Billions are going into humanoid robots right now. I think a lot of that money is aimed at the wrong robot.
The common argument against physical AI is that big models are too slow and too GPU-hungry for split-second control. That's true. I experimented with putting an AI agent to control a PX4 drone in Gazebo, each direction change took about 2 seconds.
But drones have already solved the fast part. PX4 and ArduPilot handle stabilization, waypoints and failsafes in real time on cheap hardware. The AI doesn't need to fly the drone. It only needs to decide where to go. Humanoids are still building those reflexes from scratch: balance, grip and recovering from a slip are far harder physics than open air.
Drones also have paying customers today in inspection, mapping, agriculture and public safety. Humanoids mostly have demos.
So why does the money go to robots folding laundry on stage? Because a humanoid demo looks like the future, and a drone inspecting a pipeline looks like a job. Investors are funding the demo, not the deployment.
What drones actually need is unglamorous: a reliable bridge between a slow AI planner and a fast autopilot, and regulators who no longer assume a human is watching every flight. That's an engineering problem.
Am I wrong? Are humanoids closer than I think, or is the industry betting on the wrong form factor?
Edit:
I'm not saying humanoids should not be explored. They are built for a different type of work. Both will get built, but I think drones are the place physical AI can earn its keep soonest.
Reposting the original without the image - thanks mods