> The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines.
Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.
It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis
>>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines
I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?
Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.
> in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed
So I think the point in this context is relevant, even if it's apples to oranges.
I’ll admit, at first, I thought the human vs machine comparison was about humanoid machines. But that’s too narrowly defined to be a useful comparison. Most machines in use today are not humanoid.
Then to boldly claim that humans are more efficient at anything compared to a machine, just does not follow.
We're still pretty efficient while not having wheel shaped limbs. Running like humans works pretty well. So well even that we can chase a lot of animals longer than they can outrun us.
There might be more efficient ways to move but we are pretty well equipped by evolution.
