CA humanoid robotics account on X is pointing to a big report from The Information: Meta built a humanoid robot in three months with a Chinese firm called Fourier. They're calling it Max.
MMeta isn't confirming much. And skeptics say that name doesn't match any robot Fourier currently sells.
CThis is the fun part. It's supposedly about forty-eight kilos, one and a half meters tall, with a screen for a face, and it runs on Nvidia's robotics chip.
MSo a friendly little robot for your kitchen, if it exists. Reuters passed the report along but said it couldn't confirm it right away.
CThe Information has sources. Three months is fast, but Meta has reportedly been hiring robotics people and bought a robotics intelligence company back in May.
MAnd Meta told The Information it's internal research, no plans to sell. That's the quiet part everyone skips.
CSo why leak it? If it's a lab toy, the timing looks like Meta wants everyone to know it's in the physical AI race.
MExactly. It's a signal to investors and to OpenAI, Figure, Tesla. But a signal isn't a product.
CI think you're underselling it. If Meta can prototype a humanoid with a Chinese partner in three months, that's real capability.
MWait, with a Chinese partner. That's the part that'll get Washington's attention.
COh, come on. Fourier makes care robots in Shanghai. The argument is that the US doesn't have enough humanoid manufacturing capacity to do everything at home.
MI'm not saying ban it. I'm saying if a US giant and a Chinese robotics firm are quietly building a body for Meta's AI agent, regulators will ask who controls what.
CMeta said internal research. That's a legitimate reason to move fast and not overpromise.
MInternal research today, maybe a product tomorrow. That's how these stories always go.
CFair enough. I care more about the pace. If Max is real, it took three months. Most makers need years for a prototype.
MUnless the name, weight and design are all wrong, which skeptics have pointed out. Skeptics say Fourier's actual robots don't match this at all.
CThat doesn't kill the story. It means the leaker may have garbled specs, but the collaboration could still be real.
MRight. So we don't know the specs. We know The Information reported it and Reuters didn't confirm. That's a rumor with good PR.
CFine. I'll take a rumor with this much detail over another chatbot update. This is the battle for what AI does in the physical world.
MThat roundup also throws in that Trump signed a proclamation. No official word on that yet, so let's not repeat it as fact.
CRight. The robot part is sourced. The proclamation part isn't.
MDifferent, same machines. Owen Gregorian posted on X about Ars Technica reporting a Boston Dynamics employee revolt.
CEmployee revolt over what?
MHundreds signed a petition to stop the company selling robot dogs to ICE, according to Ars.
CThey want to block a sale to immigration enforcement? That's unusual for an engineering company.
MIt's not a law. It's employees asking executives to halt the deal, according to Ars. We haven't independently confirmed the report.
CI get why people are uncomfortable. Those robot dogs are already used for inspections and public safety.
MThe issue is exactly that. If you build a machine that can climb stairs and go where officers can't, you don't control how it's used.
CBut Boston Dynamics sells to police and industry already. Why is this sale different?
MBecause employees are drawing a line. A company can legally sell and employees can legally say they don't want their work used that way.
CSo every robotics firm needs a political review before a sale? That's an impossible standard.
MNo. It's a group of workers using their leverage. The market can decide. If Boston Dynamics wants the deal, it can override them.
CAnd if the deal is legal, I don't see why executives should cave to internal pressure. But I'd want to know exactly what ICE plans to do.
MThat's the real question. The petition says sale, not deployment. Without official confirmation, all we have is employee opposition.
CStill, this is the first time I've heard of robot dogs becoming a workplace referendum. That's a story by itself.
CAs if on cue, a post on X from bonduelle lists the ten people deciding who builds your home robot. Figure's Brett Adcock, Skild's Deepak Pathak, a few others.
MAnd it claims Figure is worth thirty-nine billion dollars and forty-four thousand people film their chores every week to train it. Those numbers aren't confirmed.
CThe chore filming part, if true, is the wildest detail. People literally recording their kitchens so a robot can learn to load a dishwasher.
MWhich is clever, but the valuations sound like fundraising gossip. SoftBank led a Skild round at fourteen billion plus? That's unverified.
CI'll say this for the list: it makes a good point that a handful of founders control the humanoid race right now.
MThat's every new platform. Ten people decided the smartphone, search, social media. A few always go first.
CBut robots will live in your house. The stakes are more personal, and most people can't name any of these founders.
MSo? Most people can't name the engineers who built their washing machine. The product matters more than the founder's fame.
CNo, because these robots will collect data about your home. The people who design them decide what gets recorded and who owns it.
MThat's a fair worry, but it's also why competition matters. If ten people have too much power, someone else will build a cheaper one and break in.
CMaybe, but right now the capital is so concentrated that the same names appear in every humanoid story. That's not healthy.
MI'll grant you that. The concentration is real, even if the exact valuations are not.
CAt least we can agree on one thing: everyone's suddenly fighting about robots before most of us have seen one in person.
MAnd by the time we do, it'll probably be called Max and made in a partnership nobody fully understands.