressed in venture capital.

UBTECH Robotics, the Chinese company that has achieved the largest commercial humanoid deployments (several hundred Walker S2 units shipped), markets its Walker as “your agile smart companion — an intelligent, bipedal humanoid robot that aims to one day be an indispensable part of your family.” The Walker X is designed for “serving tea, pouring liquids, watering flowers, wiping surfaces, operating vacuum cleaners.” The domestic servant, reborn in silicon.

The language serves a dual purpose. First, it mitigates the public fear of job displacement by framing the robot as a helper rather than a replacement. Second, it appeals to the consumer’s desire for high-status servitude. In a democratic society where human servants are expensive and socially stratified, the robot offers a return to the aristocratic ideal of the “staff.” The robot “butler” is the ultimate status symbol, signaling that the owner is important enough to be waited upon. This marketing strategy effectively monetizes the Master-Slave dialectic. The robot is sold not just as a tool for efficiency, but as a lifestyle product that confers authority and prestige.

The Reserve Army of Silicon

The mass deployment of humanoid robots would create what Marx called a “reserve army of labor” — but made of silicon. The reserve army (the unemployed) serves to discipline employed workers, keeping wages low through the threat of replacement. A robotic reserve army intensifies this discipline to an absolute degree. Analysts at Morgan Stanley predict that humanoid robots could impact up to 75% of occupations. Goldman Sachs projects a $38 billion market by 2035; Morgan Stanley envisions $5 trillion by 2050 with approximately one billion humanoid robots deployed.

Unlike previous waves of automation which targeted specific tasks (weaving, welding), humanoid automation targets the worker as a general-purpose unit. This threatens to sever the link between labor and subsistence entirely, leading to a crisis of consumption. If the robots do all the work, and the workers earn no wages, who buys the products?

The capitalist solution to this — universal basic income (UBI) or similar schemes — is often touted by tech elites like Musk as a benevolent outcome. But critical theorists argue that this transforms the working class into a ward of the state, dependent on the largesse of the robot-owning tech oligarchy, effectively establishing a techno-feudalism. The desire for humanoid robots is thus a desire for a post-democratic economic order where the owners of capital are freed from their dependence on the working class.

Part III: The Engineering Nightmare

Why Your Body Is a Bad Design

While the sociological and economic desires for humanoid robots are strong, the engineering reality is starkly different. From a strictly technical perspective, the bipedal humanoid form is one of the least efficient, least stable, and most complex designs for virtually any practical task. The human body is an evolutionary accident, not an engineering blueprint. We are the way we are because our ancestors needed to survive on the African savanna, not because this form is efficient for moving boxes in a warehouse.

The Evolutionary Satisfice

The human body is the product of millions of years of evolutionary compromise, not intelligent design. Our bipedalism emerged approximately 7–4 million years ago as hominins transitioned from forest environments to mixed woodland-grassland habitats. A 2024 study in Nature Human Behaviour analyzing nearly 400 ethnographic cases confirmed that persistence hunting — chasing prey during the hottest part of day until the animal collapses from exhaustion — yielded 1,882–3,727 kcal per man-hour, making it extraordinarily efficient for our specific physiology. We evolved 2–4 million eccrine sweat glands specifically positioned for cooling while running. Unlike quadrupeds, we don’t need to stop and pant.

But this evolutionary success came with profound costs. “Backache is the price we pay in exchange for the advantages we gained by adapting bipedalism,” notes research published in the International Journal of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. University of Sydney research found that human vertebrae with Schmorl’s nodes (indicators of disc herniation) share more similarities with chimpanzee vertebrae than with healthy human vertebrae — the spine is a horizontal beam pressed into vertical service. Intervertebral disc herniation affects 20–78% of humans. Knee osteoarthritis afflicts 250 million people worldwide, and by 2040, nearly 40% of adults over 65 will have degenerative joint disease. Spondylolysis — vertebral stress fractures — occurs only in humans and never in our great ape cousins.

“If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved,” observed anthropologist Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University. Evolution doesn’t optimize; it satisfices. Human form represents what was “good enough” to survive and reproduce under specific ancestral pressures that simply do not apply to manufactured machines.

The Cost of Transport: Why Legs Are Stupid

The most damning metric for humanoid robots is the Cost of Transport (CoT), a dimensionless number that represents the energy required to move a unit of mass a unit of distance. In biological evolution, humans are relatively efficient walkers compared to other animals, but in the realm of robotics, bipedalism is an energetic disaster compared to wheels.

Wheeled robots achieve a CoT of less than 0.05. Humanoid robots operate at a CoT of approximately 2.0 to 3.0. The reality: a humanoid robot is 40 to 60 times less efficient than a simple wheeled robot. It burns energy just trying not to fall over.

The physics of inefficiency is straightforward: bipedal locomotion requires the robot to constantly lift its Center of Mass against gravity with every step. It must accelerate and decelerate heavy limbs (legs) that constitute a significant portion of its total mass. To maintain balance, it requires active stabilization, meaning motors are drawing current even when the robot is standing still or moving slowly, fighting gravity to prevent toppling. A wheeled robot moves on a constant horizontal plane. It does not lift its CoM. Rolling friction is orders of magnitude lower than the energy cost of lifting and swinging a leg.

The CASSIE bipedal robot — one of the more efficient designs — uses 200 watts of power walking at 1.0 m/s with a transport efficiency far below biological systems. Boston Dynamics’ hydraulic Atlas managed only 30–60 minutes of battery life; the new electric version achieves approximately one hour. Tesla’s Optimus targets 2–4 hours. Compare this to Amazon’s Kiva warehouse robots: 8 hours of autonomous operation while moving 450kg loads. The difference isn’t incremental — it’s categorical.

The Stability Problem: Walking Is Falling

The humanoid form is inherently unstable. In physics terms, it is an inverted pendulum with a high center of gravity and a small support polygon (the feet). If a wheeled robot loses power, it stops. If a bipedal robot loses power or encounters a calculation error, it falls. In an industrial environment, a 150lb falling robot is a significant safety hazard to nearby humans and equipment.

A significant percentage of a humanoid robot’s onboard compute power is dedicated solely to not falling over. This is parasitic computation that does not contribute to the task (e.g., picking up a box). A wheeled robot devotes almost zero compute to vertical stability, allowing all processing power to be used for navigation and manipulation.

The failure modes are public and embarrassing. At the December 2025 Miami event, Tesla’s Optimus collapsed when the teleoperator appeared to remove his VR headset. At the World Humanoid Robot Games, the half-marathon was “largely considered a failure” with robots crashing, overheating, and breaking down. Boston Dynamics’ celebrated parkour routine worked only about 1 out of 20 times, a fact Wired uncovered that most coverage ignored.

The Dexterity Myth

Rodney Brooks — MIT professor, co-founder of iRobot and Rethink Robotics, one of the most accomplished roboticists alive — published a devastating assessment in September 2025 titled “Why Today’s Humanoids Won’t Learn Dexterity”: “The idea that humanoid robots will be able to do the manual things that humans do any time within decades is pure fantasy thinking.”

Brooks explains that human dexterity relies on approximately 17,000 specialized touch receptors in the hand alone — sensory richness no current robot approaches. Collecting visual training data, as most AI robotics companies do, fundamentally misses the tactile intelligence that makes human manipulation possible. His timeline: “We are more than ten years away from the first profitable deployment of humanoid robots even with minimal dexterity.” He predicts that robots 15 years from now will “look like neither today’s humanoid robots nor humans” — evolving toward wheels, varied arm configurations, and non-human sensor placements.

Brad Porter, former VP at Amazon Robotics and founder of Collaborative Robotics, published “The Problems With Humanoid Robots” articulating the core dysfunction: “Biomimicry isn’t the right approach. Humanoid robots aren’t the right design solution for most production tasks.” He cites Stanford’s Dr. Stephen Boyd on the degrees-of-freedom problem: when you exceed six degrees of freedom, motion planning becomes computationally intractable. Humanoid robots have far more, requiring constant computation for balance that drains batteries and limits payload.

Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley professor and AI safety researcher, cuts to the absurdity: “Beyond a basic capability to convey nonverbal information via facial expression and movement — which even Bugs Bunny manages to do with ease — there is no good reason for robots to have humanoid form.” He adds: “An accurately humanoid robot makes as much sense as a Ferrari with a top speed of five miles per hour.”

The Actuator Nightmare

Humanoid robots require a massive number of actuators (motors/joints) to mimic human degrees of freedom. A functional humanoid needs 6–7 DoF per leg, 6–7 per arm, plus waist, neck, and hands — resulting in 30+ high-torque actuators. The reliability of a system decreases exponentially with the number of critical moving parts. If one knee actuator fails, the entire humanoid is immobilized or collapses. In contrast, a differential drive robot has two motors. If one fails, it can often still spin or drag itself to a repair station.

“A leg is a single continuous piece” in biology, self-repairing and fed by a single circulatory system. In robotics, a leg is a complex assembly of gears, bearings, motors, and cables. Maintenance costs for bipeds are “effectively reversed” compared to biology; they are high-maintenance, fragile systems. Wheeled platforms, by contrast, are low-maintenance and robust.

Part IV: The Humanoid Fallacy

Why the “Human World” Argument Is Wrong

The primary defense for humanoid robots is that “the world is built for humans,” so robots must be human-shaped to navigate stairs, open doors, and fit in narrow spaces. This is the core of the Humanoid Fallacy — the arrogant belief that the world is so perfectly built for humans that the best machine is a fake human.

Stairs Are Rare in Industry

Factories and warehouses are specifically designed without stairs for the movement of goods. They use ramps, elevators, and flat floors because humans also struggle to move heavy goods up stairs. We use carts and forklifts (wheels) because our legs are inefficient for load bearing. The idea that a robot needs to climb stairs to move boxes is a misunderstanding of industrial logistics. For a warehouse floor — which is flat concrete — using legs is akin to driving a tank that consumes fuel like a jet fighter to do the job of a bicycle.

Modifying the Environment Is Cheaper

It is infinitely cheaper to install an automatic door opener or a ramp than to develop a $100,000 bipedal robot to turn a doorknob. The “retrofitting” argument fails when the cost of the robot exceeds the cost of the retrofit by orders of magnitude. Amazon did not try to drop robots into a human-centric warehouse. They redesigned the warehouse for the robots (no aisles for humans, pods moved to pickers). This approach allows for densities and speeds impossible for humanoids.

The Vitruvian Delusion

The insistence on humanoid robots reflects what might be called the “Vitruvian Man syndrome” — the Renaissance humanist belief that human form represents nature’s ultimate expression. Leonardo da Vinci’s famous drawing positioned the human body within perfect geometric shapes (circle and square), symbolizing divine proportion. “Man is the measure of all things” became the humanist creed, with humans uniquely bridging earthly and cosmic realms.

This ideology has theological roots in the imago Dei — the doctrine from Genesis 1:26–28 that “God created man in his image.” Traditional interpretations hold that humans uniquely bear the divine image, distinguishing them from animals and machines. The assumption that intelligent agents should be human-shaped reflects this deep cultural conviction that human form is inherently optimal, even sacred.

But as evolutionary biology demonstrates, human form is merely what worked well enough under specific ancestral conditions. Our spines ache because they’re repurposed horizontal beams. Our knees degrade because they evolved for shorter lifespans. Our balance requires constant muscular correction because two legs are inherently unstable. These aren’t features to replicate — they’re limitations to transcend.

In the animal kingdom, the “crab” form (carcinization) has evolved independently multiple times because it is robust and stable. The “wheel” (or rolling) is utilized by some organisms (like tumbleweeds or certain spiders) but is largely absent in biology due to developmental constraints (blood supply to a rotating part), not because it is inefficient. By creating robots that are humanoid, we are engaging in a form of technological creationism — creating man in our own image — rather than scientific innovation.

Part V: Form Follows Function

What Useful Robots Actually Look Like

If we actually cared about solving problems, we would look at what works. The empirical evidence for task-specific design is overwhelming. According to the International Federation of Robotics, 4.66 million industrial robots operated worldwide in 2024, with 542,000 new installations that year — the fourth consecutive year above 500,000. These numbers have doubled in the past decade. None of these robots are humanoid.

The Kiva Paradigm: The Triumph of the Non-Humanoid

Amazon operates over 1 million robots in its warehouse network since acquiring Kiva Systems for $775 million in 2012. These look like orange Roombas. The Kiva robots — 75cm × 60cm × 35cm, weighing 110kg — can lift up to 450kg (the DU3000 Hercules model handles 1,360kg) while presenting items at a rate of 600 picks per hour. They reduced “click to ship” time from 60–75 minutes to 15 minutes. Newer Amazon warehouses have more robots than people.

These flat, wheeled platforms navigate in dense grid patterns, slip under shelving units, and self-organize so popular products automatically migrate to accessible positions — capabilities impossible with a bipedal humanoid form. They have a low center of gravity, high stability, and zero wasted motion. They are “perfect workers” not because they look like humans, but because they don’t.

Ahmad Baitalmal, CTO of logistics automation company Mytra, states the obvious: “The future of robotics isn’t about waiting for humanoids to develop enough to replace workers decades from now; it’s about solving today’s problems with the best tools available. The warehouses of tomorrow won’t be run by human-shaped robots; they’ll be powered by automation that’s purpose-built for the task.”

The da Vinci System: Superhuman Through Non-Human Form

The da Vinci surgical system has performed over 14 million procedures since FDA clearance in 2000. It doesn’t look like a surgeon. It looks like a terrifying spider-machine. That’s why it can perform surgery with superhuman precision — it isn’t limited by human wrists. Its EndoWrist instruments offer 7 degrees of freedom — greater than the human wrist — with tremor filtration, motion scaling, and 10x magnification. A humanoid surgeon would be absurd; the robot’s value lies in superhuman precision, not anthropomorphic mimicry. System uptime exceeds 99%.

Stretch: Boston Dynamics’ Boring Money-Maker

The company famous for the dancing humanoid Atlas also builds “Stretch,” a boring arm on a box that moves boxes. That’s the one they sell to logistics companies because that’s the one that makes money. Stretch is built for unloading and moving cases in logistics settings, not for looking like a person. The contrast is useful: the company that made humanoid spectacle money is pushing non-humanoid utility in the warehouse. The robots that actually work at scale receive comparatively modest attention compared to the viral Atlas videos.

Industrial Robots: Precision at Scale

FANUC has installed over 1 million robots worldwide; ABB has deployed over 400,000 with a mean time between failures of 400,000 hours. These 6-axis articulated arms provide ±0.05mm repeatability while handling payloads from 0.5kg to 1,300kg (KUKA’s KR 1000 Titan). They’re IP67 rated for dust and liquid intrusion — impossible with humanoid joints. The design philosophy is simple: maximize capability for the task, eliminate unnecessary complexity.

ABB Managing Director Ali Raja states plainly: “I don’t see that there are any real practical applications where humanoids are bringing in a lot of value.” The companies building humanoid robots cannot point to a single category where their form factor outperforms task-specific design. The investment thesis rests entirely on the premise that humans want servants shaped like humans — that the fantasy is worth more than the engineering.

The Consumer Reality: The Roomba

The most culturally ubiquitous household robot is the vacuum. iRobot has sold millions of Roombas since introducing the first model in 2002. It doesn’t look like a maid. It looks like a hockey puck. That’s why it works: it can fit under furniture, it doesn’t knock things over, and it doesn’t need to balance. In December 2025, iRobot entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy amid intense competition, which contains its own lesson: practical robots compete on price and performance, not mythic symbolism. The market for useful robots is brutal and commodity-driven. The market for humanoid robots is pure speculation.

Part VI: The Billions Behind the Fantasy

Investment Divorced from Engineering

Investment in humanoid robotics has become a self-reinforcing phenomenon disconnected from demonstrated capability. Robotics startups raised approximately $7.2 billion in 2024, with humanoid-specific investment increasing 81% year-over-year. Goldman Sachs projects a $38 billion market by 2035; Morgan Stanley envisions $5 trillion by 2050 with approximately one billion humanoid robots deployed.

Figure AI’s $39 billion valuation makes it the most valuable pure-play humanoid company despite having shipped almost no commercial units. Apptronik has raised over $1 billion at a $5.47 billion valuation. Chinese manufacturer Unitree, which controls 60–70% of global quadruped robot shipments, is targeting a $7 billion IPO. These valuations are based not on current revenue but on the promise of the fantasy made real.

Meanwhile, the robots that actually work at scale — the 542,000 industrial units installed annually, the million-plus Amazon warehouse robots, the da Vinci surgical systems with 14 million procedures — receive comparatively modest attention. The form factor that has proven economically viable is not the one attracting the billions. The investment thesis rests entirely on the premise that humans want servants shaped like humans — that the fantasy is worth more than the engineering.

Conclusion: The Emancipation of the Machine

We are at a crossroads. We can build machines that amplify human potential — machines that are specialized, efficient, and designed for the task. Or we can continue to pour billions into the narcissism of the humanoid form.

The pursuit of the humanoid robot is a cautionary tale of technology subservient to ideology. Technically, it is a regression — a move away from the efficiency of the wheel and the network toward the inefficiency of the biped and the isolated body. Economically, it is a weapon — a tool designed to render human labor obsolete and consolidate the power of capital by creating a strike-proof workforce. Sociologically, it is a fantasy — a resurrection of the Master-Slave dynamic, sanitized by plastic and silicon, allowing the “owner” to indulge in dominion over a human-shaped entity without the guilt of historical slavery.

The insistence on building mechanical men is a regression. It is a sign that we are not looking forward to a future of automation, but backward to a past of plantation labor. We are trying to build a slave that we can own without guilt. The evidence is overwhelming: humanoid robots are unsuitable for practically anything other than the fulfillment of a slave fantasy. They are less efficient, more expensive, less stable, and more psychologically disturbing than their non-humanoid counterparts.

A truly progressive robotic future would abandon the anthropocentric obsession. It would embrace heterogeneous, function-first designs that augment human capability rather than mimicking human form. It would look like the Kiva swarm, the Boston Dynamics Spot, or the surgical da Vinci arm — machines that look nothing like us, and therefore, can do things we never could.

The 4.66 million industrial robots working worldwide have already transcended human form. They don’t look human because they don’t need to. They look like what works: articulated arms, wheeled platforms, specialized end effectors, task-optimized forms. The companies building humanoid robots are not solving engineering problems. They are enacting an ideology — the belief that human shape is the proper form for a servant, that the laboring body should look like us while existing only to obey us.

To persist in building the Mechanical Slave is to remain trapped in the worst patterns of our past, projecting our darkest history into our technological future. A truly advanced society doesn’t need synthetic humans to do its dirty work. It builds better tools. The question investigators should ask is not whether humanoid robots will eventually work. The question is why we’re so determined to build them in the first place — why billions flow into recreating the human form for servitude when the engineering points elsewhere. The answer lies not in robotics but in history, ideology, and the persistent human desire to be served by something that looks like us but exists only to obey.

Bibliography

The Humanoid Fallacy: We Are Building Mechanical Slaves, Not Better Robots

Etymology and History of the Robot Concept

Čapek, Karel. R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). Prague: Aventinum, 1920. Play that introduced the word “robot” to the world, derived from Czech robota (forced labor/serfdom).

MIT Press Reader. “The Czech Play That Gave Us the Word ‘Robot’.” MIT Press, 2020. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/origin-word-robot-rur/

Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. “Robot” (definition and origin note). https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/robot

BBC Science Focus. “Where Does the Word Robot Come From?” https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/where-does-the-word-robot-come-from

Wikipedia. “R.U.R.” (overview of the play and context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

Interesting Literature. “The Curious Origin of the Word ‘Robot’.” https://interestingliterature.com/2016/03/the-curious-origin-of-the-word-robot/

Race, Slavery, and Technology Studies

Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Landmark study defining slavery as “permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons.”

Atanasoski, Neda and Kalindi Vora. Surrogate Humanity: Race, Robots, and the Politics of Technological Futures. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019. https://www.dukeupress.edu/surrogate-humanity

Sparrow, Robert. “Robotics Has a Race Problem.” Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 45, no. 5, 2020, pp. 538–560. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243919862862

Cave, Stephen and Kanta Dihal. “The Whiteness of AI.” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 685–703. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-020-00415-6

Dihal, Kanta. “Enslaved Minds: Artificial Intelligence, Slavery, and Revolt.” University of Cambridge Repository, 2020. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/7d49018e-611c-462a-a81b-fc9cd98f67e8

Chude-Sokei, Louis. The Sound of Culture: Diaspora and Black Technopoetics. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2015.

Boston University. “Faculty Friday: Louis Chude-Sokei.” Initiative on Cities, 2022. https://www.bu.edu/ioc/news/news-events/faculty-friday-louis-chude-sokei/

Boston University. “University Lecture: Louis Chude-Sokei Aims to Challenge Conventional Narratives about Race and Technology.” BU Today, 2022. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/louis-chude-sokei-aims-to-challenge-conventional-narratives/

poco.lit. “Race and Technology.” September 5, 2023. https://pocolit.com/en/2023/09/05/race-and-technology/

The Conversation. “AI Slaves: The Questionable Desire Shaping Our Idea of Technological Progress.” 2018. https://theconversation.com/ai-slaves-the-questionable-desire-shaping-our-idea-of-technological-progress-92487

Hampton, Gregory. “Rosie the Robot: The African American Mammy in Space.” Howard University Digital Commons. https://dh.howard.edu/eng_fac/34/

Flow Journal. “Race, Gender, and Rosie the Robot.” 2010. https://www.flowjournal.org/2010/08/race-gender-and-rosie-the-robot/

Russell, Stuart. “Making Robots Too Human Is Bad for Humans, Bad for Robots.” LinkedIn, 2020. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/making-robots-too-human-bad-humans-stuart-russell

Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia. “Slave Labor.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/slave-labor

Encyclopedia Virginia. “Enslaved House Servants.” https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/enslaved-house-servants/

Evolutionary Biology and Human Bipedalism

Springer. “The First Hominins and the Origins of Bipedalism.” Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2010. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0257-6

Nature Human Behaviour. “Ethnography and Ethnohistory Support the Efficiency of Hunting through Endurance Running in Humans.” 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01876-x

International Journal of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. “Backache as Evolutionary Compromise to Bipedalism.” https://ijclinmedcasereports.com/pdf/IJCMCR-RW-00557.pdf

BioMed Central. “Common Back Problems May Be Caused by Evolution of Human Locomotion.” Press Release, April 27, 2015. https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/27-04-2015

Harvard Gazette. “Evolution, Aging, and Knee Osteoarthritis.” March 2023. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/evolution-aging-and-knee-osteoarthritis/

Harvard Gazette. “Human Knee Evolved in Lockstep with Osteoarthritis, Harvard Study Says.” April 2020. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/04/human-knee-evolved-in-lockstep-with-osteoarthritis-harvard-study-says/

MedicalXpress. “Evolution and Spine Shape May Predispose You to Back Problems.” March 2020. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-03-evolution-spine-predispose-problems.html

London Bridge Orthopaedics. “Is Bipedalism the Cause of Many Musculoskeletal Issues?” https://www.londonbridgeorthopaedics.co.uk/bipedalism-cause-many-musculoskeletal-issues/

OsteoMag. “Bipedalism’s Role in Musculoskeletal Disorders.” https://osteomag.ca/en/bipedalism-role-musculoskeletal-disorders/

Robotics Engineering and Technical Critiques

Brooks, Rodney. “Why Today’s Humanoids Won’t Learn Dexterity.” Rodney Brooks Blog, September 2025. https://rodneybrooks.com/blog/

Robotics & Automation News. “Pioneering Roboticist Rodney Brooks Says Humanoid Robots Matching Human Skills Is Pure Fantasy.” October 1, 2025. https://roboticsandautomationnews.com/2025/10/01/pioneering-roboticist-rodney-brooks-says-humanoid-robots-matching-human-skills-is-pure-fantasy/95069/

Scientific American. “Why Humanoid Robots and Embodied AI Still Struggle in the Real World.” 2025. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-humanoid-robots-and-embodied-ai-still-struggle-in-the-real-world/

TechTorch. “Exploring the Battery Life and Dynamics of Boston Dynamics’ Atlas Robot.” https://www.onadiko.com/Exploring-the-Battery-Life-and-Dynamics-of-Boston-Dynamics–Atlas-Robot

Ziva Robotics. “The Architecture and Design of Robots: Form Follows Function.” https://www.zivarobotics.com/architecture-design-robots-form-follows/

U.S. Army. “Wheels vs. Legs: A Review.” The Field Artillery Journal, July-September 2020. https://www.sill.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2020/jul-sep/articles/7.pdf

IEEE Journal of Automation Science and Engineering. “Humanoid Robots: A Review.” 2024. https://www.ieee-jas.net/article/doi/10.1109/JAS.2023.124140

Nature Scientific Reports. Energy Limitations and Actuator Demands in Humanoids (reference PDF), 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-30252-6_reference.pdf

Financial Times. “AI Does Not Mean the Robots Are Coming.” https://www.ft.com/content/84414ad5-6157-4f36-a27a-1366868a25ca

Industrial and Non-Humanoid Robotics

International Federation of Robotics. “Global Robot Demand in Factories Doubles Over 10 Years.” Press Release, 2024. https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robot-demand-in-factories-doubles-over-10-years

Standard Bots. “Robot Manufacturers’ Guide 2025: Who Builds the World’s Best Robots?” https://standardbots.com/blog/robot-manufacturers

Standard Bots. “FANUC vs. ABB: Choosing the Right Industrial Robot for Your Needs in 2025.” https://standardbots.com/blog/fanuc-vs-abb

About Amazon. “Amazon Deploys Over 1 Million Robots.” June 30, 2025. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-million-robots-ai-foundation-model

Boston Dynamics. “From Idea to Application with Stretch.” Blog post. https://bostondynamics.com/blog/idea-to-application-with-stretch/

Boston Dynamics. “An Electric New Era for Atlas.” Blog post, April 13, 2024. https://bostondynamics.com/blog/electric-new-era-for-atlas/

Boston Dynamics. “Atlas” (product page). https://bostondynamics.com/atlas/

IEEE Spectrum. “Hello, Electric Atlas.” April 17, 2024. https://spectrum.ieee.org/atlas-humanoid-robot

iRobot Investor Relations. Company History (Roomba introduced 2002). https://investor.irobot.com/news-releases/news-release-details/irobot-announces-strategic-transaction-drive-long-term-growth

Reuters. “iRobot Enters Chapter 11.” December 15, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/technology/irobot-enters-chapter-11-lender-acquire-roomba-maker-2025-12-15/

Humanoid Robot Companies and Investment

Tesla. “AI & Robotics” (Optimus product page). https://www.tesla.com/AI

Wikipedia. “Optimus (robot).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_(robot)

Fox News. “Elon Musk Says Robots Will Make Work Optional in New Viral Optimus Clip.” 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-teases-future-run-robots

Mike Kalil. “Scaling Tesla Optimus Production to 1 Million+.” https://mikekalil.com/blog/scaling-tesla-bot-production/

TESLARATI. “Tesla Exec Provides Key Update on Optimus’ Improving Dexterity.” https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-exec-provides-key-update-on-optimus-improving-dexterity/

Sparkly Maid Miami. “Can Tesla Optimus Do Chores?” https://www.sparklymaidmiami.com/blog/can-tesla-optimus-do-chores

Futurism. “Amazing Video Shows Tesla Optimus Teleoperator Taking Off Headset, Causing Robot to Stumble and Collapse.” December 2025. https://futurism.com/future-society/tesla-teleoperator-headset-optimus-fall

The Verge. “The Optimus Robots at Tesla’s Cybercab Event Were Humans in Disguise.” October 13, 2024. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/13/24269131/tesla-optimus-robots-human-controlled-cybercab-we-robot-event

Reuters. “Tesla to Have Humanoid Robots for Internal Use Next Year, Musk Says.” July 22, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-have-humanoid-robots-internal-use-next-year-musk-says-2024-07-22/

Figure AI. “Master Plan.” https://www.figure.ai/master-plan

Figure AI. Homepage. https://www.figure.ai/

TIME. “Figure 03 Is The Robot in Your Kitchen.” 2025. https://time.com/7324233/figure-03-robot-humanoid-reveal/

CNBC. “Humanoid Robot Startup Figure AI Valued at $2.6 Billion as Bezos, OpenAI, Nvidia Join Funding.” February 29, 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/29/robot-startup-figure-valued-at-2point6-billion-by-bezos-amazon-nvidia.html

Entrepreneur. “Jeff Bezos, Microsoft, and Nvidia All Decided To Invest in a $2.6 Billion Humanoid Robot Startup.” https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/jeff-bezos-microsoft-invest-in-a-humanoid-robot-startup/470546

Reuters. “Figure AI Fundraising Talks at $39.5B Valuation.” February 14, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/robotics-startup-figure-ai-talks-new-funding-395-billion-valuation-bloomberg-2025-02-14/

Axios. “Jeff Bezos, Nvidia, OpenAI Invest in Humanoid Robot Startup.” February 29, 2024. https://www.axios.com/2024/02/29/ai-robot-figure-nvidia-openai-jeff-bezos

Reuters. “Bezos/Nvidia/OpenAI Funding Figure.” February 23, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/technology/bezos-nvidia-join-openai-funding-humanoid-robot-startup-bloomberg-reports-2024-02-23/

CNBC. “Figure AI Sued by Whistleblower Who Warned That Startup’s Robots Could ‘Fracture a Human Skull’.” November 21, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/21/figure-ai-sued.html

Gizmodo. “You Must Read This Riveting Whistleblower Lawsuit About Allegedly Dangerous Robots.” November 2025. https://gizmodo.com/you-must-read-this-riveting-whistleblower-lawsuit-about-allegedly-dangerous-robots-2000688737

IEEE Spectrum. “UBTECH Shows Off Massive Upgrades to Walker Humanoid Robot.” https://spectrum.ieee.org/ubtech-upgrades-walker-humanoid-robot

Robotics & Automation News. “UBTECH Robotics Unveils Latest Version of Walker X Humanoid.” August 9, 2021. https://roboticsandautomationnews.com/2021/08/09/ubtech-robotics-unveils-latest-version-of-walker-x-humanoid/44565/

Interesting Engineering. “China’s Unitree Launches World’s First Humanoid Robot App Store.” https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/china-unitree-humanoid-robot-app-store

Investment and Market Analysis

Crunchbase News. “The Year of Humanoid Robots.” 2024. https://news.crunchbase.com/robotics/ai-humanoid-robots-venture-funding-2024/

Crunchbase News. “Robotics Funding Crests Higher As Figure Lands Another $1B.” https://news.crunchbase.com/robotics/ai-funding-high-figure-raise-data/

Tracxn. “Humanoid Robot — 2025 Market & Investments Trends.” https://tracxn.com/d/trending-business-models/startups-in-humanoid-robot/__XaLjGJXRCO_tCHXYL7TDcFDV2Kbfu3MNQXSVaa4xkas

Goldman Sachs. “The Global Market for Robots Could Reach $38 Billion by 2035.” https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-global-market-for-robots-could-reach-38-billion-by-2035

Morgan Stanley. “Humanoid Robot Market Expected to Reach $5 Trillion by 2050.” https://www.morganstanley.com/insights/articles/humanoid-robot-market-5-trillion-by-2050

Humanoids Daily. “The Great Valuation Chasm: A 2025 Guide to the Humanoid Robotics Capital Race.” https://www.humanoidsdaily.com/news/the-great-valuation-chasm-a-2025-guide-to-the-humanoid-robotics-capital-race

Capitalism and Labor History

Beckert, Sven. Empire of Cotton: A Global History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.

Not Even Past (UT Austin). “Review of Beckert’s Empire of Cotton.” https://notevenpast.org/empire-of-cotton-a-global-history-by-sven-beckert-2015/

Engerman, Stanley L. “Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism.” Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 2015. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.20151334

Marx, Karl. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (“Fragment on Machines”). 1857–1858. Translated by Martin Nicolaus. London: Penguin, 1973.

Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit (“Lordship and Bondage”/Master-Slave Dialectic). 1807. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Historical and Cultural References

Smithsonian. “Meet al-Jazari, the Early Renaissance Man Who Built the World’s First Robots.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-al-jazari-the-early-renaissance-man-who-built-the-worlds-first-robots-180983812/

Perseus Digital Library. Homer, Iliad (Hephaestus’s Golden Attendants, Book 18). https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134%3Abook%3D18%3Acard%3D417

Prague.eu. “The Golem of Prague.” https://www.prague.eu/en/articles/the-golem-372

Hadassah Magazine. “Golem of Prague.” August 21, 2019. https://www.hadassahmagazine.org/2019/08/21/the-golem-of-prague/

Blum, Paul Richard. “Robots, Slaves, and the Paradox…” Open Access Journal Article. https://ojs.tnkul.pl/index.php/rkult/article/view/8431

Benjamin, Ruha. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2019. https://aas.princeton.edu/publications/research/race-after-technology-abolitionist-tools-new-jim-code

Berkeley Sociology. “Ruha Benjamin: A New Jim Code?” https://sociology.berkeley.edu/ruha-benjamin-new-jim-code

The Verge. “Amazon’s Astro Home Robot Is Like Having Alexa on Wheels.” September 28, 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/28/22697244/amazon-astro-home-robot-hands-on-features-price

About Amazon. “Meet Astro, a Home Robot Unlike Any Other.” https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/meet-astro-a-home-robot-unlike-any-other