China's AI-powered humanoid robots aim to transform manufacturing
Widening deployment of humanoids, especially into factories, is likely to accelerate data collection.
MagicLab, another humanoid startup, said in an interview that its focus on the robots' brains has allowed it to recently begin deploying prototypes in production lines for tasks such as quality inspection, material handling, and assembly.
"These breakthroughs lay the foundation for our focus in 2025 on real-world applications," said CEO Wu Changzheng, adding that MagicLab has integrated its robots with AI models like DeepSeek, Alibaba's Qwen, and ByteDance's Doubao.
"DeepSeek has been helpful in task reasoning and comprehension, contributing to the development of our robots' 'brains.'"
China's clearest advantage, however, is its domination of the hardware that makes up a humanoid. The country is capable of making up to 90% of humanoid components, lowering barriers to entry, according to analysts and startups.
As a result, China now accounts for the majority of manufacturers working on such projects globally and dominates the supply chain, according to Morgan Stanley. Some Chinese startups are selling robots as cheaply as 88,000 yuan ($12,178).
"If you have a requirement in the morning, suppliers might come to your company with materials or products by the afternoon, or you can go directly to their site to see for yourself," said Zhang Miao, chief operating officer of Beijing-based startup CASBOT.
"It's difficult to achieve this level of efficiency overseas," she added, as companies would need to import materials from China.
The sector has seen an explosion of new firms. In 2024, 31 Chinese companies unveiled 36 competing humanoid models versus eight by US companies, according to Morgan Stanley.
At least six companies in China, including market leaders Unitree and UBTech, have said they have entered mass production or are preparing to do so this year.
Jobs at risk?
While the industry remains incipient, Chinese lawmakers have begun to discuss the far-reaching implications intelligent humanoid robots could have for the workforce. Some 123-million people work in manufacturing in China, according to a 2023 survey by the National Bureau of Statistics.
At this year's National People's Congress, social security expert Zheng Gongcheng warned that the development of robots and AI would affect around 70% of China's manufacturing sector, which could lead to a steep decline in social security contributions.
At the same gathering, Liu Qingfeng, chairperson of domestic AI firm iFlytek, suggested the creation of an AI unemployment insurance program that would provide six to 12 months of coverage for workers replaced by robots.
Tang Jian, chief technology officer at the government-backed Beijing Innovation Centre of Human Robotics, told Reuters on the sidelines of the Beijing robot half-marathon in April that its prototypes were targeting jobs that humans don't want to do due to their boring or repetitive nature, as well as dangerous tasks.
Despite concerns about the impact on jobs, Beijing sees the technology as key to plug labour shortages in areas such as elderly care, where demand is increasing as China's 1.4-billion population ages. China's government published a national elderly-care plan in December that encouraged integration of humanoid robots and AI.
Soon after, tech giant Ant Group announced the creation of new subsidiary Ant Lingbo Technology, whose humanoid robots will focus on elderly care, among other areas.
"The robots in five or 10 years could organise a resident's room, pick up a package or even transfer people from a bed to a washroom," said AgiBot's Yao.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
S&P cuts outlook on Volvo over tariffs, China competition
S&P on Friday lowered the outlook for its BB+ credit rating on Volvo Cars to "negative" from "stable", saying US tariffs and tougher competition in China were hurting the company's growth prospects. The Sweden-based carmaker, majority-owned by China's Geely, last month withdrew its earnings guidance and announced cost cuts which will include laying off about 3,000 mostly white-collar workers amid a slowdown in demand. "The negative outlook on Volvo Cars reflects its large exposure to US import tariffs and the increasing marginalisation in the Chinese market," S&P said. "We expect Volvo Cars' profitability and cash generation after investments to come under pressure in 2025-2026, partly alleviated by a substantial cost reduction programme." The USs represented 16% of Volvo Cars sales in 2024, while China accounted for 20%. Volvo Cars produces only one of its models in the US, and relies on imports for the rest, leaving the company more exposed to US tariffs than many of its European peers. S&P said a proposed 2027 US ban on carmakers controlled by a Chinese entity also weighed on the outlook. In the most recent twist in the trade turmoil sparked by President Donald Trump, a US court on Thursday temporarily reinstated sweeping new tariffs, a day after another US court had ordered an immediate block on them.


Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
China says 'firmly rejects' US claim of violating tariff deal
BEIJING - China said Monday it "firmly rejects" claims by the United States that it had violated a deal to lower crippling tariffs between the world's two largest economies. Beijing and Washington last month agreed to temporarily slash staggeringly high levies on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. But US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Beijing was "slow-rolling the deal", in comments to "Fox News Sunday". Beijing hit back Monday, saying Washington "has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts". "China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations," its commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had "totally violated" the deal, without providing details. But Beijing's commerce ministry said it "has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus". Washington "has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China", it said, citing export controls on artificial intelligence chips and revoking Chinese student visas in the United States. "We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks," the ministry said. If not, "China will continue to resolutely take strong measures to uphold its legitimate rights and interests," it added.

IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Trump and his 90-day panacea
It took a lot of humility from the President Donald Trump administration to squeeze in a meeting with the Chinese delegation in Geneva led by the Vice Premier, He Lifeng. THE secret meeting in Geneva between the US and China was indeed secret. It had to be. Either it's secrecy lay in the preparations leading up to the moment, including the contriving of the agenda, or it was in the venue. No matter. The fact of the matter is, the meeting was urgent and unavoidable. It took a lot of humility from the President Donald Trump administration to squeeze in a meeting with the Chinese delegation in Geneva led by the Vice Premier, He Lifeng. He was in Switzerland for a bilateral meeting. And the American delegation showed up for a brief one. The brevity of the encounter was reflective of secretive diplomatic artistry, and for its agenda and its outcomes, could not enjoy the description as negotiations. Armed with a memorandum to reduce the ad valorem tax on scheduled items to 10% except for the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which would remain at 20%, the US Treasury Secretary met his counterpart, exchanged pleasantries and signed the Memo. The memorandum seeks to engage the Chinese in many strategic areas where they could cooperate with the US or maintain channels of trade cooperation with minimum rancour. Realising the importance of a setting that would permit a series of meetings, each at different levels of political mandate, a period of three months was nominated. The desperation of the Trump administration is not only apparent but understandable as well. If the trip to West Asia represented a massive optics victory, it was dampened by the Palace in the Sky gift from Qatar. To his visible irritation, he constantly has to defend himself or the Department of Defence or both, depending on the discourtesy of the enquirer and the awkwardness of the moment. The Liberation Day strategy was supposed to have defined a US levelling up to a world that was ripping them off. The scientific mechanism to implement this economic objective was the recalibration calculus, whose science was familiar to neither science nor economics. The President's logic sought to prevail on the apparatus of state, and therefore of the world at large that the only way to equalise with a country that has a trade surplus with the US, $263 billion (R4.7 trillion) in the case of China, is to impose tariffs equal to such surplus. And while the shock to such illogicality registered in graduations, each more intense than the other, the Trump administration announced that they would negotiate with each of the countries on his chart who are lining up and begging the US for reprieve from the harshness of the tariffs or sanctions, if you will. When there were no long queues by world leaders pining for trade negotiations and relief, the embattled Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, announced that all the identified countries would be slapped with 10% tariffs across the board, an embarrassing failure of strategy if nought else. If the highest tariffs averaged 50%, China was slapped with a whopping 245%. It became apparent that the raison d'être of tariffs was a roundabout way to escalate the China containment strategy. China did not beg for mercy. It retaliated with its own tariffs by targeting those items that would hurt the US economy the most. President Xi Jinping was not bullied to pick up the phone and call President Trump. And therein lies the rub! When pressed on why the Chinese did not shiver in terror and humiliation and call for negotiations, the verbosity of the Donald became circumlocutory and evasive. But one way or the other, he was convinced, he would close the deal with China. And in Geneva, he did not close the type of deal he envisaged. He therefore gave it 90 days. Yet the President could not wait to get to the next stage of the containment strategy, and so soon thereafter, the US President unleashed a tirade, accusing the Chinese of violating an agreement they are still planning to have. It comes as no surprise that Scott Bessent went to Geneva with a 90-day validity of any discussion to be had. The Trump administration has a bewildering obsession with 90 days. If it was not the TikTok imbroglio, it was the USAID suspension of foreign activities or indeed all those policies that got ensnared in the fast-swirling vortex of 69 Executive Orders in 100 days. 90 days seem to define a government when its mind is not made, creating its own 90-day breathing space. The most intriguing question is what happens at the effluxion of the period, when inescapable reality imperatives meet policy indecision. In his inimitable style, the Don has a quixotic retort, no pun intended. 'We'll see what happens'! 90 days notwithstanding, the communique is suspiciously silent about sanctions, especially indirect secondary ones meant for trade with third countries, which the US deeply despises. The relationship between the tariffs negotiations and sanctions is deceptively subtle. Neither the Americans nor the Chinese made reference to them. But they are writ large, however, and tend to dominate the overburdened consciousness of a severely divided world. There is an added 25% ad valorem tax levied on countries purchasing oil from Venezuela. China happens to be the largest importer of Venezuelan oil. There is an added 100% ad valorem tax slapped on countries purchasing oil from Iran. And here too, China happens to be the largest importer of Iranian oil. And now the biggest punitive package ever contemplated in the history of tariffs or the US is contained in the Blumenthal-Graham-sponsored bill called the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. It proposes to impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and anyone else buying goods from Russia. It will also impose 500% tariffs on any country that purchases oil and gas, and other refined products from Russia. Predictably, China happens to be the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas. Within the context of the China containment strategy, which is a military manoeuvre dressed in trade garb, the trigger moment is likely to be in the South China Sea. China, for its part, is an uncooperative client. They have seen the unfolding of this bellicose script from afar. They have contemplated it with disdain, and in their remonstration, have retaliated with their own tariffs. What the effect of sanctions on tariffs shall be is a vexatious enquiry notorious for its tautology. Its implications, however, are horrifying to say the least. What would be the utility of tariff reduction to 10% if they have to go back to 1000% because of secondary sanctions imposed against countries doing business with Venezuela, Iran and possibly Russia? No need to ask. The Don already has the answer… We'll see what happens! * Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media.