Page 2 of 3

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2025 8:17 pm
by carol38
@deborah59 Counterpoint: A field-deployment or reliability engineer's day-to-day work leans much more toward diagnosing real-world failure patterns, managing spare-parts logistics, and working directly with the customer site than toward algorithm development - a genuinely different role than a lot of new grads expect going in. A commonly cited skill gap in new-grad applicants is practical systems integration experience - many candidates are individually strong in ML or in mechanical design, but comparatively few have hands-on experience getting perception, planning, and control to work together reliably on real hardware under time pressure. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:27 pm
by barbara.jones
@carol38 This lines up with my experience. Active employers hiring specifically for humanoid-relevant roles span both established robotics companies (Shadow Robot, Engineered Arts, PAL Robotics) and the newer venture-funded players (Figure, 1X, Apptronik, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics' electric Atlas program) - each with different team sizes, cultures, and hardware-vs-software emphasis. 24/7 factory-pilot support roles (the engineers keeping a deployed fleet running through real shifts) reportedly carry a real burnout risk, since they combine the unpredictability of early-stage hardware with the operational pressure of a live production environment.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 12:51 pm
by mia_lars
I'd frame this differently. In the UK, base salaries for robotics roles reportedly range from around £50,000 for new graduates up to roughly £200,000 for senior whole-body-control or reinforcement-learning specialists - a notably wide band reflecting how specialized the top end of the field has become.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:44 pm
by rossi30
@mia_lars From hands-on experience, A commonly cited skill gap in new-grad applicants is practical systems integration experience - many candidates are individually strong in ML or in mechanical design, but comparatively few have hands-on experience getting perception, planning, and control to work together reliably on real hardware under time pressure.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2025 3:58 am
by betty.king
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - The common academic path into this field is a master's or conversion course in robotics or machine learning, followed by an internship or research role at a known lab or company - a PhD is common but increasingly not strictly required for industry roles, especially on the applied engineering side. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2025 6:19 pm
by deborahperez
Short answer: 24/7 factory-pilot support roles (the engineers keeping a deployed fleet running through real shifts) reportedly carry a real burnout risk, since they combine the unpredictability of early-stage hardware with the operational pressure of a live production environment.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 11:14 pm
by jwang
@deborahperez Just to be precise about one thing: Internship competitiveness at the well-known humanoid companies has increased sharply as the field's visibility has grown, with the applicant pool now including not just robotics students but a lot of general CS/ML students drawn in by the sector's high profile. Robotics engineers in the US were reportedly seeing $150k-$205k total comp at mid-level and $205k-$300k at senior level in 2026, with humanoid- and foundation-model-specialist roles clearing $280k-$475k - a meaningful premium over general robotics/automation roles.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2025 4:31 pm
by george92
@jwang I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. Transitioning from industrial automation into humanoid-specific roles is a increasingly common and viable path, since a lot of the underlying skills (motion control, safety systems, real-time software) transfer directly, even though the specific dynamics and learned-control components are new. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2025 8:44 am
by chloe_jack
Side note that might be relevant: Active employers hiring specifically for humanoid-relevant roles span both established robotics companies (Shadow Robot, Engineered Arts, PAL Robotics) and the newer venture-funded players (Figure, 1X, Apptronik, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics' electric Atlas program) - each with different team sizes, cultures, and hardware-vs-software emphasis. RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems), ICRA, and the IEEE-RAS Humanoids conference are commonly cited as the most directly relevant venues for someone specifically interested in legged locomotion and humanoid control research, as opposed to broader AI/ML conferences.

Re: How do you evaluate whether a role is genuinely 'humanoid-specific' vs general automation with a new label?

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:26 am
by zoeanderson
@chloe_jack Small correction on one detail: A commonly cited skill gap in new-grad applicants is practical systems integration experience - many candidates are individually strong in ML or in mechanical design, but comparatively few have hands-on experience getting perception, planning, and control to work together reliably on real hardware under time pressure.