Why are frontier physical AI labs like
@DynaRobotics and
@gs_ai_ building their own hardware?
Dyna’s latest release, Dyna-2.1, offers some clues.
Dyna has been doing stationary arms, with deployments like napkin folding at Din Tai Fung. They got really good at it, with a demo showing them folding napkins for 24 hours straight without a single failed fold.
The problem was that humans still had to babysit the robots. It wasn't because they weren't reliable, but because they needed to clear napkin stacks, refill the bin, etc. Any process is only as fast as its slowest bottleneck, so if humans are waiting around for robots to do their task, or vice versa, it nerfs the ROI.
So Dyna released Taku, their own semi-humanoid robot. It has a wheeled base, a folding lower body, and two arms with grippers. With Taku, Dyna can open the aperture for the tasks it can accomplish and remove more humans from the loop. In a laundry room, Takyu can do it all: load, unload, fold, and shelve laundry.
Genesis' Eno is also a semi-humanoid robot. This has two benefits. First, it lets the robot learn from human data, which is still easier and cheaper to collect than robot demonstrations. It also takes out the most difficult part about building humanoids: the legs and the hands.
With their own hardware, these labs can iterate faster. Dyna describes all motion, human or robot, in one shared format. When the hardware changes, Dyna retrains the low-level controller in simulation and keeps everything else. Data from every robot generation remains useful indefinitely.
A workflow, like doing laundry, has many, many substasks. Dyna estimates a laundry cycle at about 79 steps. If each step is only 95% reliable, the whole cycle succeeds less than 2% of the time.
The lesson that Dyna learned from deploying robots is one that others will soon learn too. Building useful robots means owning the entire stack and engineering reliability into every single part.