General-purpose robotics lacks standardized interfaces between hardware, data, and AI. This makes a full-stack, in-house approach essential because the definition of 'good' for each component is constantly co-evolving. Partnering is difficult when your standard of quality is a moving target.

Related Insights

Despite the hype, LinkedIn found that third-party AI tools for coding and design don't work out-of-the-box on their complex, legacy stack. Success requires deep customization, re-architecting internal platforms for AI reasoning, and working in "alpha mode" with vendors to adapt their tools.

In the fast-evolving AI space, Vercel's AISDK deliberately remained low-level. CTO Malte Ubl explains that because "we know absolutely nothing" about future AI app patterns, providing a flexible, minimal toolkit was superior to competitors' rigid, high-level frameworks that made incorrect assumptions about user needs.

Enterprises struggle to get value from AI due to a lack of iterative, data-science expertise. The winning model for AI companies isn't just selling APIs, but embedding "forward deployment" teams of engineers and scientists to co-create solutions, closing the gap between prototype and production value.

The most complex challenge in robotics isn't just hardware or software alone, but the "boring" problem of calibration where they meet. Seemingly minor physical misalignments create cascading, hard-to-diagnose software issues that require deep, cross-functional expertise to solve.

The future of valuable AI lies not in models trained on the abundant public internet, but in those built on scarce, proprietary data. For fields like robotics and biology, this data doesn't exist to be scraped; it must be actively created, making the data generation process itself the key competitive moat.

The adoption of powerful AI architectures like transformers in robotics was bottlenecked by data quality, not algorithmic invention. Only after data collection methods improved to capture more dexterous, high-fidelity human actions did these advanced models become effective, reversing the typical 'algorithm-first' narrative of AI progress.

The robotics field has a scalable recipe for AI-driven manipulation (like GPT), but hasn't yet scaled it into a polished, mass-market consumer product (like ChatGPT). The current phase focuses on scaling data and refining systems, not just fundamental algorithm discovery, to bridge this gap.

AR and robotics are bottlenecked by software's inability to truly understand the 3D world. Spatial intelligence is positioned as the fundamental operating system that connects a device's digital "brain" to physical reality. This layer is crucial for enabling meaningful interaction and maturing the hardware platforms.

Classical robots required expensive, rigid, and precise hardware because they were blind. Modern AI perception acts as 'eyes', allowing robots to correct for inaccuracies in real-time. This enables the use of cheaper, compliant, and inherently safer mechanical components, fundamentally changing hardware design philosophy.

The "bitter lesson" (scale and simple models win) works for language because training data (text) aligns with the output (text). Robotics faces a critical misalignment: it's trained on passive web videos but needs to output physical actions in a 3D world. This data gap is a fundamental hurdle that pure scaling cannot solve.