> The entirety of human civilization is human shaped.

That's the marketing pitch.

A plumbing robot doesn't need to be humanoid, an octopus shape may well be better for all the awkward corners. A robot police officer could be the municipality itself for sensory nodes (essentially the sales pitch of Flock etc.), plus some drones or robot dogs to perform arrests*.

The robot vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers we already have are nothing like a human. A robot taxi driver can be just the car. Robot dogs are already used for maintenance and security sweeps.

If you've got wheelchair access, you've got wheeled robot access. If you've got guide dog access, you've got access for Boston Dynamics' Spot.

* this may be a bad idea with current robotics, but I aver it's not improved by making those robotics humanoid.

> Making robots that are human shaped is easier and more efficient than redesigning and rebuilding everything that exists.

In the last 100-200 years, that has been proven wrong at every single step.

Historically this has never been correct. Turns out you get more efficient systems when designing them without how a human would accomplish a task in mind.

Counterpoint: cars. It takes sustained effort to prevent civilization from being modified to accommodate new technology, e.g. Stop Kindermoord.

Outside of sci-fi, marketing proposals, and niches like "Elder care in Japan" there are very few humanoid robots. By contrast non-humanoid robots have been mass produced and used in industry for decades. Arms. Carts. Trollies.

No people. If you want something with fine motor control and dexterity, it's easier to make that the robot and then have another robot bring the workpiece to the arm than it is to build a single robot that can walk around and do it. There are compromises in human features because we're generalists.