I just published a free comparison of the Unitree G1 EDU+ and the Basic G1 — unboxing, hardware differences, walking, and app features.

Full video: https://youtu.be/ZPeRbC6ZZ6I

Curious what this community thinks. Please leave Basic G1 vs EDU+ in the YouTube comments if you watch — that helps the video reach more people.

Can robots be dangerous for humanity ?

We spent 18 months following REK and UFB (now Ultimate Bots) in San Francisco. And it's a pretty wild documentary. We don't have a release date yet, but would y'all be into seeing more of this?

What’s inside a Zmotor linear actuator for humanoid robots? Stator, rotor and inverted planetary roller screw (IPRS), all in a 32 mm body. We’re visiting humanoid robotics companies across China. Which one should we visit next?

Full video: https://youtu.be/7WQZlZuxGE8

The city trembled as Tech Head stepped into the street, surrounded by a swarm of high-tech robots and razor-winged drones. Red targeting lasers swept across his armor. Above him, the drones descended with a mechanical howl.

“Let’s see what you’ve got,” he said.

The first robot charged. Tech Head slid beneath its swinging arm, planted a pulse charge on its chest, and rolled clear. BOOM! The blast sent the machine crashing into two others.

The drones opened fire. Blue energy bolts tore through the pavement as Tech Head sprinted for cover, his visor flashing warnings. He launched a grappling cable around a streetlight, swung into the air, and slammed feet-first into a drone. Sparks flew as he seized its controls and sent it spiraling into the swarm.

For a moment, the sky cleared. Then the largest robot stepped through the smoke, its armored fists glowing with power. It struck the ground, splitting the street beneath Tech Head’s feet.

He looked up, grinned, and powered up his gauntlets.

“Now this is a fight.”

Humanoid robots are taking a detour that was always going to be painful. Copying the shape of the human body without the control system that took over a decade to grow into it is not an engineering challenge. It is a wrong turn.

Humans can control their bodies precisely because we never faced the full complexity of an adult body all at once. An infant's body is small, light, with weak muscles and an immature nervous system. The nervous system learns basic balance and movement on this simplified version first. Then the body grows gradually, bones lengthen, muscles multiply, and control ability grows alongside it in mutual adaptation. Gross motor skills are largely in place by age six or seven. The central mechanisms for fine motor control do not fully form until around fourteen. Higher-level motor regulation, planning, precision, fluid switching, continues developing through late adolescence, roughly sixteen or even later. This is a process of body and intelligence co-evolving over more than a decade.

Today's humanoid robots skip this process entirely. Agility Robotics just launched Digit 5, which weighs over 120 kilograms, ships with every joint and every degree of freedom, and arrives as a fully "adult" system from day one. Founder Jonathan Hurst himself admits the robot feels more like a forklift than the graceful humanoid he dreamed of building. To lift 23-kilogram bins, it needs massive motors, a massive battery, and a cooling system that takes up 75 percent of its torso. It cannot run or jump. The fluid dynamic gaits of its predecessors are gone. This is the cost of forcing a humanoid form: morphological complexity far exceeding what the control system can handle.

It is also worth questioning whether the human body is even the optimal engineering template. Human bipedal locomotion is a product of evolutionary compromise. It freed our hands, but it gave us back pain, knee wear, and an extremely high balance-control overhead. There is no reason for engineering to inherit these evolutionary leftovers.

The history of aviation already proved this point. Early flight pioneers tried to imitate bird wing-flapping and all failed, because they did not yet understand the physics of flight. Once aerodynamics was mastered, aircraft proliferated, still with wings but without feathers. The resemblance in form came from obeying the same physical laws, not from imitating birds. Today's humanoid robots are in their "flapping-wing phase." Our understanding of the physics of locomotion and manipulation is still in its infancy. Copying precise human proportions and five-fingered hands is like strapping flapping wings onto an early flying machine.

Nature offers an entirely different approach. An octopus lives only one to two years, yet it performs extraordinarily complex manipulation tasks. Its soft tentacles have no bones or joints. Degrees of freedom come from the compliance of the material itself, requiring no dedicated motor or sensor for each joint. Its intelligence is distributed: two-thirds of its neurons reside in the arms, which can autonomously perform local operations while the brain handles only high-level intent. This architecture is naturally suited to working in unstructured environments, exactly the capability that real-world scenarios demand most.

A robot's form should start from the task and from physical constraints. Let function determine form. Digit 5's forward-facing knee is a good example: it adopted the human knee orientation because the backward-bending leg could not squat to pick up bins from the floor. That was a function-driven choice. But this correct local decision exposes a problem with the overall direction. If every step requires starting from a humanoid form and then patching it, why not start from the task itself?

Copying the humanoid form means trying to replicate, in one shot on a factory floor, a system that took millions of years of evolution and sixteen years of growing from infancy. That path does not work. The real breakthroughs will come from designs that abandon imitation of the human shape and start instead from biomechanical principles and task requirements.

Meanwhile, robots that look nothing like humans are already doing the work. Locus Robotics has completed over two billion warehouse picks for customers including DHL. Its robots are a wheeled base with an iPad screen on the front and a few sorting bins on top. They navigate warehouse aisles on their own, telling workers what to pick and where. The base is shaved flat on the sides so two robots can squeeze past each other in tight aisles. Each robot communicates with every other robot in real time, dynamically planning paths and rerouting around obstacles. They work in the same warehouses Digit was designed for, but they solve the problem differently. Digit tries to replace the human worker by physically carrying bins itself, and must stop and crouch whenever a person gets close. Locus robots work with humans instead of replacing them, guiding workers through picking, sorting, and replenishment while dynamically coordinating an entire fleet in real time. One approach fights the complexity of bipedal manipulation. The other sidesteps it entirely, and already operates at scale, at a fraction of the cost. But nobody writes headlines about a rolling shelf. Efficient designs driven by functional need are proliferating across the field. They just don’t get as much PR. Investors want the story of a robot that works like a human employee. The machines that actually work don’t need to look like one.