For years, the promise of artificial intelligence has captivated our collective imagination, painting a future where robots, endowed with sophisticated algorithms and machine learning capabilities, seamlessly integrate into our lives.
And indeed, they are here, performing tasks once exclusively human, from intricate manufacturing to complex data analysis.
Yet, despite these remarkable strides, a nagging question persists for those at the forefront of robotic innovation: are we truly building intelligent machines, or merely incredibly complex puppets?
Edoardo Milana, a junior professor of soft machines at the University of Freiburg’s Department of Microsystems Engineering, offers a compelling answer that challenges our conventional understanding of robotics.
His perspective pivots on a fundamental imbalance in current design philosophy: the disproportionate focus on the robot’s “brain” – its software and AI – at the expense of its “body” – its physical form and mechanics.
“Robots can already perform amazing things with the help of AI and machine learning,” Milana explains.
“However, all this intelligence is concentrated in the software—the brain—and no comparable focus is placed on the body.”
This creates a curious paradox: robots are essentially digital marionettes, their every movement painstakingly controlled by code.
While this approach lends itself to precision and high force applications, it falls woefully short when it comes to agility, motion efficiency, and adaptive interaction with the real world.
Consider the stark contrast with living beings.
A sophisticated quadruped robot, an engineering marvel designed to mimic a dog, might consume around 300 watts to power its dozen motors, its mechanical “muscles.” A real dog, meanwhile, achieves far more complex, fluid movements with hundreds of muscles, consuming a mere 30 watts.
The discrepancy is staggering, a testament to nature’s elegant, energy-efficient design.
The secret, Milana argues, lies in what he terms “embodied intelligence.” This concept, rooted in philosophy and psychology, posits that intelligent behavior isn’t solely a product of a disembodied mind dictating commands to a passive body.
Instead, intelligence emerges from the dynamic, physical interaction between the body and its environment.
In biological systems, movements are not just digitally controlled; they inherently rely on the mechanical properties of tissues and structures, which passively and actively adapt to external forces.
The compliance of biological materials, their inherent elasticity and responsiveness, plays a crucial role in shaping motion and reducing the computational load on the brain.
For engineers like Milana, this translates into a radical rethinking of robot design.
“If we want a truly intelligent robot, we can’t just build a body consisting of two or three metal bars and a few joints, then put a very intelligent computer inside it,” he asserts.
The implication is profound: true robotic intelligence won’t be achieved by simply adding more processing power or refining algorithms.
It demands a fundamental shift in how we conceive of the robot’s physical form itself.
Milana’s research delves into the fascinating realm of soft robots, machines crafted from pliant materials, often drawing inspiration from primitive and aquatic organisms.
Here, the very materials and their physical properties become integral to the robot’s control system.
Instead of relying solely on digital microcontrollers, these soft robots can generate control signals through “physical control,” harnessing the non-linear properties of their soft components.
Imagine a robot whose movements are not just commanded, but emerge from the way its flexible parts interact with air pressure or external forces.
One compelling example Milana highlights is robots employing self-oscillating valves.
When air pressure is introduced, these valves rhythmically open and close, transmitting a pulsating signal throughout the system that drives the robot’s movement.
The control isn’t purely digital; it’s a symphony of physics, where the material’s inherent response creates the necessary rhythmic drive.
This ingenious approach frees up computing capacity and energy that would otherwise be dedicated to low-level motion control, allowing the robot’s “brain” to focus on higher-level logical operations like reasoning, planning, and perception.
The path forward, Milana believes, is not to abandon software and microcontrollers entirely. They remain indispensable for precision and complex decision-making.
Rather, the future of robotics lies in a harmonious compromise: a synergistic blend where advanced software intelligence is complemented, and indeed enhanced, by superior body design.
By imbuing robots with embodied intelligence, integrating smart mechanics and compliant materials, we can move beyond the era of clunky, energy-hungry puppets.
The goal is to create machines that don’t just mimic life, but truly embody a form of intelligence that is as much about physical interaction and material properties as it is about algorithms and code.
This paradigm shift promises robots that are not only more agile and energy-efficient but also genuinely more adaptive, intuitive, and ultimately, more intelligent.
Artist Trevor Paglen examines how computer vision and generative media have transformed images into operational tools of power and control.
Abhishek Saxena’s work at Sentient targets the gap where open-source AI keeps losing: not capability, but economics—and his answer is infrastructure that automatically pays builders, maintainers, and evaluators every time their artifact is used, enforced by smart contracts rather than legal goodwill. By combining cryptographic fingerprinting, on-chain attribution, and grant funding with no equity attached, Sentient is building the coordination layer that would make open-source development financially rational enough to compete with a corporate salary.
As AI-generated content floods the digital landscape, Substack is empowering readers to verify the human origins of the newsletters they consume.
