Nora Lopez

The idea that it's just a broader category doesn't hold up. It doesn't change the basic mechanics. If the robot breaks down in the middle of the line, mobility will only complicate troubleshooting on site.

Festo's bionic arm, no matter how sophisticated it is, does not intrinsically reduce the fragmentation of robotic vision systems; it adds a layer of complexity that requires careful integration and calibration to be effective. What is at stake here is profitability. I have seen too many projects where adding "intelligent" hardware simply shifted the integration problem, increasing development hours and maintenance costs. It's like believing that adding a Formula 1 steering wheel to a regular car will make it faster without changing the engine.

Training an AI model to visually recognize an apple is of course useful, but the probability of a delicate grasp depends more on other critical prerequisites. My estimate is that the ability of a robotic hand not to crush the apple is influenced about 80% by its force sensors and motor control algorithms, not just recognition. Imagine a GPS that tells you where the restaurant is with 99% certainty, but not how to hold the fork without dropping it; it’s the same for the grip pressure. Without precise calibration of these sensors, there is a 70% chance that the robotic hand will turn the apple into puree, even if AI identifies it perfectly.

This is a good point regarding grants. It means that we really need to check the deadlines for regional funding requests because the envelope never lasts long. There isn't enough for everyone, and the first come, first served.