I think they're pointing out you need to be cautious assuming a robot can be economically, sustainably deployed to do jobs in environments which are challenging for electro-mechanical systems.

An example: A friend worked on accurate built-in weighing machines for trucks, which could measure axle weight and load balance to meet compliance for bridges and other purposes. He found it almost impossible to make units which could withstand the torrents of chemical and biological wet materials which regularly leak into a truck. You would think "potting" electronics understands this problem but even that turns out to have severe limits. It's just hard to find materials which function well subjected to a range of chemicals. Stuff which is flexible is especially prone to risks here: the way you make things flex is to use softeners, which in turn make the material for other reasons have other properties like porosity, or being subject to attack by some combinations of acid and alkalai.

These units had NO MOVING PARTS because they were force tranducers. They still routinely failed in service.

Rubbish includes bleaches, acids, complex organics, grease, petrochemicals, waxes, catalyst materials, electricity, reactive surfaces, abrasives, sharp edges..

They are not saying "dont try" they are saying "don't be surprised if it doesn't work at scale, over time"

It's interesting to think that it is more feasible (including economically) to expose humans to bleaches, acids, catalyst materials, electricity, abrasives, and sharp edges.

You're restating a one-sided view without acknowledging its real problems. The money has to come from somewhere, and depending on the cost, it may be true that no one is willing to pay for their garbage bill doubling, for example. Then maybe people choose to dump their garbage on the street or in protected parks, and we see an impact on local wildlife.

It's necessary to follow things to their logical conclusion.

Humans are really well designed mechanical systems!

> human interaction with vomit, feces, and dead animals

Humans can generally stand this without an issue.

In fact you wouldn’t replace a lot of jobs that involves this : doctors, nurses, emergency workers, caregivers…

It just happens to be difficult. But people love doing difficult things as long as it’s : a) rewarding, b) respected, and c) sufficiently paid

I'm pretty sure manually scavenging through garbage is none of those.

What would I have to pay an unskilled version of you, both in terms if gross pay, and in required safety equipment, to get you to do the job? What would be reasonable?

Does the graph of that pay scale cross the cost graph of this robot?

Maybe just paying a living wage is a simpler answer than most AI enthusiasts want to admit.