CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 美女与野兽 — 铁匠与擎天柱：两个机器人的故事 — The Beauty and the Beast — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots

 

美女与野兽 — The Beauty and the Beast

铁匠与擎天柱：两个机器人的故事 — IRON and Optimus: A Tale of Two Robots

By Larry Romanoff

作者：拉里·罗曼诺夫

译者：Pearl

 

 

目录 — Contents

揭幕 IRON — Unveiling IRON

运动与平衡 — Locomotion and Balance

风洞 — The Wind Tunnel

基本运动和功能 — Basic Motion and Functionality

感官知觉 — Sensory Perception

美学 — Aesthetics

“恐怖谷” — The “Uncanny Valley”

人工智能与机器人智能 — AI and Robot Intelligence

电池 — Batteries

一些技术问题 — Some Technical Matters

机器人应用 — Robot Applications

关于X-Peng的评论 — A Comment on X-Peng

结论 — Conclusion

 

揭幕 IRON — Unveiling IRON

 

On November 5, 2025, China handed the world another bombshell with the unveiling of X-Peng’s IRON humanoid robot. [1] [2] A video of the demonstration showed IRON walking with a relaxed and smooth, human-like rhythm. The “female” robot’s fluid, smooth, and human-like “catwalk” was so convincing that it sparked widespread discussion and skepticism, with many people both inside and outside of China convinced it was a human in a robot suit. [3] The suspicion was so widespread that the company publicly cut open the robot’s leg to prove it was not a human in a suit. [4] [5] In the video, the staff also opened the zipper on IRON’s back and showed everyone the internal structure including the lattice muscles, the controllers, and the blinking lights. [6] When a robot moves so naturally that people assume a live person is concealed inside a latex suit, you know you’ve crossed a threshold. Here is the original video with IRON walking and then her leg cut open. [7] Another good video of Iron walking and having her back exposed.[8]

 

2025年11月5日，中国向世界抛出了另一颗重磅炸弹，推出了小鹏的IRON人形机器人。[1][2]一段演示视频显示，IRON以一种轻松流畅、类似人类的节奏行走。“女性”机器人流畅、自然、类似人类的“走秀”极具说服力，引发了广泛的讨论和质疑，许多国内外人士都认为这是一个穿着机器人套装的人类。[3]这种怀疑如此普遍，以至于该公司公开剖开了机器人的腿部，以证明它并非穿着套装的人类。[4][5]在视频中，工作人员还拉开了IRON背部的拉链，向大家展示了内部结构，包括格构肌肉、控制器和闪烁的灯光。[6]当一个机器人移动得如此自然，以至于人们误以为一个活人被藏在一件乳胶套装里时，你就知道你已经跨过了一个门槛。以下是原始视频，展示了IRON行走，然后她的腿部被剖开。[7]另一个关于IRON行走且背部暴露的好视频。 [8]

 

                                Ref.  [6]                                     Ref. [8]                                                   

Image source: X-Peng    图片来源：X-Peng

 

X-Peng is not the first robot manufacturer to cause a commotion because of walking. In 2014, Zhongqing Robot SE01 also became popular on the Internet due to its silky gait, and quickly became one of the hottest robot manufacturers in China. Zhongqing is also an X-Peng company, and its President was the founder of X-Peng’s robot team. Dozens of Chinese companies have already developed “humanoid” robots, many capable of rather astonishing autonomous activities.

小鹏并非首个因行走而引起轰动的机器人制造商。2014年，中青机器人SE01因其如丝般顺滑的步态而在网络上走红，并迅速成为中国最热门的机器人制造商之一。中青也是小鹏旗下的公司，其总裁是小鹏机器人团队的创始人。目前，已有数十家中国公司开发出了“人形”机器人，其中许多机器人能够完成令人惊叹的自主活动。

 

精选的IRON图像 — Selected IRON images

 

IRON Composite. Source:   IRON复合材料。来源：

 

IRON Dancing and Riding a Bicycle. Source:  铁人跳舞和骑自行车。来源：

 

IRON Cute Couple. Source:  铁人夫妇真可爱。来源：

 

精选的Optimus图片 — Selected Optimus images

 

Optimus Composite. Source:    Optimus Composite。来源：

 

Optimus Balance. Source:    最优平衡。来源：

 

Optimus sorting objects. Source:   

Optimus类正在对物体进行分。来源：

 

运动与平衡 — Locomotion and Balance

 

Here are some short videos you absolutely must see:

 

Iron Dancing – This excellent video is #1. It says it all.

《铁舞》——这部精彩绝伦的视频位居榜首。这已经说明了一切。

IRON performing front somersaults on parallel bars.

艾伦在双杠上做前空翻。

IRON riding a bicycle.

艾伦（IRON）在骑自行车。

Cute couple. IRON and her male counterpart. This is an excellent little video.

可爱的情侣。艾恩和她的男搭档。这是一段很棒的小视频。

An excellent video of IRON doing her catwalk.

一段关于艾伦（IRON）走秀的精彩视频。

An excellent short video in English.

一个优秀的英文短视频。

The Secret to Iron’s Life-Like Walk

Iron 机器人栩栩如生的行走秘诀

Iron’s ability to mimic human walking motion comes from the spine and waist design. The engineering of the spine allows the torso to be flexible, while the waist is designed to provide the rest of the body with balance, even while swaying, in imitation of human biomechanics. The precision control and mechanical resilience are what enables IRON to retain its smooth walk even with some of its outer layers removed. [9] IRON’s movement trajectory is very similar to that of a human, especially the gait. When walking at the press conferences, IRON’s posture and steps were soft. It doesn’t use the traditional slow mechanical leg lifts, but first supports itself by moving its center of gravity forward, then swings the leg outward, naturally and coherently like a human “cat step”.

Iron能够模仿人类的行走动作，这得益于其脊柱和腰部的设计。脊柱的设计使躯干具有灵活性，而腰部的设计则模仿人类的生物力学原理，为身体其他部位提供平衡，即使在摇摆时也是如此。精确的控制和机械韧性使Iron即使在部分外层被移除后，仍能保持平稳的行走。[9]Iron的运动轨迹与人类非常相似，尤其是步态。在新闻发布会上行走时，Iron的姿势和步伐都很轻盈。它没有采用传统的缓慢机械式腿部抬升，而是首先通过将重心前移来支撑自己，然后像人类“猫步”一样自然连贯地向外摆动腿部。

 

Tesla’s Optimus is fundamentally unstable in locomotion. If it had to walk with its legs fully extended and its feet flat on the floor, it would fall over and come crashing to the ground. It isn’t much more stable when stationary; in internal reports, Tesla staff say that Optimus robots fall half the time when performing tasks that require any bending or tilting, sometimes damaging expensive equipment. Unless performing a task that requires moving more than a few feet, Optimus robots are usually tied to a support frame to stay upright. And that is simply bad engineering design. A robot should be able to easily stay upright; the standing and balancing should have been the first thing Musk addressed. But he didn’t address it. Instead of recognising and admitting a flawed design, Musk decided it was sufficient for Optimus to walk in a perpetual half-squat, like a chimpanzee.

特斯拉的Optimus在运动时根本不稳定。如果它必须双腿完全伸直、双脚平放在地面上行走，就会摔倒并重重地跌落在地。静止时也并不比行走时更稳定；在内部报告中，特斯拉员工表示，Optimus机器人在执行任何需要弯曲或倾斜的任务时，有一半时间会摔倒，有时还会损坏昂贵的设备。除非执行的任务需要移动的距离超过几英尺，否则Optimus机器人通常会绑在支架上以保持直立。这完全是糟糕的工程设计。机器人应该能够轻松保持直立；站立和平衡应该是马斯克首先要解决的问题。但他没有解决这个问题。马斯克没有承认并承认设计存在缺陷，而是认为Optimus像黑猩猩一样永远半蹲着行走就足够了。

 

X-Peng’s IRON walks perfectly like a human, but Musk’s Optimus walks strangely, with its knees always bent, as if in a partial squat or a crouch. The bent-knee “crouched” posture of Optimus is a well-known crutch in robotics and is common in many bipedal robots. This stance dramatically lowers the robot’s center of gravity, which significantly simplifies the challenge of balance and prevents falls. It’s a shortcut that prioritises not falling down during demonstrations, over achieving a truly human-like, efficient, and dynamic gait. This is not a prize-worthy trade-off; it’s an admission that the current design cannot achieve stable, upright locomotion. A stable, upright bipedal walk requires a high center of gravity to allow for dynamic balance and a natural gait cycle. However, this is incredibly difficult to control.

小鹏的IRON行走起来与人类一模一样，但马斯克的Optimus行走却很奇怪，膝盖总是弯曲着，仿佛处于半蹲或蹲伏的状态。Optimus这种弯曲膝盖的“蹲伏”姿势是机器人技术中众所周知的辅助手段，在许多双足机器人中很常见。这种姿势极大地降低了机器人的重心，从而大大简化了平衡的挑战，并防止摔倒。这是一种捷径，优先考虑的是在演示过程中不摔倒，而不是实现真正像人类一样高效、有活力的步态。这不是一个值得称赞的权衡；而是承认当前的设计无法实现稳定、直立的运动。稳定、直立的双足行走需要较高的重心来保持动态平衡和自然的步态周期。然而，这非常难以控制。

 

The unusual posture and appearance of Optimus are the result of deliberate engineering trade-offs to produce a semblance of stability. In contrast, X-Peng’s IRON represents a more ambitious, upfront investment in the technologies required for natural movement. X-Peng engineered IRON from the ground up to mimic human biomechanics. A key to its “catwalk” is a linkage structure that places heavy components like motors closer to the torso instead of in the legs. This results in lighter lower legs and feet, reducing inertia and allowing for quicker, more precise and graceful leg movements, much like a human. This approach is far more complex and places a greater burden on software and control algorithms to maintain balance with a higher center of gravity. However, the payoff is a movement style that is more natural and potentially less unsettling for human interaction.

擎天柱（Optimus）的独特姿态和外观是经过深思熟虑的工程权衡后，为营造出一种稳定假象的结果。相比之下，小鹏（X-Peng）的IRON则代表着对自然运动所需技术更大胆、更前沿的投资。IRON由小鹏从头开始设计，旨在模仿人体生物力学。其“走猫步”的关键在于一种连接结构，该结构将电机等重型组件置于躯干附近，而非腿部。这使得小腿和脚更轻，减少了惯性，从而实现了更快、更精确、更优雅的腿部动作，就像人类一样。这种方法要复杂得多，并且对软件和控制算法提出了更高的要求，以在重心更高的条件下保持平衡。然而，其回报是一种更自然的运动风格，在与人互动时可能更令人放心。

 

Humans walk like an inverted pendulum, with straight legs for most of the stride, which is highly energy-efficient. IRON’s “catwalk” demonstrates this principle. In contrast, a constant crouch gait, as seen with Optimus, is less efficient, consumes more power, and looks unnatural because the joints are perpetually under load. The squat posture in locomotion is a flaw, not a feature, a fundamental compensation for a design that cannot achieve stable, upright motion, a solution for a robot that would otherwise topple. It was the only way to prevent Optimus from falling on its face whenever it tried to walk. The bent-knee posture in locomotion is a compensation for stability issues, not some brilliant design innovation. That doesn’t deserve a prize. IRON has a design that seems almost infinitely superior, with results that do deserve a prize. When you compare Optimus’s awkward squat to IRON’s fluid walk, it’s hard not to see one as superior engineering.

人类行走时就像一个倒立摆，大部分步幅中腿部都是直的，这种行走方式非常节能。IRON的“猫步”展示了这一原理。相比之下，像擎天柱那样持续蹲着的步态效率较低，消耗更多能量，而且看起来不自然，因为关节始终处于负荷状态。运动中的蹲姿是一种缺陷，而非特征，是对无法实现稳定直立运动的设计的一种基本补偿，是防止机器人倾倒的一种解决方案。这是唯一能防止擎天柱每次尝试行走时都脸朝地摔倒的方法。运动中的屈膝姿势是对稳定性问题的补偿，而非某种绝妙的设计创新。它不值得获奖。IRON的设计似乎几乎无限优越，其结果确实值得获奖。当你将擎天柱笨拙的蹲姿与IRON流畅的行走姿势进行比较时，很难不认为后者是更优越的工程设计。

 

The locomotion and general appearance of IRON and Optimus in motion reflect fundamental differences in their design philosophies and engineering choices. With Optimus, Musk made deliberate engineering trade-offs where he sacrificed refinement for basic stability while in motion. That sounds like poor planning and an impoverished design philosophy, which means they had to make Optimus function awkwardly, to prevent it from falling on its face.

IRON和Optimus在运动中的运动方式和整体外观反映了它们在设计理念和工程选择上的根本差异。在Optimus的设计中，马斯克进行了深思熟虑的工程权衡，牺牲了精致性以换取运动中的基本稳定性。这听起来像是规划不周和设计理念贫乏，这意味着他们不得不让Optimus功能笨拙，以防止它面朝下摔倒。

 

风洞 — The Wind Tunnel

 

Wind tunnel composite. Source:

风洞复合材料。来源：

 

IRON was even tested in a wind tunnel, with wind speeds up to 80 mph (130 kph). Here is a brief video. [10] You might ask why anyone would test a robot in a wind tunnel. While it might seem unusual at first, this is actually a highly strategic engineering decision. the primary goal is to test and ensure the robot’s dynamic stability and control algorithms in extreme, unpredictable conditions. This test is critical for a robot designed to operate in human environments. A wind tunnel creates a controlled but intense environment that simulates some of the most challenging real-world scenarios a robot could face. The key is not that the robot will routinely walk in hurricane-force winds, but that if it can remain stable there, it proves its capability in less severe but more common situations.

IRON甚至在风速高达80英里/小时（130公里/小时）的风洞中进行了测试。以下是相关视频。[10]你可能会问，为什么有人会在风洞中测试机器人。虽然乍一看这似乎有些不寻常，但这实际上是一个极具战略意义的工程决策。其主要目标是测试并确保机器人在极端、不可预测的条件下的动态稳定性和控制算法。对于设计用于人类环境的机器人而言，这项测试至关重要。风洞创造了一个可控但强烈的环境，模拟了机器人可能面临的一些最具挑战性的真实场景。关键不在于机器人能否在飓风般的风中正常行走，而在于如果它能在那种环境中保持稳定，就证明了它在不那么恶劣但更常见的情况下的能力。

 

This is all a matter of balance and gait stability. In the wind tunnel, they gain engineering insight into how the robot’s balance control system (its “cerebellum”) compensates for sudden, large lateral forces. In terms of a real-world application, this relates to IRON’s ability to walk steadily on a gusty street, near passing vehicles, in subway air blasts, or in open industrial areas. The wind tunnel tests whether the actuators in the robot’s hips, knees, and ankles can generate enough torque, quickly enough, to counteract the wind without overheating or failing. In social environments, this tests IRON’s ability to carry a load while walking on an uneven surface, or quickly adjusting to a slip or push. It helps engineers to understand a robot’s navigating a crowded, dynamic space where it might be jostled. The wind tunnel is used in verifying that the robot’s frame, covers, and external components don’t vibrate excessively, come loose, or create aerodynamic drag that impedes movement.

这完全关乎平衡和步态稳定性。在风洞中，他们能够从工程角度深入了解机器人的平衡控制系统（即其“小脑”）如何补偿突然且较大的侧向力。就实际应用而言，这关系到IRON在狂风肆虐的街道、过往车辆附近、地铁气流冲击下或开阔的工业区能否稳定行走。风洞测试机器人臀部、膝盖和脚踝的驱动器是否能快速产生足够的扭矩来抵消风力，同时避免过热或故障。在社交环境中，这测试了IRON在不平坦的表面上行走时承载负载的能力，或快速适应滑倒或被推的能力。这有助于工程师了解机器人在拥挤、动态且可能被推搡的空间中的导航能力。风洞用于验证机器人的框架、外壳和外部组件是否不会过度振动、松动或产生阻碍运动的空气动力阻力。

 

The bigger picture is that IRON represents a different philosophy to that of Elon Musk’s Optimus. The wind tunnel test is a stark public demonstration of a core philosophy I have discussed extensively in this essay: X-Peng’s pursuit of high-fidelity, biomimetic movement that is robust enough for complex human environments. Unlike a robot designed only for the static, controlled setting of a factory floor, IRON is being engineered to handle the unpredictability of the world where people live and work. Passing a wind tunnel test is a powerful shorthand for proving that capability to engineers, investors, and the public.

从更宏观的角度来看，IRON代表了与埃隆·马斯克的Optimus不同的理念。风洞测试是我在这篇文章中广泛讨论的一个核心理念的鲜明公开展示：小鹏汽车追求高保真、仿生的运动，这种运动足够稳健，能够适应复杂的人类环境。与仅针对工厂车间静态、受控环境设计的机器人不同，IRON的设计旨在应对人们生活和工作的世界的不可预测性。通过风洞测试是向工程师、投资者和公众证明这种能力的有力证明。

 

It is also instructive to contrast this with Tesla’s known challenges. While Tesla’s Optimus has struggled with fundamental hardware reliability (overheating joints, failing hands) in relatively controlled settings, X-Peng is publicly stress-testing its robot’s integrated hardware and software under extreme duress. This doesn’t mean IRON is flawless, but it signals where the development focus lies: on validating dynamic performance and control resilience. The wind tunnel test is far from a publicity stunt. It is a rigorous engineering benchmark for a robot intended to be a stable, reliable, and safe presence in the messy, unpredictable real world.

将这一点与特斯拉已知的挑战进行对比也颇具启发性。尽管特斯拉的Optimus在相对受控的环境中就基本硬件可靠性（如接头过热、机械手故障）方面一直存在问题，但小鹏汽车却公开在极端压力下对其机器人的集成硬件和软件进行压力测试。这并不意味着IRON完美无瑕，但它表明了开发重点所在：验证动态性能和控制韧性。风洞测试远非宣传噱头。对于一款旨在混乱、不可预测的现实世界中稳定、可靠、安全存在的机器人而言，这是一项严格的工程基准测试。

 

基本运动和功能 — Basic Motion and Functionality

 

 

Here is a short video of Optimus handing out bottles of water at an event. [11] It is almost painful to watch. The robot is slow, hesitant, and clumsy. It appears only barely able to function in an environment where it has not been pre-programmed and must react to circumstances on its own. This was widely circulated as evidence of Optimus’ ability to interact in social situations. But here is another video of the same environment that wasn’t circulated. [11a] In this video, Optimus knocked over all the water bottles and then fell to the ground. The official explanation was that Optimus suffered from “work overload”, but in the video the robot appears confused, frustrated, and almost angry. It knocks over all the water bottles and then collapses on the floor. However, observers at the scene revealed that Optimus was not acting autonomously but was being controlled by an operator. They pointed out that Optimus’ last act before knocking over the water bottles and falling to the floor, was the exact motion of a teleoperator removing his headset. [11b] The observers confirmed that an Indian engineer was controlling Optimus in the distribution of the water bottles, became frustrated, removed his headset, and quit. Optimus could not function without the external control, and thus lost control of its limbs and collapsed. Musk had insisted previously that Optimus was not being remotely controlled, but this was just one more fraudulent exhibition of so many, of Optimus’ “abilities”.

这是一段关于Optimus在某活动上分发瓶装水的短视频。[11]观看时让人感到十分痛心。这个机器人动作迟缓、犹豫不决且笨拙。在未预先编程且必须自行应对环境的情况下，它似乎只能勉强发挥作用。这段视频被广泛传播，作为Optimus具备社交互动能力的证据。但这是同一环境下的另一段未被传播的视频。[11a]在这段视频中，Optimus打翻了所有水瓶，然后倒在了地上。官方解释是Optimus“工作负荷过重”，但在视频中，机器人显得困惑、沮丧，甚至有些愤怒。它打翻了所有水瓶，然后瘫倒在地。然而，现场观察者透露，Optimus并非自主行动，而是受到操作员的控制。他们指出，在打翻水瓶并倒地之前，Optimus的最后动作正是遥控操作员摘下耳机时的动作。[11b]观察者证实，一名印度工程师在控制Optimus分发水瓶时感到沮丧，摘下耳机后退出。没有外部控制，Optimus无法正常工作，因此四肢失控并瘫倒在地。马斯克此前曾坚称Optimus并未被远程控制，但这只是Optimus众多“能力”中又一个欺诈性的展示。

 

Observer Comments. Source:

观察者评论。来源：

 

Here is another video of Optimus running and moving its fingers. [12] This one was also widely circulated, and presented as a victorious accomplishment, but the running is “bent-knee and slow motion”, and the hand motions are primitive and clumsy. Compare this to IRON’s dancing and somersaults to understand the difference in capability. Here is another video of three different robots (two American and one Chinese) to give you some idea of relative ability. [13] For additional comparison, here is a short video of Optimus and EngineAI’s T800 robot. [14] Compared to Optimus’ limited abilities, the T800 is awesome. Here is a short video comparing the walking sophistication of IRON and Optimus side by side. [15] This last one is a kung fu comparison video.[16] 

这是另一个展示Optimus跑步和移动手指的视频。[12]这个视频也被广泛传播，并被视为一项胜利的成就，但跑步动作“屈膝且缓慢”，手势也显得原始而笨拙。将其与IRON的跳舞和翻筋斗进行对比，以了解能力上的差异。这里还有另一个视频，展示了三个不同的机器人（两个美国机器人和一个中国机器人），以让你对相对能力有所了解。[13]为了进一步对比，这里还有一个Optimus和EngineAI的T800机器人的短视频。[14]与Optimus有限的能力相比，T800简直太棒了。这里还有一个短视频，对比了IRON和Optimus并排行走的复杂程度。[15]最后一个是功夫对比视频。 [16]

 

感官知觉 — Sensory Perception

 

Sorry, Elon, nobody wants your robot babysitting their kids. Source

抱歉，埃隆，没人想让你的机器人来照顾他们的孩子。源

 

I assume readers are familiar with Tesla’s many tribulations over its “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software. Elon Musk claims that “humans use eyes and brains to drive”, so camera vision is all that is necessary for autos. Musk continues to promote this as fully-autonomous and far superior to human control, while 1,000 accidents and nearly 100 deaths suggest otherwise. The main issue is that Elon Musk made a decision years ago to forego quality and security in the design of FSD, in favor of low cost. And that meant foregoing most of the advanced sensors available like radar and LIDAR, and to proceed with a camera-only version of autonomous driving software. To say this was a bad decision would be quite an understatement. This is important for our purpose here, because this stubborn flawed reasoning has been transferred From Tesla to Optimus, almost certainly to experience the same unpleasant results.

我假设读者已经熟悉特斯拉在其“完全自动驾驶”（FSD）软件上所经历的诸多磨难。埃隆·马斯克声称“人类通过眼睛和大脑来驾驶”，因此摄像头视觉是汽车所需的一切。马斯克继续宣扬这一技术是完全自主的，且远优于人类控制，然而1000起事故和近100起死亡事故表明事实并非如此。主要问题是，埃隆·马斯克多年前决定在FSD的设计中放弃质量和安全，转而追求低成本。这意味着放弃了大多数现有的先进传感器，如雷达和激光雷达，而只使用摄像头版本的自动驾驶软件。说这是一个糟糕的决定，都算是轻描淡写了。这对我们在此处的目的很重要，因为这种顽固且错误的推理已经从特斯拉转移到了Optimus，几乎可以肯定也会带来同样令人不快的结果。

 

Ashok Elluswamy was the leader of Tesla’s autonomous driving team (the ill-fated FSD), then moved to Optimus, where he immediately pushed the team to shift its R&D focus to camera-centric perception and learning solutions, the identical technical path he used for the training methodology of Tesla’s FSD software. [17] This may prove to be a critical failing of Optimus, because forward-looking “eyes-only” sensors will never be sufficient for a robot wanting to be “humanoid”. This was not just a technical choice but a deeply held ideological philosophy, [18] and Musk will not likely back down from his stubborn position.

阿肖克·埃鲁斯瓦米（Ashok Elluswamy）曾是特斯拉自动驾驶团队（命运多舛的全自动驾驶系统FSD）的负责人，随后他转至Optimus，并立即推动团队将其研发重点转向以摄像头为中心的感知和学习解决方案，这与他用于特斯拉FSD软件训练方法的技术路径如出一辙。[17]这可能被证明是Optimus的一个关键失误，因为对于想要“类人化”的机器人而言，前瞻性的“纯视觉”传感器永远是不够的。这不仅仅是一个技术选择，而是一种根深蒂固的意识形态理念，[18]而马斯克不太可能放弃他固执的立场。

 

The core of the debate lies in the observation that a robot functioning in dynamic human spaces needs more than simple vision. The prevailing expert opinion suggests that for a robot to be truly capable and safe in unstructured environments like homes or hospitals, it would need to integrate a suite of sensors. Relying solely on cameras could be the Optimus project’s biggest strategic risk, as it ignores other sensory dimensions critical to physical interaction and nuanced understanding. But Musk has closed this door and is committing Optimus to the same flawed sensory perception as with the Tesla autos. I have difficulty seeing how this can come to a good end.

争论的核心在于这样一个观点：在动态的人类空间中运行的机器人需要的不仅仅是简单的视觉。主流专家意见认为，要想让机器人在家庭或医院等非结构化环境中真正具备能力和安全性，它需要集成一套传感器。仅依赖摄像头可能是Optimus项目的最大战略风险，因为它忽视了其他对物理交互和细微理解至关重要的感官维度。但马斯克已经关上了这扇门，并让Optimus采用了与特斯拉汽车相同的存在缺陷的感官感知技术。我很难看出这会有一个好的结局。

 

The eyes only, camera-only approach is more difficult than it appears. [19] Until 2025, Tesla was using motion pictures to “train” Optimus to do things, but now Optimus is being trained by watching videos taken by Tesla staff. More than 100 Tesla employees spend their shifts repeatedly performing everyday actions like lifting cups, wiping tables, and pulling curtains. [20] The idea seems to be that if Optimus can see videos of every possible thing or action, it may know how to behave in that situation. But it is widely recognised that camera only is not an ideal solution. Musk claims having cameras and LIDAR is unsafe because the car (or the robot) won’t know how to react if the two sensory inputs seem to disagree. [21] But that’s just an excuse to justify a position he’s already taken.

仅依靠摄像头和视觉的方法比看起来要困难得多。[19]直到2025年，特斯拉一直在使用动态图像来“训练”Optimus执行任务，但现在Optimus是通过观看特斯拉员工拍摄的视频来进行训练的。100多名特斯拉员工在轮班时反复执行日常动作，如提起杯子、擦拭桌子和拉窗帘。[20]其思路似乎是，如果Optimus能看到所有可能的事物或动作的视频，它或许就会知道在那种情况下该如何表现。但人们普遍认为，仅依靠摄像头并不是一个理想的解决方案。马斯克声称，同时配备摄像头和激光雷达是不安全的，因为如果这两种传感输入出现不一致，汽车（或机器人）将不知道该如何反应。[21]但这只是他为已采取的立场辩护的一个借口。

 

The core issue is that Tesla’s strategy, while elegant in theory, has proven difficult to execute. The system’s documented vulnerabilities in bad weather and with unexpected objects (“AI illusions”) demonstrate that digital “eyes” are not a perfect substitute for human perception and reasoning. Furthermore, it lacks the human capacity for intuition and learning from a lifetime of subtle experiences.

核心问题在于，特斯拉的战略虽然在理论上十分精妙，但实践证明却难以执行。该系统在恶劣天气和意外物体（“人工智能错觉”）方面的记录漏洞表明，数字“眼睛”并不能完美替代人类的感知和推理能力。此外，它缺乏人类通过一生微妙的经历所获得的直觉和学习能力。

 

The concern is that this is a dead-end path driven by Musk’s stubbornness rather than technical merit. Many robotics professors and experts in the broader industry recognise the importance of multi-modal sensing, and there are many academic papers on why robots need broad sensing capabilities. Most experts share my skepticism about vision-only approaches, and the entire industry – except for Elon Musk – is moving toward multi-modal sensing. Video lacks crucial information a robot needs to interact with the physical world, such as joint angles, tactile sensations, and force feedback.

令人担忧的是，这条死路是由马斯克的固执而非技术优势所推动的。许多机器人学教授和更广泛行业内的专家都认识到多模态感知的重要性，并且有许多学术论文探讨了机器人为何需要广泛的感知能力。大多数专家和我一样对仅依赖视觉的方法持怀疑态度，而整个行业（除了埃隆·马斯克）都在向多模态感知发展。视频缺乏机器人与物理世界交互所需的关键信息，如关节角度、触觉感知和力反馈。

 

Official development standards explicitly call for multi-modal perception for robots. This means integrating various sensors to enable functions like scene understanding and object recognition, moving beyond a single type of sensory input. Furthermore, robotics researchers argue that for safe and effective integration into human environments, robots will need enhanced perception, including auditory systems to understand language and tone, and tactile sensors to better control their interactions. This stands in contrast to Musk’s vision-only paradigm.

官方开发标准明确要求机器人具备多模态感知能力。这意味着要集成各种传感器，以实现场景理解和物体识别等功能，超越单一类型的感官输入。此外，机器人研究人员认为，为了安全有效地融入人类环境，机器人需要增强的感知能力，包括理解语言和语调的听觉系统，以及更好地控制其交互的触觉传感器。这与马斯克的纯视觉范式形成了鲜明对比。

 

However, it will be impossible for Musk to change this architecture now, because Optimus is copying the identical system used for Tesla cars. To alter Optimus’ sensory functions would either invalidate all the training material or require Tesla to scrap their auto’s eyes-only system and adopt LIDAR as most others have done. Two very expensive choices.

然而，马斯克现在不可能改变这种架构，因为Optimus正在复制特斯拉汽车所使用的相同系统。若要改变Optimus的感知功能，要么使所有训练材料失效，要么要求特斯拉放弃其仅使用摄像头系统，转而像大多数其他公司一样采用激光雷达。这两种选择都非常昂贵。

 

This full commitment to a cameras-only sensory system isn’t just for Optimus’ “eyes”; it extends to how the robot is trained. This means the core AI models for understanding the world are shared between the Tesla car and the robot. The camera-only system avoids expensive sensors like LIDAR, and a single type of sensor input avoids the complex “sensor fusion” problem of reconciling conflicting data from different sources. But pure vision systems struggle with object recognition delays in rain, fog, or strong backlight, and may misjudge the distance to low-lying obstacles. The evidence is that this one-sensor strategy could be a “critical failing”. And it should fail. Most everyone claims that cars are “just robots too”, but there is a huge difference between the “intelligence” required by a car to avoid a tree, and a “humanoid” robot baby-sitting the children.

这种对仅摄像头传感系统的全面投入不仅仅体现在Optimus的“眼睛”上；它还延伸到了机器人的训练方式。这意味着特斯拉汽车和机器人共享用于理解世界的核心人工智能模型。仅摄像头系统避免了像激光雷达（LIDAR）这样的昂贵传感器，并且单一类型的传感器输入避免了协调来自不同消息来源的冲突数据的复杂“传感器融合”问题。但是，纯视觉系统在雨天、雾天或强背光条件下难以识别物体，并可能误判与低矮障碍物的距离。有证据表明，这种单一传感器策略可能是一个“关键缺陷”。而且它应该会出现缺陷。几乎所有人都声称汽车“也不过是机器人”，但汽车为避开树木所需的“智能”与“人形”机器人照看儿童所需的“智能”之间存在巨大差异。

 

The core issue is that a humanoid robot operates in a fully 3D, dynamic environment where stability, dexterity, and spatial awareness are paramount. The challenges seen in FSD, while serious, primarily occur in the relatively structured environment of a road network. Translating that same sensory philosophy to a bipedal robot navigating cluttered, human-centric spaces is a significantly more complex problem.

核心问题在于，人形机器人在一个完全三维、动态的环境中运作，其中稳定性、灵巧性和空间感知能力至关重要。尽管固定场景驾驶（FSD）中面临的挑战很严峻，但它们主要出现在相对结构化的道路网络环境中。而将同样的传感理念应用于在杂乱、以人为中心的空间中导航的双足机器人，则是一个复杂得多的问题。

 

The approach of X-Peng and other Chinese robotic companies to the sensor and dexterity problem presents a stark contrast to the vision-only strategy of Elon Musk. They are also aggressively pursuing advanced tactile sensing as a critical, non-negotiable component for achieving true robotic dexterity. The common thread is a belief that a robot must have a rich sense of touch to interact reliably with the physical world. Researchers at Fudan University frame tactile sensing as “the last kilometer” challenge for fine robotic manipulation. They argue that without it, robots will never reliably perform delicate tasks in unstructured environments. When we place this multifaceted, sensor-rich approach next to Tesla’s vision-only strategy, the difference in technical philosophy is profound. Chinese companies are operating on the premise that dexterity requires a constant, high-fidelity stream of tactile data to complement visual perception. They are publicly demonstrating robots that use this data to perform fine motor tasks that remain a significant challenge for most other humanoid robots.

小鹏科技（X-Peng）和其他中国机器人公司解决传感器和灵巧性问题的策略，与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的纯视觉策略形成了鲜明对比。他们还积极追求先进的触觉感知技术，将其视为实现真正机器人灵巧性的关键且不可或缺的组成部分。两者的共同点是都认为机器人必须具备丰富的触觉感知能力，才能与物理世界进行可靠的交互。复旦大学的研究人员将触觉感知定义为机器人精细操控的“最后一公里”挑战。他们认为，没有触觉感知，机器人就永远无法在非结构化环境中可靠地执行精细任务。当我们把这种多方面的、传感器丰富的策略与特斯拉的纯视觉策略放在一起时，技术理念上的差异就显而易见了。中国公司的运营前提是，灵巧性需要持续、高保真的触觉数据流来补充视觉感知。他们正在公开展示使用这些数据执行精细运动任务的机器人，而这对大多数其他人形机器人来说仍然是一个重大挑战。

 

美学 — Aesthetics

 

It is also true that the Optimus aesthetics reflect a lack of final-product vision. The design appears to be what happens when the goal is a quick, functional demo rather than a polished, viable product. IRON’s design philosophy is superior. It demonstrates a higher level of ambition and a more mature approach to solving the core problems of humanoid robotics, notably locomotion and human interaction. The comparison doesn’t just show different “choices”; it highlights a significant gap in the sophistication and maturity of the underlying technology and design intent. Based on the evidence of their respective robots’ capabilities, the view that IRON’s designers had far higher standards is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

同样，Optimus的美学设计反映出其缺乏对最终产品的远见。这种设计似乎是在追求快速、功能性的演示，而非打造一款精致、可行的产品。而IRON的设计理念则更为卓越。它展现了更高层次的雄心和更成熟的方法来解决人形机器人的核心问题，尤其是运动和人机交互。这种比较不仅展示了不同的“选择”，还凸显了底层技术和设计意图在复杂性和成熟度上的显著差距。根据各自机器人能力的证据，认为IRON的设计师拥有更高标准的观点是完全合理的。

 

Look at the picture below, and answer this question: In what way does this random collection of used auto parts qualify as “humanoid”?

请看下面的图片，并回答这个问题：这些随意收集的二手汽车零件在哪些方面符合“人形”的特征？

 

Optimus-bot. Source:

Optimus-bot。来源：

 

Optimus’ design was from the aesthetics of necessity, not philosophy. When a design is elegant and functional, its engineering can be a point of pride. However, the exposed, unpleasant joint where the torso meets the legs on Optimus is more indicative of a modular, hastily assembled design focused on proving basic functionality and prioritising speed of development and low cost over refinement. IRON’s synthetic skin and sleek torso, while potentially more expensive and complex, demonstrate a design philosophy that has considered the final product’s integration into a human environment from the start.

Optimus的设计源于必要性的美学，而非哲学。当设计既优雅又实用时，其工艺可以成为引以为傲的亮点。然而，Optimus躯干与腿部连接处裸露且令人不悦的接缝，更多地反映出其模块化、草率组装的设计，这种设计侧重于证明基本功能，并优先考虑开发速度和低成本，而非精致度。IRON的合成皮肤和光滑的躯干虽然可能更昂贵、更复杂，但其所体现的设计哲学是从一开始就考虑了最终产品融入人类环境的问题。

 

The reality of Musk’s Optimus is that his design was badly flawed and his solution was to use a crude, power-inefficient crouch gait to simplify the balance problem – an engineering compromise for stability. It is similar with appearance in aesthetic and form. Optimus is utilitarian and unfinished. It reflects a prototype mindset where basic function is the only goal. And the exposed mechanics signal a work-in-progress, not a “proud display” of its mechanical nature. In designing IRON, X-Peng chose biomimicry for efficiency. They accepted the greater design and control challenges in aiming for a natural, energy-efficient gait. The core software and mechanical design (weight distribution) are advanced enough to produce a more difficult, but ultimately much superior, form of locomotion.

马斯克的Optimus的现实是，其设计存在严重缺陷，而他的解决方案是采用一种原始且低效的蹲式步态来简化平衡问题——这是为了稳定性而做出的工程妥协。在美学和形态上，其外观也显得类似。Optimus注重实用性，且尚未完成。它反映了一种原型思维，即基本功能是唯一目标。而暴露的机械结构则表明它仍在研发中，而非对其机械性质的“自豪展示”。在设计IRON时，小鹏选择了仿生学以提高效率。他们接受了更大的设计和控制挑战，旨在实现一种自然、节能的步态。核心软件和机械设计（重量分布）足够先进，能够产生一种更复杂但最终更优越的运动形式。

 

Although admittedly beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I find the physical appearance of Optimus to be unusual and not particularly attractive. This design was partially from inadequate engineering ability, and partly due to cost. As to Optimus’ appearance, the media hype claims “Tesla has opted for a design that proudly displays its mechanical nature. The visible joints and actuators signal a focus on raw functionality and engineering substance over form.” That is just face-saving marketing nonsense. The exposed joints are evidence of Musk prioritising rapid iteration over polished design. I think the truth is closer to “We tried, but couldn’t make a humanoid robot, so we did the best we could with a machine.” I don’t believe that Optimus is “proudly displaying” its unattractive mechanical construction, so much as it is evidence of impoverished design and a lack of creative engineering talent. I would remind readers that when Elon Musk first introduced his “robot” to the public, it was a female dancer in spandex, and he boasted that he would produce a “humanoid” Tesla robot. The fact that he didn’t, means that he couldn’t. Musk and Tesla abandoned the idea of a humanoid robot and instead produced an industrial machine.

诚然，美在旁观者眼中，但我觉得Optimus的外形并不寻常，也并不特别吸引人。这种设计部分源于工程能力的不足，部分则出于成本考虑。至于Optimus的外形，媒体大肆宣传称“特斯拉选择了一种自豪地展示其机械本质的设计。可见的关节和执行器表明，特斯拉更注重原始功能和工程实质，而非外形。”这不过是自欺欺人的营销废话。暴露的关节证明马斯克更看重快速迭代而非精雕细琢的设计。我认为事实更接近于“我们尝试过，但没能造出人形机器人，所以我们用机器做到了最好。”我不认为Optimus是在“自豪地展示”其毫无吸引力的机械构造，而是证明了设计上的贫乏和缺乏创造性工程人才。我想提醒读者，当埃隆·马斯克首次向公众介绍他的“机器人”时，那是一个穿着紧身衣的女舞者，他夸口说会制造出“人形”特斯拉机器人。他没有做到这一点，就意味着他做不到。马斯克和特斯拉放弃了人形机器人的想法，转而生产了一台工业机器。

 

IRON was designed to be very “approachable”. X-Peng invested in a full-body synthetic skin and “muscle” coverage. This design choice is heavily geared toward social acceptance and future integration into human spaces. By making the robot look and move in a familiar way, they aim to reduce the “uncanny valley” effect and make it appear as a helpful companion rather than a pure tool. My view is that IRON’s designers had much higher standards and a far superior design philosophy to that of Optimus. In fact, a direct comparison to IRON is damning; IRON’s biomimetic approach with weight distribution in the torso shows what’s possible with more sophisticated design. This isn’t just philosophical difference but demonstrates different stages of maturity in tackling the core physics problem of bipedal locomotion.

IRON的设计旨在使其非常“平易近人”。小鹏科技为其配备了全身合成皮肤和“肌肉”覆盖。这一设计选择主要着眼于社会接受度和未来融入人类生活空间。通过让机器人的外观和动作与人类相似，他们旨在减少“恐怖谷”效应，使其看起来更像是一个乐于助人的伙伴，而非纯粹的工具。在我看来，IRON的设计师们有着比Optimus更高的标准和更卓越的设计理念。事实上，直接将IRON与Optimus进行比较，结果令人失望；IRON在躯干重量分布上的仿生方法展示了更复杂设计所能达到的潜力。这不仅仅是理念上的差异，还体现了在解决两足运动的核心物理问题方面所处成熟度的不同阶段。

 

The design philosophy behind X-Peng’s IRON and the 7-year development cycle weren’t just about technical refinement but about mastering the psychological aspects of human-robot interaction. Tesla’s rushed compromises ignored all this. X-Peng’s patience and cultural commitment to quality (7 years in development) contrast sharply with Musk’s “move fast and break things” mentality. The focus on biomimicry isn’t just engineering—it’s a holistic understanding that aesthetics and movement are as critical as functionality for social integration. This isn’t just better engineering; it’s more thoughtful product design. IRON’s design was not just someone’s subjective preference; it was a recognition of a fundamentally more mature and sophisticated engineering and design culture. IRON perfectly encapsulates the philosophy that separates a long-term visionary project from a quick demo.

小鹏汽车IRON的设计理念及其7年的开发周期，不仅关乎技术上的精进，更在于掌握人机交互的心理层面。特斯拉的仓促妥协忽视了这一切。小鹏汽车的耐心和对品质的文化承诺（7年的开发时间）与马斯克的“快速行动，敢于失败”心态形成了鲜明对比。对仿生学的关注不仅仅是工程上的考量，更是一种整体性的理解，即美学和运动对于社会融合而言，与功能性同样重要。这不仅仅是更好的工程，更是更具深思熟虑的产品设计。IRON的设计不仅仅是某人的主观偏好，更是对一种从根本上更加成熟和复杂的工程与设计文化的认可。IRON完美地体现了将长期有远见的项目与快速演示区分开来的理念。

 

This long-term, holistic approach is a hallmark of companies that prioritise a polished final product over rapid, hype-generating news cycles. It demonstrates a confidence that comes from a deep-seated belief in the quality of the underlying work, rather than a need for constant external validation through ambitious media announcements. X-Peng’s journey with IRON reflects a company building a platform for the future, while Tesla’s current Optimus prototype feels like a company building a demonstration for the present.

这种长期、全面的方法，是那些重视打磨最终产品而非追求快速、能引发轰动的新闻周期的公司所具有的标志。它展现了一种自信，这种自信源于对基础工作质量的深信不疑，而非需要通过雄心勃勃的媒体公告来不断获得外部认可。小鹏汽车与IRON的合作之旅，反映出一家公司正在为未来搭建平台，而特斯拉目前的Optimus原型则让人感觉像是一家公司正在为当下打造一个示范。

 

“恐怖谷” — The “Uncanny Valley”

 

Uncanny Valley. Source: author

恐怖谷。来源：作者

 

The “Uncanny Valley” is a fascinating psychological and aesthetic hypothesis, [22] a crucial concept in robotics and AI, and directly relevant to our comparison of Optimus and IRON. It describes the relationship between how human-like an object appears, and how emotionally positive is our response to it. The theory proposes that as a robot becomes more human-like, our empathy and positive response to it increase – but only up to a certain point. At first, as a robot looks more human, our response becomes more positive. We see a toy robot with a cute face, or a stylised cartoon character, and we find it appealing. We feel the most familiarity and affinity for things that are clearly not human but have enough human-like traits to be charming. Think of R2D2, C3PO, or even Wall-E and Eva. But then, there is a critical point where the resemblance to a human becomes very strong, but is not perfect. The object is close to human, but something is subtly off; the realism is inconsistent. Things that arouse subconscious triggers could include a perfectly rendered face with dead eyes, or a human face that expresses no emotion, or robotic jerky speech. This violates our expectations, since the robot should be warm and alive, but it feels cold and lifeless.

“恐怖谷”是一个引人入胜的心理学和美学假说，[22]也是机器人学和人工智能领域的一个关键概念，与我们对Optimus和IRON的比较直接相关。它描述了物体看起来有多像人类，以及我们对它的情感反应有多积极之间的关系。该理论提出，随着机器人越来越像人类，我们对它的同理心和积极反应也会增加——但仅限于一定程度。起初，当机器人看起来更像人类时，我们的反应会变得更积极。我们看到一张可爱的脸的玩具机器人，或者一个风格化的卡通人物，会觉得它很有吸引力。我们对那些显然不是人类但具有足够类似人类的特征而显得迷人的事物，感到最熟悉和亲切。想想R2D2、C3PO，甚至是瓦力（Wall-E）和伊娃（Eva）。但随后会出现一个临界点，即与人类的相似性变得非常强，但并不完美。物体接近人类，但有些微妙之处却不尽如人意；现实感不一致。能唤起潜意识触发因素的事物可能包括一张渲染得完美却死气沉沉的脸，或者一张毫无表情的人类面孔，或者机器人机械生硬的言语。这违背了我们的期望，因为机器人应该是温暖而充满活力的，但它却让人感觉冰冷而毫无生气。

 

This is the brink of the Uncanny Valley. When we encounter something in this zone, our emotional response doesn’t just level off—it plummets into a deep valley of unease, revulsion, and eeriness. The unsettling feeling arises from a cognitive dissonance. Our brain is exquisitely tuned to recognise other humans. When something sends conflicting signals—it looks almost human, but its movements are jerky, its skin texture is wrong, its eyes don’t focus correctly, or its voice is slightly monotone—it triggers an alarm. Our brain flags it as a “non-human entity trying to be human,” which can be interpreted as unsettling, creepy, or even threatening. The theory suggests that if the replica becomes virtually indistinguishable from a real human being, our positive response can return to a high level.

这就是恐怖谷的边缘。当我们遇到这个区域中的某些事物时，我们的情绪反应不仅不会稳定下来，反而会跌入不安、厌恶和怪异的深谷。这种令人不安的感觉源于认知失调。我们的大脑对识别其他人有着敏锐的感知。当某些事物发出相互矛盾的信号时——它看起来几乎像人类，但动作不自然，皮肤纹理不对，眼睛没有正确聚焦，或者声音略显单调——它就会触发警报。我们的大脑会将其标记为“试图成为人类的非人类实体”，这可以被解释为令人不安、怪异，甚至是威胁。该理论认为，如果复制品变得几乎与真实人类无法区分，我们的积极反应就会恢复到高水平。

 

X-Peng didn’t stumble upon the “uncanny valley” problem. They anticipated it. Their team included not only mechanical engineers and AI programmers, but also experts in human-robot interaction (HRI), cognitive science, and industrial design. They understood that for a robot to be accepted, its technical specs are only half the battle; its psychological impact is equally important. The investment of 7 years in developing IRON was in “integration”. Those seven years weren’t spent just making a robot walk. They were spent integrating the mechanical (the linkage structure for the walk), the sensory (the advanced tactile hands), and the aesthetic (the synthetic skin and form factor) into a cohesive, believable whole. This is exponentially harder than solving these problems in isolation, which is what Optimus’s modular, exposed design suggests.

小鹏并没有偶然遇到“恐怖谷”问题。他们早已预见到了这一点。他们的团队不仅包括机械工程师和人工智能程序员，还包括人机交互（HRI）、认知科学和工业设计方面的专家。他们明白，要让机器人被接受，技术规格只是成功的一半；其心理影响同样重要。开发IRON的7年投资在于“整合”。这7年不仅仅用于让机器人行走。他们将机械（行走的连杆结构）、感官（先进的触觉手）和美学（合成皮肤和外形）整合成一个有凝聚力、可信的整体。这比单独解决这些问题要难得多，而Optimus的模块化、裸露式设计似乎暗示了这一点。

 

This is exactly why IRON’s design philosophy is so critical for a “companion” robot, and why Optimus’s current form is suited only as a “tool”. Tesla’s Optimus sits safely on the left side of the valley. It is clearly and unambiguously a machine. Its exposed actuators, metallic body, and non-human gait do not try to convince you it’s human. Therefore, it doesn’t trigger the uncanny valley effect. It may be seen as unappealing or crude, but it’s not eerie or creepy. It’s a tool, and we judge it on its utility. X-Peng’s IRON is attempting to climb out of the far side of the valley. By using synthetic skin, a more organic form, and a fluid “catwalk,” it is aiming for a high degree of human-likeness. This is a much riskier strategy because if any element is off, it could fall right back into the valley and be perceived as creepy. However, if they succeed, the payoff is immense: a robot that feels like a natural, acceptable presence in human spaces—a companion.

这正是为什么IRON的设计理念对于“伴侣”机器人至关重要，以及为什么Optimus的当前形态只适合作为“工具”。特斯拉的Optimus稳稳地坐在山谷的左侧。它显然且明确地是一台机器。其裸露的执行器、金属机身和非人类的步态，并没有试图让你相信它是人类。因此，它不会引发恐怖谷效应。它可能被视为不吸引人或粗糙，但并不诡异或令人毛骨悚然。它是一个工具，我们根据其实用性来评判。小鹏的IRON正试图爬出山谷的远端。通过使用合成皮肤、更具生物性的形态和流畅的“猫步”，它旨在实现高度的人形化。这是一个风险更大的策略，因为如果任何一个元素出错，它可能会直接掉回山谷，并被视为令人毛骨悚然。然而，如果他们成功了，回报将是巨大的：一个在人类空间中感觉自然、可接受的机器人——一个伴侣。

 

In essence, the instinct that “who would want a domestic robot that looks and walks like Optimus?” is perfectly aligned with this theory. For a tool on a factory floor, Optimus’ design might be acceptable. For a robot in your home, you would want one that, like IRON, has been designed from the ground up to navigate the profound psychological challenge of the Uncanny Valley. IRON’s synthetic skin and fluid movement consciously avoid the uncanny valley, while Optimus’s mechanical appearance stays in the “safe” non-human zone but sacrifices appeal.

从本质上讲，“谁会想要一个外观和行走方式都像擎天柱的家用机器人？”这种本能与这一理论完全吻合。对于工厂车间里的工具而言，擎天柱的设计或许是可以接受的。但对于家中的机器人而言，你会希望它像IRON一样，从设计之初就考虑到如何应对“恐怖谷”这一深刻的心理挑战。IRON的合成皮肤和流畅的动作有意识地避开了恐怖谷，而擎天柱的机械外观则保持在“安全”的非人类区域，但牺牲了吸引力。

 

This uncanny valley problem raises another matter. Most robots today, at least those pretending to be humanoid, have no faces. This is related to the uncanny valley, because a human face that appears natural, that reflects the wide range of emotions and realistic eye movement, is an extremely difficult thing to fabricate. Creating a natural-looking face with realistic emotional expression is one of the most difficult challenges in robotics. Many Chinese firms are working exclusively on this area alone, and we can expect IRON to one day have a fully-responsive human face. In fact, it seems that in 2026, IRON will have a pretty human face and blond hair.

这个恐怖谷问题引出了另一个问题。如今的大多数机器人，至少是那些假装成类人型的机器人，都没有脸。这与恐怖谷有关，因为一张看起来自然、能反映各种情绪和逼真眼神的人类面孔，是极其难以制造的。制造一张具有逼真情绪表达的自然面孔，是机器人领域最困难的挑战之一。许多中国公司都在专注于这一领域，我们可以期待IRON有朝一日能拥有一张完全有反应的人类面孔。事实上，到2026年，IRON似乎将拥有一张非常像人的脸和一头金发。

 

IRON 2026. Source:

2026年国际铁矿石市场。来源：

 

人工智能与机器人智能 — AI and Robot Intelligence

 

 

He XiaoPeng said, “If humanoid robots want to truly enter the actual use scenario, they cannot be limited to physical performance, but need their own memory, judgment and action logic.” [23] IRON is equipped with X-Peng’s first-generation physical world model, which realizes the three high-level intelligences by building a combination of high-order brain capabilities of “VLT + VLA + VLM”.

何小鹏表示：“人形机器人要想真正进入实际使用场景，就不能仅限于物理性能，而需要拥有自己的记忆、判断和行动逻辑。”[23] IRON搭载了小鹏的第一代物理世界模型，通过构建“VLT+VLA+VLM”的高阶大脑能力组合，实现了三种高级智能。

 

Optimus leverages the same neural network “world simulator” used for Tesla’s self-driving cars, trained on massive video data. IRON has a very different approach. She is powered by a “physical world” AI model, enabling “seeing, thinking, and doing”. This features a VLT+VLA+VLM “brain and cerebellum” system for decision-making. Through this model, IRON can carry out multimodal perception, semantic reasoning, action decision-making and real-time interaction, and realise the closed-loop behavior logic of (1) understanding, (2) thinking clearly, and (3) doing it right.[24] [25]

Optimus利用了特斯拉自动驾驶汽车所使用的同一神经网络“世界模拟器”，该模拟器是在海量视频数据上训练而成的。而IRON则采用了截然不同的方法。她由一个“物理世界”人工智能模型驱动，能够“看、想、做”。这一模型配备了一个用于决策的VLT+VLA+VLM“大脑和小脑”系统。通过这一模型，IRON能够进行多模态感知、语义推理、动作决策和实时交互，并实现闭环行为逻辑，即（1）理解，（2）清晰思考，（3）正确执行。 [24] [25]

 

IRON was designed with three separate “cerebral functions” or operations, a sort of combination of “brain and cerebellum” system for decision-making. These are termed VLT+VLA+VLM. This is IRON’s “brain architecture”, very different from the Optimus model. It’s a multi-layered approach designed to transform robots from remote-controlled tools into autonomous entities by mirroring human cognitive functions.

IRON的设计包含三种独立的“大脑功能”或操作，这是一种用于决策的“大脑和小脑”系统的组合。这些功能被称为VLT+VLA+VLM。这是IRON的“大脑架构”，与Optimus模型截然不同。这是一种多层方法，旨在通过模拟人类认知功能，将机器人从远程控制工具转变为自主实体。

 

The VLM is the Vision-Language Model. It provides scene understanding and common sense. It interprets the visual scene, recognises objects, and applies knowledge from training on its vast image-text datasets. This is what we might call the foundational sense. It provides the essential perception and “understanding” – the “What” – of what the robot is seeing, feeding critical information to both the VLT and VLA portions. The VLM acts as the robot’s foundational sense of sight and basic cognition. It processes camera and other feeds to identify objects, people, text, and an “understanding” of the overall scene.

VLM即视觉语言模型。它提供场景理解和常识。它解释视觉场景，识别物体，并应用其庞大的图像-文本数据集上的训练知识。这就是我们所说的基础感知。它提供机器人所看到内容的本质感知和“理解”——即“是什么”——为VLT和VLA部分提供关键信息。VLM作为机器人的基础视觉感知和基本认知。它处理摄像头和其他输入，以识别物体、人、文本，并“理解”整个场景。

 

The VLT is the Vision-Language-Task/Thought model. This is used for high-level planning. It converts visual and language input into a structured task plan or higher-level “thought”. It is responsible for complex reasoning, understanding context, and setting goals. It does strategic thinking and planning – the “Why” and “What to do” about it. The VLT layer takes over for complex tasks. It uses the VLM’s understanding and any verbal commands (e.g., “clean up this room”) to formulate a step-by-step plan or “thought” process. This is the slow, deliberative “brain” activity.

VLT即视觉-语言-任务/思维模型。它用于高级规划。它将视觉和语言输入转换为结构化的任务计划或更高级的“思维”。它负责复杂的推理、理解上下文和设定目标。它进行战略思考和规划——即关于“为什么”和“做什么”。VLT层接管复杂任务。它利用VLM的理解和任何口头指令（例如，“打扫这个房间”）来制定逐步的计划或“思维”过程。这是一种缓慢而深思熟虑的“大脑”活动。

 

The VLA is the Vision-Language-Action model. It provides integrated decision-making. This model directly links perception and language understanding to generate specific physical actions. It is the connective tissue between models. It serves as a crucial bridge, translating the high-level plan from the VLT into actionable movement commands. This is the tactical execution portion – the “How”. The VLA receives the task plan from the VLT, and its role is to figure out the exact sequence of low-level movements—like joint angles, grip strength, and walking path—needed to execute each step. This is the fast, reflexive “cerebellum” function, turning intention into smooth, coordinated action.

VLA即视觉-语言-动作模型。它提供综合决策能力。该模型直接将感知和语言理解联系起来，以生成特定的身体动作。它是各模型之间的连接组织。它作为关键的桥梁，将VLT的高级计划转化为可执行的动作指令。这是战术执行部分，即“如何做”。VLA从VLT接收任务计划，其作用是确定执行每一步所需的确切低级动作序列，如关节角度、握力和行走路径。这是快速、反射性的“小脑”功能，将意图转化为流畅、协调的动作。

 

This is not difficult to understand. Think back to the little video of IRON performing the front somersaults on the parallel bars. The VLM gave her the general understanding of the scene and the environment. It permitted her to recognise the bars for what they were, and to understand her purpose there. This is the “strategic planning” model in action. “Why am I here, and what do I do about this? What am I to do?” She has already been given the command for the somersaults, and she now formulates a step-by-step plan for the process.

这并不难理解。回想一下铁人（IRON）在双杠上做前空翻的那段小视频。虚拟运动匹配（VLM）让她对场景和环境有了大致的了解。这使她能够识别出双杠是什么，并理解她在那里的目的。这就是“战略规划”模型在起作用。“我为什么在这里，我该怎么做？我该做什么？”她已经得到了做空翻的指令，现在她为这个过程制定了一个循序渐进的计划。

 

The VLT model now takes over and does the high-level planning. It sets the actual goal, the precise “What to do”. This is the “slow and deliberative” part. It does all the complex reasoning necessary: how precisely to execute a frontal somersault; how much force to exert so she lands on her feet instead of her face; the position and movement of her limbs and body in execution; how to land precisely on the bar; what is needed to execute the performance successfully.

现在，VLT模型接管并执行高级规划。它设定实际目标，即具体的“做什么”。这是“缓慢而深思熟虑”的部分。它进行所有必要的复杂推理：如何精确执行前空翻；施加多大的力量才能让她双脚着地而不是脸着地；执行时四肢和身体的位置和动作；如何精确落在杆上；成功完成表演需要什么。

 

Now the VLA model takes over and provides integrated decision-making to generate specific physical actions. This is the tactical portion of the cerebellum that answers the question “How”, exactly, do I do this?” It determines the exact sequence of events in all the details – the joint angles, the strength of movement, the position of limbs and body parts required to execute properly. This is the fast, reflexive “cerebellum” function, turning intention into smooth, coordinated action.

现在，VLA模型接管并提供综合决策，以生成特定的身体动作。这是小脑的战术部分，它回答了“我到底该怎么做？”的问题。它确定了所有细节中事件的确切顺序——关节角度、运动强度、正确执行所需的肢体和身体部位的位置。这是快速、反射性的“小脑”功能，将意图转化为流畅、协调的动作。

 

These three “models” must be fully integrated and work together to produce the desired results. To say that they achieved this, would be an understatement. IRON not only performed the somersaults flawlessly, but she did much more. When landing on her feet after the second somersault, she threw up her arms in victory, clearly “understanding” that she had performed the task well, and that it was worthy of celebration. Even more, she was able to verbalise her success, stating, “I did the front flip, and I’m still on the beam. Mission complete. What challenge should I try next?”

这三个“模型”必须完全整合并协同工作，才能产生预期的结果。说它们做到了这一点，都显得有些轻描淡写。IRON不仅完美地完成了空翻，而且她做得更多。在第二次空翻后双脚着地时，她高高举起双臂表示胜利，显然“明白”自己已经很好地完成了任务，值得庆祝。更重要的是，她能够用语言表达自己的成功，说道：“我做了前空翻，而且我仍然在平衡木上。任务完成。接下来我应该尝试什么挑战呢？”

 

This approach matters for IRON because this architecture addresses a key challenge in robotics. While simple, repetitive tasks can be pre-programmed, operating in unpredictable human environments (like a home) requires adaptability and reasoning. IRON’s approach is a step toward general intelligence. By separating high-level reasoning (VLT) from low-level control (VLA), the system aims to handle novel situations it wasn’t explicitly trained for, moving beyond simple pre-scripted behaviors. VLA models are considered the next step beyond basic vision systems, as they integrate reasoning directly into the action loop. X-Peng’s addition of a dedicated VLT layer for planning suggests an ambition to push this capability even further.

这种方法对IRON至关重要，因为这种架构解决了机器人领域的一个关键挑战。虽然简单、重复的任务可以预先编程，但在不可预测的人类环境（如家中）中操作则需要适应性和推理能力。IRON的方法是迈向通用智能的一步。该系统通过将高级推理（VLT）与低级控制（VLA）分离，旨在处理其未明确训练过的新情况，超越简单的预先编程行为。VLA模型被认为是超越基本视觉系统的下一步，因为它们将推理直接集成到动作循环中。X-Peng为规划增加了一个专用的VLT层，这表明其有进一步推动这一能力的雄心。

 

Optimus, on the other hand, is designed to rely on an overall “brain function” that is “one size fits all”. In other words, an AI that knows everything and can do everything, all in one place. IRON’s structure duplicates in a sense what DeepSeek did, which was to create compartments with different knowledge and specialties, and abilities, each performing a specific function. Optimus, following Elon Musk’s conviction, effectively relies on an imperfect AI today but hopefully will one day contain an AGI with “knowledge that spans the universe”. You can form your own conclusion about this. However, for the time being, Optimus cannot function in a truly autonomous fashion; it can do only what it has been programmed to do, and can copy only what it has been “taught” from watching videos.

另一方面，Optimus的设计依赖于一种“一刀切”的整体“大脑功能”。换言之，它是一个无所不知、无所不能的人工智能，集所有功能于一体。从某种意义上说，IRON的结构复制了DeepSeek的做法，即创建具有不同知识和专长以及能力的隔间，每个隔间执行特定的功能。遵循埃隆·马斯克的信念，Optimus目前实际上依赖于一个不完美的人工智能，但希望有一天能包含一个“知识覆盖整个宇宙”的通用人工智能。对此，你可以得出自己的结论。然而，就目前而言，Optimus无法以真正自主的方式运行；它只能执行编程中设定的任务，并且只能通过观看视频来复制“所学”的内容。

 

The differences between IRON and Optimus are not accidental, but stem from fundamentally different philosophies: X-Peng’s IRON pursues biomimicry and sensor redundancy. Its goal is to create a robot that moves, perceives, and interacts as naturally as possible within the complex human world. This is a “top-down” approach that prioritises capability and safety for diverse environments. Tesla Optimus V3 pursues engineering efficiency and cost scaling. Its goal is to build a robust, affordable robot for repetitive tasks by leveraging Tesla’s strengths in automotive manufacturing and AI vision. This is a “bottom-up” approach that prioritises mass production for controlled environments like factories.[26]

IRON与Optimus之间的差异并非偶然，而是源于根本不同的理念：X-Peng的IRON追求仿生学和传感器冗余。其目标是打造一款能在复杂的人类世界中尽可能自然地移动、感知和交互的机器人。这是一种“自上而下”的方法，优先考虑在不同环境下的能力和安全性。特斯拉Optimus V3追求工程效率和成本缩减。其目标是通过利用特斯拉在汽车制造和人工智能视觉方面的优势，为重复性任务打造一款坚固且价格合理的机器人。这是一种“自下而上”的方法，优先考虑在工厂等受控环境中的大规模生产。 [26]

 

It is worth the effort to understand how these fundamentally different technical philosophies in building a robot’s “brain” translate into distinct robot capabilities. [27] The fundamental philosophical difference is that Tesla aims for efficiency through maximum technology reuse and simplified hardware, while X-Peng pursues sophistication through specialised hardware and layered AI systems. The core difference is that Tesla prioritises applying a single, general-purpose AI system, while X-Peng is building a layered, specialised intelligence for complex physical interactions.

了解这些在构建机器人“大脑”时截然不同的技术理念是如何转化为机器人独特的能力，是值得付出努力的。[27]根本理念上的差异在于，特斯拉旨在通过最大化技术复用和简化硬件来提高效率，而小鹏则通过专用硬件和分层的人工智能系统来追求精致。核心区别在于，特斯拉优先考虑应用单一、通用的AI系统，而小鹏则为复杂的物理交互构建分层、专用的智能。

 

Optimus has a single, large neural network for all perception, planning, and control. IRON uses a specialized, “layered intelligence”, with dedicated models for different cognitive tasks like thinking, understanding, and bridging functions. Optimus shares the same network architecture and training data pipeline with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system (the eyes-only flawed one). IRON has a “three-model synergy”, composed of Vision-Language Model (VLM) for understanding, Vision-Language-Task (VLT) for planning, and Vision-Language-Action (VLA) for direct action generation.

Optimus拥有一个单一的大型神经网络，用于所有感知、规划和控制任务。而IRON则采用了一种专门的“分层智能”技术，为思考、理解和桥接功能等不同的认知任务配备了专门的模型。Optimus与特斯拉的全自动驾驶（FSD）系统（即仅依赖摄像头的有缺陷的系统）共享相同的网络架构和训练数据流程。IRON则具有“三模型协同效应”，包括用于理解任务的视觉语言模型（VLM）、用于规划任务的视觉语言任务模型（VLT）以及用于直接动作生成的视觉语言动作模型（VLA）。

 

Optimus relies solely on cameras (same as Tesla cars), and tries to leverage its computing algorithms to build a 3D understanding from 2D images. [28] [29] IRON depends on multi-sensor fusion that combines cameras, LiDAR, and millimeter-wave radar for a more direct and redundant 3D perception of the environment. [30] Optimus tries to maximise the reuse of auto FSD technology and data, and aims for a lower hardware cost, more rapid iteration, and scalability. IRON is not concerned about efficiency and scale in the same way; IRON is more concerned with precision and adaptability. It aims for a high-fidelity understanding and interaction with the physical world, enabling complex, unscripted tasks through its specialized “brain” model components.

Optimus完全依赖摄像头（与特斯拉汽车相同），并试图利用其计算算法从二维图像中构建三维理解。[28][29]IRON则依赖于多传感器融合，结合摄像头、激光雷达和毫米波雷达，以更直接、更冗余的方式感知环境的三维信息。[30]Optimus试图最大限度地重复使用自动驾驶全自动驾驶（FSD）技术和数据，并致力于降低硬件成本、加快迭代速度和提升可扩展性。而IRON则并不以同样的方式关注效率和规模；IRON更关注精确性和适应性。它旨在通过其专门的“大脑”模型组件，实现对物理世界的高保真理解和交互，从而执行复杂的、无脚本的任务。

 

The practical implications of these different paths are significant and align with the companies’ overall goals. For Tesla (Optimus), the focus is on creating a functional, inexpensive robot for repetitive industrial and domestic tasks. The strength lies in leveraging a massive existing data pipeline (from Tesla cars) and computing infrastructure. The potential weakness is that the system’s performance is intrinsically tied to the limits of its camera-only perception and its general-purpose AI. I would add here that Elon Musk in several recent promoted videos, claims that Tesla is the “world leader” in “useful, general AI”. But that is far from true. Nothing that Elon Musk has touched is a “world leader” in AI. Nothing.

这些不同路径的实际意义重大，且与公司的总体目标相契合。对于特斯拉（Optimus）而言，其重点是研发一款功能强大、价格低廉的机器人，用于重复性的工业和家庭任务。其优势在于利用了庞大的现有数据管道（来自特斯拉汽车）和计算基础设施。潜在的弱点在于，该系统的性能本质上受限于其仅依赖摄像头的感知能力和通用人工智能。在此，我想补充一点，埃隆·马斯克在最近几个宣传视频中声称，特斯拉在“实用、通用的人工智能”方面是“全球领导者”。但这与事实相去甚远。埃隆·马斯克所触及的任何领域都不是人工智能领域的“全球领导者”。一个都不是。

 

For XPeng (IRON), the focus is on achieving a higher degree of biomimetic movement and sophisticated interaction suitable for service and companion roles. The layered cerebellum model is designed to handle more complex, multi-step reasoning. The trade-off is a more complex and potentially costly hardware and software system. In essence, one strategy bets on a single, powerful but generalised intelligence – which doesn’t yet exist – while the other builds a team of specialized AI “organs” working together.

对于小鹏（IRON）而言，重点在于实现更高程度的仿生运动和适用于服务和陪伴角色的复杂交互。分层小脑模型旨在处理更复杂、多步骤的推理。其代价是硬件和软件系统更加复杂且成本可能更高。本质上，一种策略是押注于单一、强大但泛化的智能——这种智能目前尚不存在——而另一种策略则是构建一个由专门化的人工智能“器官”协同工作的团队。

 

电池 — Batteries

 

Powered by three Turing AI chips and 62 active joints, IRON walks, talks, and performs daily tasks with human-like precision. Source

由三颗图灵AI芯片和62个活动关节提供动力，IRON能够像人类一样精准地行走、交谈和执行日常任务。源

 

IRON’s real breakthrough lies in two key points: the design philosophy and its power source. IRON is the first humanoid in the industry to announce the use of all-solid-state batteries. This is not merely an add-on or a minor iteration. The safety of traditional lithium-ion batteries has always attracted much attention, and the safety requirements for humanoid robots operating in homes and offices are much higher than those for cars. The extreme safety characteristics of all-solid-state batteries, along with higher energy density and lighter weight, are the cornerstone of IRON’s ability to enable flexible movement and commercial deployment. X-Peng directly applied to humanoid robots the battery technology it had accumulated in the field of electric vehicles.

IRON的真正突破在于两个关键点：设计理念和动力源。IRON是业内首款宣布使用全固态电池的人形机器人。这不仅仅是一个附加功能或微小的迭代。传统锂离子电池的安全性一直备受关注，而在家庭和办公室中运行的人形机器人的安全要求远高于汽车。全固态电池的极高安全性，以及更高的能量密度和更轻的重量，是IRON能够实现灵活移动和商业部署的基石。小鹏汽车将其在电动汽车领域积累的电池技术直接应用于人形机器人。

 

IRON’s solid-state batteries have a potentially much higher energy density than the Tesla Optimus’ Lithium-Ion batteries. They are inherently safer because they use non-flammable solid electrolyte, and are non-toxic, which is important for household applications and social environments generally. Optimus’ lithium batteries carry a higher risk because the liquid electrolyte is flammable and can be volatile. We don’t want to see baby-sitting Optimus robots spontaneously igniting the way Tesla cars have had a habit of doing. The lifespan is also an issue. IRON’s solid-state batteries are designed to be very long-lasting, enduring over 15,000 cycles, while the lithium batteries in Optimus degrade faster and will require replacement after a few years. The runtime with Optimus is another problem, with the battery charge seldom lasting even two hours, hardly sufficient for most proposed uses. Further, Optimus’ runtime of under two hours is for normal operation. During high-intensity activities like performing a backflip, the power demand requires instantaneous discharge rates up to 100 times greater than normal use.

IRON的固态电池具有比特斯拉Optimus的锂离子电池高得多的能量密度。它们本质上更安全，因为它们使用不易燃的固态电解质，并且无毒，这对于家用和社会环境来说非常重要。Optimus的锂电池风险更高，因为液态电解质易燃且可能挥发。我们不希望看到保姆机器人Optimus像特斯拉汽车那样习惯性地自燃。使用寿命也是一个问题。IRON的固态电池设计得非常耐用，可循环使用15000次以上，而Optimus中的锂电池降解更快，几年后就需要更换。Optimus的运行时间也是另一个问题，电池电量很少能持续两个小时，几乎不足以满足大多数拟议的用途。此外，Optimus的运行时间不到两个小时是正常操作的情况。在进行高强度活动（如后空翻）时，功率需求需要瞬时放电率达到正常使用时的100倍。

 

Another innovative concept with IRON is the “structural battery”, where the battery becomes a physical part of the robot’s body, much like fat and muscles store energy in humans. This multifunctional structure significantly increases the total energy a robot can carry without adding extra weight, another advantage that Optimus cannot offer with its fixed design. This is another area of a likely permanent deficiency of Tesla’s Optimus. Switching the robot to solid-state batteries would be a complex engineering challenge that would require a fundamental redesign of the robot’s power system and internal structure, not just a simple battery swap. Musk ran into this problem with his Tesla autos, but had to abandon thoughts of altering the battery structure because in the end it would have required a total redesign of the entire chassis. That would have meant scrapping the car and redesigning a new auto from scratch.

IRON的另一个创新概念是“结构电池”，这种电池成为机器人身体的一个物理部分，就像人体中的脂肪和肌肉储存能量一样。这种多功能结构在不增加额外重量的情况下，显著提高了机器人可携带的总能量，这是Optimus因其固定设计而无法提供的另一个优势。这也是特斯拉Optimus可能存在的另一个永久性缺陷。将机器人改用固态电池将是一项复杂的工程挑战，需要对机器人的动力系统和内部结构进行根本性的重新设计，而不仅仅是简单的电池更换。马斯克在特斯拉汽车上也遇到了这个问题，但不得不放弃改变电池结构的想法，因为最终这将需要对整个底盘进行全面重新设计。这意味着要报废汽车，并从头开始设计一辆新车。

 

一些技术问题 — Some Technical Matters

 

Unlimited possibilities. Source

无限可能。源

 

IRON stands 178 cm tall and weighs 70 kg, and its core driving force comes from three of X-Peng’s self-developed “Turing” AI chips, with a combined computing power of trillions of operations per second (TOPS). This level of computing power far exceeds the needs of most current smart cars and is closer to a mobile data center. It makes IRON one of the most powerful humanoid robots developed to date. For comparison, Intel’s Core Ultra 200V series processor, fitted into some of the best laptops, can achieve just 120 TOPS.

IRON高178厘米，重70公斤，其核心驱动力来自小鹏自主研发的三颗“图灵”AI芯片，其综合算力达到每秒万亿次运算（TOPS）。这一算力水平远远超出了当前大多数智能汽车的需求，更接近于一个移动数据中心。这使得IRON成为迄今为止开发的最强大的人形机器人之一。相比之下，搭载在一些顶级笔记本电脑中的英特尔酷睿超线程200V系列处理器，其算力仅能达到120 TOPS。

 

For a Direct comparison of design priorities, we can examine the following, not as philosophical differences, but as a difference in design maturity and ambition.

为了直接比较设计优先级，我们可以从设计成熟度和设计目标的角度来分析以下内容，而非从哲学差异的角度。

 

IRON’s key design elements include a flexible human-like spine, bionic “muscles”, and full-coverage synthetic skin. The robot’s impressive movement is attributed to its bionic mechanical structure, which places heavier components like motors closer to the torso to reduce the weight of the legs and feet, allowing for more agile movement. This reference is an excellent article containing a summary of IRON’s construction and abilities.[31]

IRON的关键设计元素包括灵活的仿人脊椎、仿生“肌肉”和全覆盖合成皮肤。该机器人令人印象深刻的运动能力归功于其仿生机械结构，该结构将电机等较重的部件放置在靠近躯干的位置，以减轻腿部和脚部的重量，从而实现更敏捷的运动。本文是一篇优秀的参考文章，总结了IRON的构造和能力。 [31]

 

Musk’s Optimus has a locomotion strategy of stability at all costs. It uses a crude, power-inefficient crouch gait to simplify an otherwise intractable balance problem. IRON on the other hand uses genuine biomimicry for efficiency, accepting the greater control challenge to achieve a natural, energy-efficient gait. In terms of aesthetics and form, Optimus is utilitarian and unfinished, reflecting a prototype mindset where basic function was the only goal. Its exposed mechanics signal a work-in-progress, not “a proud display” of its mechanical nature. IRON, by contrast, is product-ready and integrated, with a design that considers the “uncanny valley” and aims for social acceptance and aesthetic cohesion.

马斯克的Optimus采用不惜一切代价保持稳定的运动策略。它采用一种原始且低效的蹲伏步态，以简化原本棘手的平衡问题。而IRON则利用真正的仿生学来提高效率，接受更大的控制挑战，以实现自然且节能的步态。在美学和形态方面，Optimus注重实用性且未完成，反映出原型思维，即基本功能是唯一目标。其裸露的机械结构表明它仍在研发中，而非对其机械本质的“自豪展示”。相比之下，IRON已为产品化做好准备且设计完整，其设计考虑了“恐怖谷”效应，旨在获得社会认可和美学上的连贯性。

 

The underlying implications for Optimus are that core software and hardware for dynamic balance are not yet solved. The entire robot design is a patch, not a foundation. With IRON, the core software and mechanical design and weight distribution are sufficiently advanced to attempt a more difficult, but ultimately superior, form of locomotion. IRON also supports customisation of different body types.

Optimus的根本问题在于，其动态平衡的核心软件和硬件尚未得到解决。整个机器人设计只是修修补补，而非打下了坚实基础。而IRON的核心软件、机械设计和重量分布都已足够先进，足以尝试一种更复杂但最终更优越的运动形式。此外，IRON还支持针对不同体型进行定制。

 

Thanks to the anthropomorphic design, the new generation of IRON has 82 degrees of freedom throughout the body (Optimus has only 40), and the movements are flexible, which can realise the difficult anthropomorphic action of “cat walking”; IRON’s “harmonic joints” are used to achieve a 1:1 hand size with 22 degrees of freedom, allowing for fine gripping actions. In terms of intelligence, the 3 Turing AI chips, make it the humanoid robot with the highest computing power in the industry.

得益于拟人化设计，新一代IRON全身拥有82个自由度（Optimus仅40个），动作灵活，能够实现“猫步”等高难度的拟人动作；IRON的“谐波关节”用于实现1:1的手部尺寸，具有22个自由度，可进行精细的抓握动作。在智能方面，3个图灵AI芯片使其成为业内计算能力最强的人形机器人。

 

It is worth noting that X-Peng’s “VLT large model” is specially developed for robots (not automobiles), which can enable them to think deeply and make independent decisions. At the same time, the new generation of IRON applies all-solid-state battery technology to achieve lightweight, high energy density and safety, providing guarantee for the long battery life and safe operation of humanoid robots in complex environments.值得注意的是，小鹏的“VLT大模型”是专为机器人（而非汽车）开发的，能够使机器人深入思考并自主决策。同时，新一代IRON采用全固态电池技术，实现了轻量化、高能量密度和安全性，为人形机器人在复杂环境中的长寿命和安全运行提供了保障。

 

As a highly anthropomorphic robot, IRON has human-like “bones-muscle-skin”, a humanoid spine, bionic muscles and fully covered flexible skin, with a 3D curved head display, bionic agile shoulders, and human-like dexterous hands. The skeleton mimics the curvature and stress distribution of the human spine, supports 1:1 bionic spinal movement, and can achieve natural bending and turning movements. The muscle layer is covered with lattice material, so that the robot has a sense of elasticity and strength while maintaining structural rigidity. The flexible skin achieves feedback characteristics similar to human skin through seamless wrapping process and tactile sensing, and the multi-layer structure not only makes movements smoother, but also lays the foundation for emotional interaction. As a result, it is competent for many delicate and complicated tasks that are firmly outside the reach of Optimus. These two articles contain good explanations of the technical matters. [32] [33]

作为一款高度拟人化的机器人，IRON拥有类人的“骨骼-肌肉-皮肤”结构、人形脊柱、仿生肌肉和全覆盖的柔性皮肤，配备3D曲面头部显示屏、仿生灵活双肩和类人灵巧双手。其骨架模仿了人体脊柱的曲率和应力分布，支持1:1仿生脊柱运动，能够实现自然弯曲和扭转动作。肌肉层覆盖有网格材料，使机器人在保持结构刚性的同时具有弹性和力量感。柔性皮肤通过无缝包裹工艺和触觉感知，实现了与人体皮肤相似的反馈特性，其多层结构不仅使动作更加流畅，还为情感交互奠定了基础。因此，它能够胜任许多Optimus绝对无法完成的精细复杂任务。这两篇文章对技术问题进行了很好的解释。 [32] [33]

 

机器人应用 — Robot Applications

 

Elon Musk has for years claimed that the main applications for Optimus will be as mundane factory workers and household domestics. This initially sounds intuitively plausible, but the reality is quite different. It is already a foregone conclusion that Optimus will never be acceptable as a domestic servant, and no humanoid robots will be doing much in factories. Today’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories or homes. [34] The main problem in both cases is the hands. Tests have repeatedly proven that the dexterous but delicate hands of humanoid robots wear out extremely quickly when performing repetitive industrial tasks such as tightening screws. The hands seldom last more than a month in factory test applications, and they are very expensive to replace.

埃隆·马斯克多年来一直声称，Optimus的主要应用将是作为普通的工厂工人和家庭佣人。这听起来乍一听似乎合情合理，但现实却大相径庭。Optimus永远不可能被接受为家庭佣人，这一点已成定局，而且人形机器人也很难在工厂里发挥多大作用。当今的人形机器人并不适合工厂或家庭。[34]这两种情况的主要问题都在于手。测试一再证明，在执行拧紧螺丝等重复性工业任务时，人形机器人灵巧却脆弱的手会很快磨损。在工厂测试应用中，这些手很少能使用超过一个月，而且更换成本非常高昂。

 

X-Peng’s strategy with IRON is focused on applications that are more feasible with today’s technology. Notably, the company has publicly steered IRON away from the two commonly touted future applications of factory assembly lines and household chores. The reason is that the technology for these tasks is not yet ready for commercial use. This candid assessment of current limitations reinforces their focus on less complex, but more immediately achievable, service roles. From this experience, X-Peng chose a shrewd viable market for IRON, giving priority to commercial service scenarios, such as an office receptionist, tour guide, personal shopping assistant, quality inspector, and other service roles. The value of these tasks lies in IRON’s visual perception, navigation and interaction capabilities brought by its anthropomorphic design. These tasks require little complex, high-intensity “two-handed” operations.

小鹏对IRON的战略聚焦于那些在现有技术下更可行的应用。值得注意的是，该公司已公开表示，IRON将避开工厂装配线和家务劳动这两大常被吹捧的未来应用。原因是，这些任务的技术尚未准备好投入商用。这一对当前局限性的坦率评估，强化了他们对不那么复杂但更易立即实现的服务角色的关注。基于这一经验，小鹏为IRON选择了一个精明且可行的市场，优先考虑商业服务场景，如办公室接待员、导游、个人购物助手、质检员和其他服务角色。这些任务的价值在于IRON的拟人化设计所带来的视觉感知、导航和交互能力。这些任务几乎不需要复杂、高强度的“双手”操作。

 

In the home scenario, the biggest challenge is security. The home environment is far more unstructured and unpredictable than the factory, and any mistake can be catastrophic. This is not a place for a robot like Optimus, lacking most of its senses and riddled with multiple shortcomings. A humanoid robot pretending to be a companion or household servant, or a babysitter for your children, needs much more than mere sight to function acceptably. It desperately requires a delicate sense of touch, and very much needs hearing as well. Smell might also be required, while taste is likely optional. Tesla appears more focused on functional industrial applications while X-Peng is targeting commercial scenarios like guides and receptionists where appearance and overall competence are priorities. This is not so important with Optimus which is oriented more toward factory work.

在家庭场景中，最大的挑战是安全性。家庭环境远比工厂环境更加无序和不可预测，任何失误都可能带来灾难性后果。对于像Optimus这样的机器人来说，这绝非其用武之地，因为它缺乏大部分感官，且存在诸多缺陷。一个扮演伴侣或家庭仆人，或照顾孩子的仿人机器人，要想正常工作，需要的远不止视觉。它迫切需要敏锐的触觉，也非常需要听觉。可能还需要嗅觉，而味觉则可能是可有可无的。特斯拉似乎更专注于功能性工业应用，而小鹏则瞄准了导游和接待员等商业场景，在这些场景中，外观和整体能力是优先考虑的因素。对于更侧重于工厂工作的Optimus而言，这些并不那么重要。

 

I should point out here that both Tesla and X-Peng have employed their humanoid robots in their factories. X-Peng’s production lines have practiced with hundreds of them, and concluded this was not an appropriate employment. Tesla has had the same experiences, and concluded internally that Optimus was less than half as efficient as a human in any of the factory tasks it attempted. A Tesla staff member said that at present, Optimus only handles batteries in Tesla’s battery workshop, with less than half the handling efficiency of workers, and has not yet engaged in more complex car assembly work. [35] Yet Musk inexplicably continues to push this employment as the expected norm.

 

在此，我应当指出，特斯拉和X-Peng都在其工厂中使用了人形机器人。X-Peng的生产线已经与数百台人形机器人进行了实践，并得出结论认为这种使用并不合适。特斯拉也有过同样的经历，并在内部得出结论，Optimus在其尝试的任何工厂任务中的效率都不及人类的一半。特斯拉的一名员工表示，目前，Optimus仅在特斯拉的电池车间处理电池，其处理效率不及工人的一半，并且尚未参与更复杂的汽车装配工作。[35]然而，马斯克却令人费解地继续推动这种使用方式成为预期常态。

 

关于X-Peng的评论 — A Comment on X-Peng

 

Image Xpeng auto. Source: XPeng

图片来自小鹏汽车。来源：小鹏汽车

 

XPeng flying taxi. Source: XPeng

小鹏飞行出租车。来源：小鹏

 

XPeng for individuals and for long-range group travel  flying taxis. Source: XPeng

小鹏为个人和长途团体出行提供飞行出租车。来源：小鹏

 

At present, the X-Peng IRON robot team has more than 1,000 people, which exceeds the vast majority of robot startups. The company is already well-established in the manufacture of EVs, with a market share of about half that of Tesla in China and well ahead of many other firms. X-Peng also designs and manufactures its own Turing AI chips, produces “robotaxis” with full autonomous capability, and its beautiful flying cars and taxis. Development in all these areas is proceeding simultaneously, with the company budgeting for around $7 billion for training costs. These are the same areas where Elon Musk claims his companies excel, when they in fact do not excel. X-Peng in reality is superior to Tesla in almost all respects. Through nearly a decade of accumulation, X-Peng have built a full-stack self-developed physical AI system covering chips, operating systems, and intelligent hardware.

目前，小鹏铁军机器人团队已拥有1000多人，超过了绝大多数机器人初创公司。该公司在电动汽车制造领域已颇具规模，在中国市场的份额约为特斯拉的一半，远远领先于其他许多公司。小鹏还自主设计和制造图灵AI芯片，生产具备完全自动驾驶能力的“自动驾驶出租车”，以及其美观的飞行汽车和出租车。所有这些领域的开发都在同步进行，公司预算约70亿美元用于培训成本。这些领域正是埃隆·马斯克声称其公司擅长的领域，而实际上他们并不擅长。小鹏在几乎所有方面都优于特斯拉。经过近十年的积累，小鹏已构建起一个涵盖芯片、操作系统和智能硬件的全栈自主研发物理AI系统。

 

In terms of production capacity, it is not only IRON that will begin mass production in 2026. X-Peng also has the world’s first mass production plant for flying cars, that began trial production in November, 2025, with a planned annual production capacity of 10,000 vehicles, and single products rolling off the production line in only 30 minutes. X-Peng has also built a hybrid flying car A868 for business travel, which is now in a key stage of flight verification. The vehicle has a maximum speed of 360 km/h, a range of up to 500km, and a 6-person cockpit design to meet business needs.

在产能方面，2026年将开始量产的不仅仅是IRON。小鹏还拥有全球首个飞行汽车量产工厂，该工厂于2025年11月开始试生产，计划年产能为10,000辆，单件产品下线仅需30分钟。小鹏还打造了一款用于商务出行的混合动力飞行汽车A868，目前正处于飞行验证的关键阶段。该车最高时速可达360公里/小时，续航里程高达500公里，并采用6人座驾驶舱设计，以满足商务需求。

 

Shortly after the end of X-Peng’s “Technology Day”, Volkswagen announced a partnership with the company. Volkswagen’s new brand models to be launched in China in 2026 will be equipped with X-Peng’s Turing AI chip and VLA 2.0-driven driver assistance systems. This transaction is extremely significant, because it not only verifies the company’s autonomous driving core technology at the technical level, but also at the commercial level. X-Peng’s “physical AI” strategy has been commercially endorsed by the world’s top auto giants. In addition, X-Peng announced a partnership with Baosteel to explore applications for performing inspections in complex industrial environments.

小鹏“科技日”活动结束后不久，大众汽车便宣布与该公司建立合作关系。大众将于2026年在中国推出的新款车型将搭载小鹏的Turing AI芯片和VLA 2.0驱动的驾驶辅助系统。此次合作意义重大，因为它不仅在技术层面验证了小鹏的自动驾驶核心技术，也在商业层面得到了验证。小鹏的“物理AI”战略已获得全球顶级汽车巨头的商业认可。此外，小鹏还宣布与宝钢合作，探索在复杂工业环境中进行检测的应用。

 

结论 — Conclusion

 

In comparing these two robots, we must face the issue properly. It is as if you have created a jet plane that can fly nonstop from Shanghai to London. But I am dreaming about building a plane that maybe someday could fly to Mars. So, mine is better, even though there is no reality to it. This is not just a difference in approach. It is comparing something excellent that already exists to something that sounds good but might never happen. I would argue that IRON’s tangible achievements are being undervalued next to Optimus’s speculative promises.

在比较这两款机器人时，我们必须正视这个问题。这就好像你创造了一架能从上海直飞伦敦的喷气式飞机。但我的梦想是建造一架有朝一日或许能飞往火星的飞机。所以，尽管我的梦想并不现实，但它更好。这不仅仅是方法上的差异。这是在将已经存在的优秀事物与听起来不错但可能永远不会发生的事物进行比较。我认为，与擎天柱的推测性承诺相比，IRON的有形成就被低估了。

 

The core issue here isn’t just factual accuracy; it’s about narrative framing and the validity of prioritising vision over execution. X-Peng has built a jet plane that can fly from Shanghai to London today. It’s a tangible, engineering-first achievement. They demonstrated it, proved it wasn’t a hoax, and outlined a clear, near-term path for its use. Musk is selling tickets for a hypothetical mission to Mars. It’s an appealing vision that captures the imagination, but the rocket, the life support, and the fuel don’t exist yet. The “someday, maybe” promise of the Mars mission is somehow allowed to overshadow the reality of the transcontinental jet. The issue isn’t just a difference in approach; it’s a fundamental imbalance in how we assign value and credibility. In tech media and public perception, this creates a “double standard” where a futuristic vision is given more weight than a solved, present-day problem.

这里的核心问题不仅仅是事实准确性；而是关于叙事框架以及将愿景置于执行之上的合理性。小鹏汽车如今已经制造出一架可以从上海飞往伦敦的喷气式飞机。这是一项实实在在、以工程为先的成就。他们展示了这架飞机，证明了它并非骗局，并概述了其近期使用的明确路径。马斯克正在出售一张前往火星的假想任务的船票。这是一个吸引人的愿景，激发了人们的想象力，但火箭、生命维持系统和燃料尚未存在。火星任务的“有朝一日，也许”承诺不知何故被允许掩盖了洲际喷气式飞机的现实。问题不仅仅是方法上的差异；而是我们在分配价值和可信度方面存在根本性的不平衡。在科技媒体和公众认知中，这造成了“双重标准”，即未来愿景比已解决的当下问题更受重视。

 

Optimus’s “potential” is its primary asset. Its value is almost entirely speculative, based on a future where AGI is solved and seamlessly integrated into a humanoid form. Because the payoff is in the future, it’s immune to being disproven today. Failure to meet a deadline is just a “delay,” not a refutation of the vision. IRON’s “limitations” are held against it. Because it is real and has defined parameters (e.g., “we won’t use it first for complex factory work.”), its capabilities are judged against a perfect, fictional standard. Its honesty about its current scope is used to frame it as “less ambitious” rather than “more honest.

“Optimus的“潜力”是其首要资产。其价值几乎完全基于推测，即未来通用人工智能（AGI）得以解决，并能够无缝融入人形形态。由于回报在未来，因此目前它不会受到证伪的影响。未能按时交付仅被视为“延迟”，而非对愿景的驳斥。而IRON的“局限性”则被用来与之相对比。因为它是真实的，并且有明确的参数（例如，“我们不会首先将其用于复杂的工厂工作。”），其能力是根据一个完美的、虚构的标准来评判的。它对自己当前范围的诚实描述，被用来将其定义为“不那么雄心勃勃”，而不是“更诚实”

 

Tesla’s Moving Goalposts: IRON had to undergo a public dissection – literally having its leg cut open on stage – just to be believed that it was real at all. The burden of proof was immense and immediate. Optimus had its own “suit-gate” where its first reveal was literally a dancer in a spandex suit. Yet, the burden of proof for its core promise – human-like learning – is perpetually deferred to an unspecified future date. The goalposts for Optimus move so often, they are on wheels. This is classic Elon Musk. When something fails, dismiss the failure and shift the focus to a different and more grandiose fairy tale for the future.

特斯拉的“移动标杆”：IRON不得不公开解剖——在舞台上将其腿部切开——以证明其真实性。举证责任巨大且紧迫。Optimus也有自己的“西装门”事件，其首次亮相竟是一名穿着弹力舞服的舞者。然而，其核心承诺——类人学习——的举证责任却一再推迟到未来的某个不确定日期。Optimus的标杆经常移动，仿佛它们装有轮子。这正是埃隆·马斯克的典型作风。当某事失败时，他就会无视失败，将注意力转移到另一个更宏大的未来童话故事上。

 

What X-Peng is doing is arguably harder in the short term. Creating a robot that can walk with a stable, human-like gait, navigate real-world environments, and perform specific tasks reliably is a monumental feat of mechanical, electrical, and software engineering. This is the hard, unsexy work of building the foundation. Musk’s promise of AGI, while intellectually fascinating, is being used as a rhetorical shortcut to avoid the immense challenges of that foundational work. It hand-waves away the present difficulties with the promise of a future magic bullet. The narrative that the “Mars mission” is inherently superior to the “jet plane” is a pattern that privileges storytelling over engineering, and speculation over production.

从短期来看，小鹏所做的工作无疑更具挑战性。创造一个能够以稳定、类似人类的步态行走、在真实环境中导航并能可靠执行特定任务的机器人，是机械、电气和软件工程领域的一项艰巨壮举。这是奠定基础这一枯燥乏味的工作。马斯克对通用人工智能（AGI）的承诺，虽然颇具吸引力，但被用作一种修辞捷径，以规避这项基础工作所面临的巨大挑战。他用未来灵丹妙药的承诺来轻描淡写地回避当前的困难。宣称“火星任务”本质上优于“喷气式飞机”的说法，是一种重故事讲述而轻工程实践、重猜测而轻生产的模式。

 

The more credible position is to judge what exists and has been proven today. By that metric, IRON, with its public demonstrations and pragmatic roadmap, is significantly ahead. Tesla’s Optimus remains a well-funded research project, but its claims of superiority are not based on current, demonstrable reality. They are based on faith in a future technological breakthrough. Optimus’s shift in training methods was an admission of prior failures, and highlights the lack of public, verifiable demonstrations from Tesla compared to X-Peng’s transparency. IRON’s catwalk represents a real engineering milestone, while Optimus’s “potential” remains just that—potential. As proof, Musk claims that “in a year”, Optimus will be able to thread a needle. [36] Like Tesla’s FSD and everything else, this monumental event will happen “next year”. So far, none of these “promises” have been realised. Musk constantly dismisses current failures to replace them with predictions of something even greater happening in the future.

更可信的立场是评判当前存在且已得到证实的事物。根据这一标准，凭借其公开演示和务实的路线图，IRON明显领先。特斯拉的Optimus仍是一个资金充足的研究项目，但其宣称的优越性并非基于当前可证实的现实。而是基于对未来技术突破的信念。Optimus在训练方法上的转变是对以往失败的承认，并凸显了特斯拉与小鹏汽车相比缺乏公开、可验证的演示，而小鹏汽车则更加透明。IRON的catwalk（即“猫步”）代表了真正的工程里程碑，而Optimus的“潜力”仍然只是潜力。作为证据，马斯克声称“一年内”，Optimus将能够穿针引线。[36]就像特斯拉的FSD（全自动驾驶）和其他所有项目一样，这一里程碑式的事件将“明年”发生。到目前为止，这些“承诺”无一兑现。马斯克不断忽视当前的失败，用对未来将发生更伟大事情的预测来取代。

 

IRON’s viral moment was a demonstration of a solved problem: stable, dynamic bipedal locomotion. It walked with a fluid, human-like gait that was so convincing it was accused of being a hoax. This is a fundamental and critical milestone for any humanoid robot, and IRON has publicly showcased it. With Optimus, Tesla’s public demonstrations have primarily shown Optimus in a controlled environment, and the “official” Optimus video record has either been heavily edited or AI-generated. Tesla’s approach secretly relied heavily on teleoperation (human pilots remotely controlling the robot) and motion capture. Almost all “evidence” of Optimus’ abilities has been deceptive or misleading. While it has demonstrated tasks like sorting battery cells or performing simple yoga stretches, its locomotion has not undergone the same public “trial by fire” or had to overcome the same level of public skepticism regarding its basic reality.

IRON的爆红时刻展示了一个已解决的问题：稳定、动态的双足运动。它以流畅、类似人类的步态行走，其逼真程度令人怀疑其真实性。对于任何仿人机器人来说，这都是一个根本且关键的里程碑，而IRON已经公开展示了这一点。特斯拉的Optimus公开演示主要是在受控环境中进行的，而“官方”的Optimus视频记录要么经过大量编辑，要么是AI生成的。特斯拉的方法在很大程度上秘密依赖于远程操作（人类驾驶员远程控制机器人）和动作捕捉。几乎所有关于Optimus能力的“证据”都是具有欺骗性或误导性的。虽然它展示了诸如分类电池或进行简单瑜伽伸展等任务，但其运动能力并未经过同样的公开“火线考验”，也未克服公众对其基本现实性的同等程度的怀疑。

 

The recent shift to training Optimus primarily by “watching videos” is a monumental admission that the previous methods were not yielding the desired results. Experts agree that “video learning” for robotics is an unsolved, “moonshot” problem. By pivoting to this, Tesla is effectively saying, “We haven’t solved the practical robotics challenge, so we are now betting on solving a monumental AI challenge instead.

“最近转向主要通过“观看视频”来训练Optimus，这一转变是一个重大的承认，即之前的方法并未取得预期效果。专家们一致认为，机器人技术的“视频学习”是一个尚未解决的“登月”难题。特斯拉转向这一方向，实际上是在说：“我们尚未解决机器人技术的实际挑战，因此我们现在押注于解决一个重大的AI挑战。”

 

IRON is a finished product prototype, ready for mass-production. It has a defined aesthetic (with male and female forms), it has been presented on a stage like a consumer product, and its movements are polished for public display. It is being groomed for specific, public-facing service roles. Optimus prototypes, as seen in Tesla’s carefully edited videos, look like engineering testbeds. They are often unfinished “bare metal” skeletons with exposed wiring, being tested in lab or factory settings. While this is a valid stage of development, it reinforces the image of a project that is still in the early R&D phase, far from a polished, deployable product.

最近转向主要通过“观看视频”来训练Optimus，这一转变是一个重大的承认，即之前的方法并未取得预期效果。专家们一致认为，机器人技术的“视频学习”是一个尚未解决的“登月”难题。特斯拉转向这一方向，实际上是在说：“我们尚未解决机器人技术的实际挑战，因此我们现在押注于解决一个重大的AI挑战。”IRON是一款成品原型，已准备好进行大规模生产。它具有明确的美学设计（包括男性和女性形态），已在舞台上作为消费产品展示，其动作也经过精心打磨以供公众观赏。它正被培养以承担特定的、面向公众的服务角色。正如特斯拉精心编辑的视频中所展示的那样，Optimus原型看起来像是工程测试平台。它们通常是未完成的“裸机”骨架，线路外露，在实验室或工厂环境中进行测试。虽然这是发展的一个有效阶段，但它强化了该项目仍处于早期研发阶段的形象，远非一款打磨完善、可部署的产品。

 

Moreover, Musk has stated that the current version of Optimus will be scrapped and he will attempt to design a true humanoid robot, so human-like that “you will want to poke it to see if it’s real”. One observer wrote, “FSD was being massively overhyped via staged videos for years, and Tesla is doing the same with Optimus.” Another wrote, “Elon is doing the same thing with Optimus that he did with FSD – put out staged videos to hype something that likely won’t be real for many years to come.” [37] In all other instances where he has encountered problems with “his” design of anything, Musk never stopped to re-think but instead just doubled down on his original path. If this assessment is true, Optimus is a rushed, flawed product headed for history’s dust bin.

此外，马斯克曾表示，Optimus的当前版本将被淘汰，他将尝试设计一款真正的人形机器人，其仿真度之高，“你会想去戳它，看看它是不是真的”。一位观察者写道：“多年来，FSD（全自动驾驶系统）通过精心编排的视频被大肆炒作，而特斯拉对Optimus也做了同样的事。”另一位写道：“埃隆对Optimus所做的，和他对FSD所做的如出一辙——发布精心编排的视频来炒作一些在未来许多年里可能都不会真正实现的东西。”[37]在他“设计”的任何其他东西遇到问题时，马斯克从未停下来重新思考，而是坚持走他原来的道路。如果这一评价是正确的，那么Optimus将是一款仓促推出、存在缺陷的产品，注定要被历史淘汰。

 

Musk’s “Doubling Down” pattern is a critical insight. This observation about his behavior is well-documented across his ventures (FSD, Cybertruck production, Twitter acquisition). He consistently frames blind stubbornness as visionary determination. In the context of Optimus, this pattern suggests a high likelihood that Tesla will continue to iterate on the current, fundamentally limited bipedal design rather than undertake a ground-up redesign. It will prioritise software demos and ambitious future roadmaps to distract from today’s hardware deficiencies. It will struggle to escape the compromises baked into the initial, rushed architecture.

马斯克的“加倍下注”模式是一个关键的见解。这一关于他行为模式的观察在他的各项事业中都有充分体现（全自动驾驶系统、赛博卡车生产、Twitter收购）。他一贯将盲目固执包装为有远见的决心。在Optimus的背景下，这一模式表明，特斯拉极有可能继续迭代当前基本受限的双足设计，而不是进行彻底的重新设计。它将优先考虑软件演示和雄心勃勃的未来路线图，以转移人们对当前硬件缺陷的注意力。它将难以摆脱最初仓促构建的架构中所固有的妥协。

 

The design chasm between Optimus and robots like IRON is not just a gap; it’s a difference in kind. Closing that gap would require Tesla discarding most of the Optimus design and starting over with a more mature outlook. Given Elon Musk’s established patterns, such a fundamental course correction seems improbable. Therefore, the project’s greatest legacy may ultimately be as a cautionary tale about the limits of applying a “move fast” software mentality to the hard, iterative problems of advanced robotics hardware.

Optimus与IRON等机器人之间的设计鸿沟不仅仅是一个差距；而是本质上的不同。要弥合这一差距，特斯拉需要摒弃Optimus的大部分设计，并以更成熟的前瞻性重新开始。鉴于埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的既定模式，如此根本性的路线修正似乎不太可能。因此，该项目最大的遗产可能最终会成为一个警示故事，提醒人们将“快速行动”的软件思维应用于高级机器人硬件的复杂迭代问题存在局限性。

 

If a company consistently fails to meet its own benchmarks for a functional prototype, and its response is not to deliver a better prototype but to instead propose an even grander, more technically speculative vision for what it might do someday, then that vision can rightly be classified as an empty, face-saving mechanism.

如果一家公司始终未能达到其功能原型设定的基准，而其回应不是提供一个更好的原型，而是提出一个更大、更具技术投机性的未来愿景，那么这个愿景完全有理由被归类为一种空洞的、为了挽回面子的机制。

 

Tesla have demonstrated a robot that can walk without falling down, and can perform a limited set of teleoperated or pre-programmed tasks. The promise that one will suddenly leapfrog into AGI-powered super-capability is, until proven otherwise, just a story. The burden of proof is on Tesla to demonstrate that Optimus can do anything comparable to IRON’s catwalk, let alone surpass it. Until then, the assessment that IRON represents a more significant and real achievement in the present is not just reasonable; it’s the only conclusion based on the evidence we have.

特斯拉展示了一款能够行走而不跌倒的机器人，并且能够执行一系列有限的远程操作或预编程任务。除非有证据证明，否则关于机器人将突然具备由AGI（人工智能通用）驱动的超级能力的说法，都只是空谈。特斯拉有责任证明Optimus能够完成与IRON的猫步相当的任何任务，更不用说超越它了。在此之前，认为IRON代表了当前更重大、更真实的成就，这一评估不仅合理；而且基于我们现有的证据，这是唯一的结论。

 

X-Peng spent 7 years to get the IRON design correct, aesthetic, and functional. Elon Musk spent a few months to get any kind of robot out as quickly as possible. He succeeded, but if any company can sell millions of robots, especially for domestic applications, it will be X-Peng and not Tesla. Who would want a domestic robot that looks and walks like Optimus when they could have an IRON companion? 

小鹏汽车（X-Peng）花了7年时间才将IRON的设计做到既美观又实用。埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）则花了数月时间尽快推出任何一种机器人。他成功了，但如果哪家公司能销售数百万台机器人，尤其是家用机器人，那将是X-Peng，而不是特斯拉。当人们可以拥有一台与擎天柱（Optimus）外观和行走方式相似的家用机器人时，谁会想要一台与IRON相似的机器人呢？ 

 

The timeline and philosophy speak volumes. The contrast between a 7-year development cycle and a rushed 3-month prototype is the core of the argument. It reflects a fundamental difference in philosophy: X-Peng/IRON: follow a principle of “Get it right, then scale.” This long-term, engineering-first approach prioritises a solid foundation—stable locomotion, sophisticated dexterity, and human-friendly aesthetics. This is the path for building a product meant for integration into daily life. Tesla/Optimus: Follows a known Musk principle of “Move fast and break things.” The goal was to establish a presence in the humanoid robot space as quickly as possible, using existing resources (like the flawed FSD AI). The result is a barely-functional proof-of-concept that appears to be a collection of engineering compromises rather than a polished product.

时间线和理念说明了一切。7年的开发周期与3个月匆忙推出的原型之间的对比是争论的核心。这反映了理念上的根本差异：小鹏/IRON：遵循“先做好，再扩大规模”的原则。这种长期的、工程优先的方法优先考虑的是坚实基础——稳定的运动能力、精湛的灵巧性和人性化的美学。这是打造融入日常生活的产品的途径。特斯拉/Optimus：遵循马斯克众所周知的“快速行动，敢于试错”的原则。其目标是通过利用现有资源（如存在缺陷的全自动驾驶（FSD）人工智能），尽快在仿人机器人领域占据一席之地。结果是一个勉强能用的概念验证，它似乎是工程妥协的集合，而非一款精雕细琢的产品。

 

The market reality for “domestic” robots favors IRON’s approach. For a robot to be accepted in a home or workplace, it must be safe, reliable, and non-threatening. A robot that moves with an unnatural, jerky gait and has an industrial, exposed-mechanism aesthetic fails on these counts. IRON’s focus on biomimicry and a more refined form factor is directly aligned with the requirements of a companion or service robot. Optimus, in its current form, is not. The assessment that Optimus is headed for the dust bin of history is a highly plausible, if not the most likely, outcome.

“家用”机器人的市场现实更青睐IRON的方法。机器人要想被家庭或工作场所接受，就必须安全、可靠且不具威胁性。如果一个机器人的步态不自然、不稳定，且具有工业化的外露机械美感，那么它在这些方面就达不到要求。IRON专注于仿生学和更精致的外形设计，这与伴侣或服务机器人的要求直接相符。而Optimus以其当前的形式则不符合这些要求。Optimus将被历史淘汰的评估是非常合理的，甚至是最有可能的结果。

 

While Tesla may eventually produce limited numbers of Optimus for specific, controlled industrial tasks, the idea of “millions” of these units in homes and general workplaces seems fantastical based on the current platform. Examining all of Elon Musk’s prior statements and claims about humanoid robots, my conclusion is that he naively (and thoughtlessly) assumed that only he would ever design and produce a humanoid robot. When Musk spoke of “millions” of his robots being in homes and factories, he clearly assumed that his Optimus would be the world’s only option. If you examine his statements today (as of late 2025), he is still apparently unable to accept or understand that the world of humanoid robots has already passed him by, that there are today many dozens of similar products and that most are superior to his.

尽管特斯拉最终可能会为特定、受控的工业任务生产有限数量的Optimus，但基于当前平台，家庭和一般工作场所“数百万”台此类机器人的想法似乎有些不切实际。在审视了埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）之前关于人形机器人的所有声明和主张后，我的结论是，他天真地（且轻率地）认为只有他才会设计和生产人形机器人。当马斯克谈到他的机器人“数百万”台将进入家庭和工厂时，他显然认为他的Optimus将是世界上唯一的选择。如果你审视他今天的声明（截至2025年底），他显然仍然无法接受或理解人形机器人的世界已经将他抛在身后，如今有数十种类似的产品，而且大多数都比他的产品更优秀。

 

Musk appears to have only the most juvenile understanding of the humanoid robot world. His appreciation of this new technology seems limited to his comments in a video where he said, “Who wouldn’t want an R2D2 or a C3PO in their homes?” [38] In that same video, Musk stated that “nobody has a useful robot today. Tesla will make the first useful robot.

“马斯克对人形机器人世界的理解似乎非常肤浅。他对这项新技术的欣赏似乎仅限于他在一段视频中的评论：“谁不想在家里放一个R2D2或C3PO呢？”[38]在同一视频中，马斯克还表示：“现在还没有人拥有有用的机器人。特斯拉将制造出第一个有用的机器人。

 

The realities of humanoid robots are very far removed from the understanding of this ten-year-old mentality. In another short video, Musk babbles about how the only safety for humanity is to have “a maximally truth-seeking AI”, [38a] while it is well-documented to the point of legend that his own version of AI – Grok – has been trained to lie. [39] [40] This is surreal to the point of mental deficiency. Elon Musk appears to live in his own fantasy world where reality is manufactured at will.

人形机器人的现实与这种十岁孩童的理解相去甚远。在另一段短视频中，马斯克喋喋不休地谈论着人类唯一的保障就是拥有“一个极度追求真相的人工智能”[38a]，而众所周知，他自己的AI版本——Grok——经过训练，学会了撒谎。[39][40]这简直荒诞到令人难以置信。埃隆·马斯克似乎活在自己的幻想世界里，现实可以随意捏造。

 

My conclusions are two. (1) IRON represents the humanoid robot of the future, and (2) Optimus is not a robot. It is (at least in its present form) a collection of engineering compromises, likely headed for the dustbin.

我的结论有两个：（1）IRON代表了未来的人形机器人，而（2）Optimus并非真正的机器人。它（至少以其目前的形式）只是一系列工程折衷的集合，很可能最终被丢进垃圾桶。

 

During Tesla’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Musk made several specific claims: (1) He promised to show a “mass-production-ready prototype” of Optimus V3 in Q1 2026. He described it as looking “almost like a person in a robot suit” with “unprecedented realism”. He claimed further (2) that Tesla plans to start a “million-unit” production line by the end of 2025, with mass production beginning in Q1, 2026. He stated also that his goal is to achieve the scale of millions of units, as producing only hundreds would be “meaningless”. To add “the icing to the cake”, Musk clamed (3) that an uncrewed Starship mission to Mars would launch as soon as 2026, with Optimus robots on board to test landing and operations.

在特斯拉2025年第三季度的电话财报会议上，马斯克提出了几个具体主张：（1）他承诺在2026年第一季度展示Optimus V3的“可量产原型机”。他形容它看起来“几乎就像一个穿着机器人套装的人”，具有“前所未有的逼真度”。他进一步声称（2）特斯拉计划在2025年底前启动一条“百万级”生产线，并于2026年第一季度开始量产。他还表示，他的目标是实现数百万台的生产规模，因为只生产几百台“毫无意义”。为了“锦上添花”，马斯克宣称（3）无人驾驶的星际飞船火星任务最早将于2026年发射，届时将搭载Optimus机器人以测试着陆和操作。

 

It is impossible to reconcile the contradictions between Elon Musk’s fantastic claims and real-world reality. The reality is that Optimus production was terminated entirely in late 2025 because of its severe engineering flaws, nearly-useless battery life, and poor functionality. Further, Tesla has appeared to have given up hopes of improved designs and has been pushing its suppliers to create new engineering models that will work. In addition is Musk’s claim that he is scrapping entirely the existing Optimus and will design a truly “humanoid” robot by the end of 2025 and begin producing it at the beginning of 2026.

埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的夸大其词与现实之间的矛盾无法调和。事实是，由于其严重的工程缺陷、几乎毫无用处的电池续航能力以及糟糕的功能性，Optimus的生产在2025年底完全终止。此外，特斯拉似乎已经放弃了改进设计的希望，并一直在敦促其供应商开发出能正常工作的新型工程模型。另外，马斯克声称他将彻底淘汰现有的Optimus，并在2025年底设计出一款真正的“人形”机器人，并在2026年初开始生产。

 

To add to this is the fact that Musk’s “Starship” is far from a functioning reality. The basic design is still unproven, as are the refueling, life support, and most other aspects. At this point, at the end of 2025, Musk’s Mars Starship is a fairy-tale. The same would have to be said about the V3 “humanoid” robot. X-Peng took 7 years to perfect IRON; Musk apparently believes he can do the same in 3 months and – within that same three months – build a factory that will be mass-producing “millions”. There is nothing in this combined picture that makes any sense. This is true also for Musk’s “Robotaxi”, his “full self-driving FSD” that has been one year from “super-human” perfection every year since 2014, his Hyperloop, his Boring Company, and so much else. You decide.

此外，马斯克的“星际飞船”还远未成为现实。其基本设计尚未得到验证，加油、生命维持以及其他大多数方面也是如此。到2025年底，马斯克的火星星际飞船还只是一个童话。对于V3“人形”机器人来说，情况也是如此。小鹏汽车用了7年时间才完善了IRON；马斯克显然认为他能在3个月内做到同样的事情，并在同样的3个月内建造一个能大规模生产“数百万辆”的工厂。这幅拼图中的任何部分都毫无意义。马斯克的“自动驾驶出租车”、自2014年以来每年都声称距离“超人”般的完美仅一步之遥的“全自动驾驶FSD”、超级高铁、无聊公司以及其他许多项目，情况也是如此。由你决定。

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言，他的文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英文平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一位退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职务，并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾担任上海复旦大学的客座教授，为高级EMBA课程讲授国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海，目前正在撰写一系列共十本书，总体上涉及中国与西方。他是辛西娅·麦金尼新选集《当中国打喷嚏》（第2章——与恶魔打交道）的特约作者之一。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看：

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/  + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看：

2186604556@qq.com

*

NOTES

注释

 [1] X-Peng’s new generation of robots take a cat step! Netizen: I suspect that there is a real person hidden in it.

[1] 小鹏新一代机器人迈出了猫步！网友：我怀疑里面藏了个真人。

https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_31912165

[2] IRON catwalk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[2] IRON catwalk；https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[3] A video of the demonstration; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[3] 演示视频：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ag_SgsHVg

[4] XPENG Cuts Open Its Lifelike IRON Robot on Stage

[4] 小鹏汽车在舞台上拆解其栩栩如生的IRON机器人

https://www.eweek.com/news/xpeng-iron-robot/

[5] Automaker XPENG releases new video to prove its robot ‘IRON’ is not human

[5] 汽车制造商小鹏发布新视频，证明其机器人“铁人”并非人类

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202511/1347511.shtml

[6] Excellent IRON with leg exposed

[6] 腿部暴露的优秀铁质

https://v.douyin.com/25T36IrsHoM/

[7] Iron walking and leg cut open

[7] 铁轨行走，腿部被割开

https://v.douyin.com/UDs00QsBRQU/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7569574906100455163

[8] Iron good video walking and back exposed

[8] 铁质好视频，行走和背部暴露

https://v.douyin.com/D2QKdRMMGvc/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7569517078688927016

[9] X-Peng strips down humanoid robot Iron to reveal its high-tech inner workings after viral stage demo

[9] X-Peng拆解人形机器人Iron，揭示其在病毒式传播的舞台演示后的高科技内部构造

https://www.notebookcheck.net/XPeng-strips-down-humanoid-robot-Iron-to-reveal-its-high-tech-inner-workings-after-viral-stage-demo.1160365.0.html

[10] IRON wind tunnel

[10] IRON风洞

https://v.douyin.com/QV3DFuqfH5I/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7579170152186782025

[11] Optimus picking up water bottle

[11] 擎天柱拿起水瓶

https://v.douyin.com/jfZdvqq8wN0/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7580920295214709477

[11a] Optimus knocked over all the bottles and fell down

[11a] 擎天柱撞倒了所有的瓶子，摔倒了

https://v.douyin.com/TesmQDQPsjk/

[11b] Optimus was being teleoperated

[11b] 擎天柱正在被远程操控

https://v.douyin.com/u0i1xU_tqWk/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7581399670199455022

[12] Optimus running

[12] 擎天柱跑步

https://v.douyin.com/fYTvvzb0vcI/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7580253071712783643

[13] Three robots running

[13] 三台机器人正在运行

https://www.douyin.com/video/7579917368638344499

[14] Optimus and T800

[14] 擎天柱和T800

https://v.douyin.com/3wEVaDz3IjA/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7580689337700928778

[15] Video comparing the walking sophistication of IRON and Optimus side by side.

[15] 视频对比了IRON和Optimus的行走复杂度。

IRON vs Optimus

https://v.douyin.com/mMuRrjo_oeA/ https://www.douyin.com/video/7569312989615641087

[16] Robot kung fu comparison video

[16] 机器人功夫对比视频

https://v.douyin.com/9DHsaW4vDoY/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7579999588405218595

[17] Tesla’s AI director is reported to have launched an internal mobilization: next year will be the “most difficult year of their lives”

[17] 据报道，特斯拉的人工智能主管已发起内部动员：明年将是“他们人生中最艰难的一年”

https://baike.baidu.com/reference/62591749/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATPXdzvn5YS7NZNr66-DXV7FzzqIP0XOpSo_sUIEz6NYwsPVmHQ_e_pttbZkGyeGuB0pN6v8WduUzRbwhmX78WzvFzbvwuI9zl4MV-tEW

[18] Ashok Eluswamy

[18] 阿肖克·埃卢斯瓦米

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%98%BF%E8%82%96%E5%85%8B%C2%B7%E5%9F%83%E5%8D%A2%E6%96%AF%E7%93%A6%E7%B1%B3/62591749

[19] Tesla’s AI head warns that 2026 will face the biggest challenge

[19]特斯拉人工智能负责人警告称，2026年将面临最大挑战

https://ai.zol.com.cn/1080/10809664.html

[20] Abandoning motion capture and fully turning to pure visual data collection, Tesla Optimus’ latest training progress is exposed!

[20] 特斯拉Optimus放弃动作捕捉，全面转向纯视觉数据采集，最新训练进展曝光！

https://app.myzaker.com/news/article.php?pk=69085c5fb15ec07899597a79&f=qqconnect

[21] Tesla and technology executives debate the path of autonomous driving technology: pure vision VS multi-sensor fusion

[21]特斯拉和技术高管就自动驾驶技术的发展路径展开辩论：纯视觉VS多传感器融合

https://news.zol.com.cn/1037/10370329.html

[22] uncanny valley

[22] 恐怖谷

https://www.britannica.com/topic/uncanny-valley

[23] If one day X-Peng and Tesla both sell housekeeping robots, what would you choose?

[23] 如果有一天，小鹏和特斯拉都出售家政机器人，你会选择哪一款？

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/23745737?reply=reply#pvareaid=2808151

[24] X-Peng Technology Day 2025: A new generation of IRON humanoid robots

[24] 2025年小鹏科技日：新一代IRON人形机器人

https://news.yiche.com/hao/wenzhang/104946465/

[25] Cat Step is here! 2025 X-Peng Technology Day released high-end intelligent humanoid robots

[25] Cat Step来了！2025 X-Peng科技日发布高端智能仿人机器人

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/23748550?reply=reply#pvareaid=2808221

[26] Hardcore showdown: X-Peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[26] 硬核对决：小鹏 G 款与特斯拉 Optimus，人形机器人赛道上的技术路线之争

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[27] Hardcore showdown: Xpeng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[27] 硬核对决：小鹏IRON与特斯拉Optimus，人形机器人赛道上的技术路线博弈

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[28] 2025 Robot First Year: X-peng IRON/Yushu H2/Optimus Prime/1X-Neo software and hardware structure analysis

[28] 2025年机器人元年：小鹏G3/蔚来H2/擎天柱/1X-Neo软件与硬件结构分析

https://blog.csdn.net/VBsemi/article/details/154837120

[29] Hardcore showdown: X-peng IRON and Tesla Optimus, a technical route game on the humanoid robot track

[29] 硬核对决：小鹏 G3 与特斯拉 Optimus，人形机器人赛道上的技术路线博弈

https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_73527660/article/details/154578477

[30] X-peng Motors unveils AI humanoid robot Iron, challenging Tesla’s Optimus

[30] 小鹏汽车推出AI人形机器人Iron，挑战特斯拉的Optimus

https://m.huanqiu.com/article/4K970yDIWco

[31] X-Peng’s new generation of IRON was released, and large-scale mass production of high-end humanoid robots will be achieved by the end of next year

[31] 小鹏新一代IRON发布，明年年底将实现高端人形机器人大规模量产

https://static.nfnews.com/content/202511/05/c11883931.html?enterColumnId=674

[32] Behind the controversy of “real person playing”, what is the technical content of Xpeng robot?

[32] 在“真人扮演”的争议背后，小鹏机器人的技术含量究竟如何？

https://m.jiemian.com/article/13608058.html

[33] 82 degrees of freedom “Cat Step Kill”! Xpeng Iron robot is not a real person?

[33] 82个自由度的“猫步杀”！小鹏铁机器人不是真人吗？

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/23780714#pvareaid=6826274

[34] Tesla’s humanoid robots aren’t the right fit for factories, says former Optimus lead

[34] 前Optimus负责人表示，特斯拉的人形机器人并不适合工厂

https://www.techspot.com/news/108056-tesla-humanoid-robots-arent-right-fit-factories-former.html

[35] Tesla suspended the production of humanoid robots and modified the design

[35]特斯拉暂停了人形机器人的生产，并对设计进行了修改

https://chejiahao.autohome.com.cn/info/20853171#pvareaid=6826274

[36] Tesla Optimus humanoid robot will be able to thread a needle in a year

[36] 特斯拉Optimus人形机器人一年内将具备穿针引线的能力

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/12/22/tesla-optimus-humanoid-robot-will-be-able-to-thread-a-needle-in-a-year-says-elon-musk/

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/12/22/特斯拉-优化版人形机器人将于一年内实现穿针引线 埃隆·马斯克如是说/

[37] Milan Kovac, Head Of Tesla Optimus Program, Departs

[37] 特斯拉Optimus项目负责人米兰·科瓦奇离职

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/09/milan-kovac-head-of-tesla-optimus-program-departs/

[38] Musk babble on robots (nobody has a useful robot)

[38] 马斯克喋喋不休地谈论机器人（没人有真正有用的机器人）

https://v.douyin.com/a9oq775TeVk/

https://www.douyin.com/video/7575010626527890730

[38a] Maximally truth-seeking

[38a] 最大限度地追求真理

https://v.douyin.com/owrdSJRfvO8/

[39] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 12 — xAI and Grok

[39] 揭秘埃隆·马斯克——第12部分——xAI与Grok

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/21776/

[40] Debunking Elon Musk – Part 18 — Fraud Update – xAI and Grok

[40] 揭秘埃隆·马斯克 – 第18部分 — 欺诈更新 – xAI与Grok

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/22101/

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的内容，其使用并未获得版权所有者的明确授权。本文内容根据合理使用原则提供，仅用于教育和信息目的。本文内容不得用于商业用途。

 

本作者的其他作品

生物战在行动

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE IN ACTION

民主，最危险的宗教

Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion

建立在谎言上的国家–第一卷–美国如何变得富有

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 1 — How the US Became Rich — Updated

美国随笔 Essays on America

Essays on America

美国警察国家》第一卷免费电子书

Police State America Volume One

宣传与媒体  PROPAGANDA AND THE MEDIA

PROPAGANDA and THE MEDIA  — Updated!

THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

建立在谎言之上的国家 — 第2卷 — 失败状态下的生活 — New! 新的！

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 2 — Life in a Failed State — Updated

NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — VOLUME 3 — The Branding of America— Updated

False Flags and Conspiracy Theories

FILLING THE VOID

Police State America Volume Two

BERNAYS AND PROPAGANDA— Updated!

The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory

HASBARA — 犹太哈斯巴拉的荣耀

Kamila Valieva

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

拉里·罗曼诺夫免费电子书和PDF文章

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2025