I've heard this so many times, but for most use cases, humans are more adaptable and cheaper than robotics.
> most robots require highly structured environments, and are cost-competitive with people for just 0.3% of work.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/what-work-can-robots-do
For now, anyway. It's hard to imagine that number not growing as technology improves.
https://www.challengergray.com/blog/2026-holiday-hiring-outl...
Amazon's seasonal hiring is down, due to them investing in robotics.
https://www.therobotreport.com/amazon-to-invest-100m-in-new-...
First of all, the target is not 'below the maintenance cost of the human body'.
The target is 'below the minimum wage that we can pay a human to work for', and that is a very different metric.
Also, as for uptime... The average human performs work at roughly 60% duty cycle. (8 hours sleep, plus meals, bathroom breaks, etc). That is a pitiful number compared to robotics.
Also, when you pay humans at bottom-of-the-barrel prices, they don't have high morale. They are rude to customers. They steal from their employer if they can get away with it. None of these apply to robots.
With that crucial term definition supplied, I agree. The technology that can do anything at all, and which is just around the corner, can in fact do anything at all.