Well. That’s the question I answered in that post.
You originally asked for a job that a humanoid robot could do.
Could. I didn’t see "has to be done… I read it as “could be done by a robot” and more economically efficiently.
I didn’t see it asking for a job for which a robot was specifically designed.
That was an example of a human job that I think a humanoid robot COULD do.
NASA is working with an Austin robotics company to build Valkyrie, humanoid robots that can clean solar panels or inspect (damaged, malfunctioning) equipment in space, so that astronauts can focus on other, more intelligent jobs.
Your question, here, seems more “why not just build the perfect robot for THIS specific job?” This robot would NOT be flexible enough for truly “humanoid tasks”.
Did you answer your own question:
POV: a single perfect-for-THIS-ONE-job “dumb” robot vs a multifunctional robot that easily and intelligently “fits” into a world/workplace designed for the human form factor.
A multifunctional robot form factor simplifies the R&D and maintenance, and allows that form factor step into many different “jobs”.
Musk/Tesla is famous for “simplify” and “the best part is no part”, etc.
Why give it “legs”? So that it can fit into a world designed FOR HUMANS? Stairs are an example.
(Yes there are Segway tech chairs, carts, etc that do stairs. But Segways have already been lampooned as failed, here.)
But, really, if the goal is to create a robot that does only that one station, I suspect a “small normal” connected directly to a power source robot could be designed that would fill THAT one station better than a multifunctional robot. No legs. Put it on a track, or wheels, or suspend from an overhead frame.
Others have already mentioned the ability to quickly exchange a non functional (damaged, broken, low battery, etc) robot for a functional one, and keep the process moving.
With a unique robot for each task or “station” it might be more time consuming, and less doable?
Is there an assumption that the job that requires only one human assembling the modules would require only 1 (dumb) robot to accomplish all the tasks? Is this a valid assumption? Or would that station require several different single purpose robots or robotic arms?
I think what I see is a difference in POV.
Musk is a visionary, purportedly thinking 8 3D moves into the future. His goal is to build a robot that is multifunctional, that can perform tasks that are not imagined, today.
I see people complain that Musk makes grandiose claims and does not deliver.
We, as children, are advised to shoot for the stars and if you just hit the moon, well that’s a great achievement, too.
Are these critics really gonna tell “us” to shoot for our shoe laces… Cause our dreams are not achievable?
They are complaining that “Musk dreams too big”!
I also see a man who is in the process of delivering what he’s promised, AND adding new promises.
I see critics demanding the PERFECT “tool, thing, whatever they think Musk promised”.
It MUST BE PERFECT when "released… Or it’s not “what was promised”.
But that suggests a lack of understanding of Musk’s “First Principles” mantra.
First Principles, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, says to deliver functional STEPS as each becomes available, so the “customer” can get some use out of parts of their product before the full product is ready (perfect) for delivery.
Musk/Tesla is doing that!
I find it exciting to see each “step” that Tesla reveals.
So, again, this discussion looks like a “POV” difference to me.