Launch HN: K-Scale Labs (YC W24) – Open-Source Humanoid Robots
62 comments
·July 3, 2025randomNumber7
What ML algorithms do you intend for full autonomy? Multi Modal LLMs for planning that control the robot by generating s.th. like code? Or s.th. that requires more learning from the environment?
When I click "get in touch" on your github I just land on the website where I can buy the robot. Building the hardware for an autonomous robot is orders of magnitudes easier than the control. Do you think anyone with the capability do develop an autonomus robot will buy this and then just give you the code because its open source?
dan344
So the non full autonomy would mean little software upgrades? More do it yourself?
Also, what’s the different bt the computes: like what’s the onboard computer running (the 2 options)?
Thanks.
BrandiATMuhkuh
Congratulations on the launch! This is really cool.
I'm not super active in the humanoid robot space anymore, however I did my PhD about 9 years ago in HRI. That was the time of Boston Dynamics, DARPA robotics challenge, and Aldebaran's Pepper and Nao robots.
You mentioned you are building everything open source. What happened with ROS and related projects? Do you build on top of that, or is that all super outdated that a reboot was needed?
Another question I have is: why are you choosing a two-legged human over a four-legged one?
My experiments with two legged robots were mostly bad. Not only did they fall basically all the time but they also had a big drift. So far, I have not seen any large improvements. But again, I might be very outdated.
I always said to my colleagues. The main point stopping robots from picking up is a stable platform. And with the platform I mean walking.
codekansas
Eh. I think we got a bit nerd-sniped on some things and we ended up trying to build most of our stack ourselves. The control loop is just a pretty simple Rust loop for running ML models. ROS is kind of annoying to work with and the control loop is pretty simple so we just wrote it ourselves.
For two legged - I think it will eventually be quite a bit cheaper, it's mostly a software problem to get them to be stable. RL based control has gotten much, much better. For example, I was talking to Trevor Blackwell a few weeks ago, and he was saying the IMU on the original Anybots robot was over $2k, whereas if you throw a noisy IMU into sim, you can get away with something basically from a cellphone. So yea, personally I'm a big believer in needing to solve the robotics intelligence problem, and once you solve that, humanoids will make the most sense as a form factor.
chrsw
I have some technical questions about feet.
Human feet have metatarsophalangeal joints connecting the toes to the rest of the foot. But humanoid robots don't have these (at least, the vast majority don't). Why? These joints are very useful.
Also, the bottom of the human foot is soft and has thousands of nerve endings. Can we really expect robots to get anywhere near human mobility performance without this level of compliance and sensory sophistication?
cpgxiii
Feet/ankles on humanoids are really hard mechanically. In many ways the kinematic requirements for the ankle are similar to a wrist, but while the wrist of a robot arm is the least-heavily-loaded, the ankle area can be the most heavily loaded. Humans get away with it by having most of the highly-stressed actuators in the lower leg, not the ankle itself, whereas many humanoid robots end up putting more of the actuators in the ankle assembly itself.
In general, I think the best way to think about the differences between human muscles and robot actuators is that human muscles are simultaneously incredible in terms of strength and power density, and also incredibly fragile. Robot actuators are fairly robust, but comparatively poor. Humans are essentially falling apart at all times, but the repair mechanisms in the body do a good enough job that it doesn't matter (although you probably know someone with a "career-disruptive/ending" sports-related injury that shows these mechanisms have limits). Robotics is a long way away from making actuators that can be fixed online in such a process. Even cable stretching in cable-driven mechanisms remains hard to handle effectively, and that's one of the simplest types of mechanism wear.
bbertelsen
These are the kinds of comments that make comments worth reading. Thank you!
codekansas
This is a much better answer than mine
codekansas
So, most humanoids you see that are relatively cost-effective are just "humanoid" in that they look like humans, but there are significant mechanical differences between them and real humans. It's almost always driven by the cost of manufacturing different components. A good example is the lead screw you see in the knee and ankle on Optimus - while it is more human-centric to have tendon-like actuation, it drives the price up quite a bit. Put differently, humans have a lot of specialization which is not great if you want to mass manufacture something.
For walking, the most important thing is that the robot can be simulated well, so in our case, we tried to model the foot contact with the ground in simulation quite accurately. In fact, we found that force sensors in the foot probably help but they're not necessary in simulation, and we wanted to shave off anything that wasn't necessary. I am not sure how close we will get to human mobility - it's definitely a learning process - but you can get much further in simulation than you'd expect.
markisus
Congrats on the launch!
Your current market seems to be "niche toys for rich tech people" and the future market seems very uncertain. I am impressed that you were able to get funding for this idea. How do you get around the "solution in search of a problem (SISP)" objection from VCs? In fact, your founding story indicates that you just liked the technology meaning you had to work backwards to find the business case.
I'm asking because I think many of us would like to get funding for ventures in areas of technology that we are passionate about, but for which the future market potential remains extremely speculative. How do you do it?
codekansas
I have a pretty bad mental model of how most VCs think, but I think good VCs will fund smart people who demonstrate extreme conviction, regardless of how they initially size the market. The opportunity cost for me doing K-Scale is making quite a bit of money at Tesla or Meta, so assuming I am not acting irrationally, either I have extreme conviction or I am a masochist. In my experience, VCs are pretty bad at telling the difference.
v5v3
>However, a lot of the people who want to buy a humanoid robot today do so because they want a completely autonomous robot to do all their chores,
Not sure your research has been through.
The ones that get the most attention from what I've seen are the ones that look female. And the first comment is always about how easy to clean...
All those lonely men spending thousands on the billion dollar revenue generating onlyfans and webcam sites seem to be the immediate consumer market.
codekansas
Yes, we are aware of this customer segment. I don't think they have thoroughly considered the implications of what high torque actuators can do to the human body
beau_g
Every technological leap has it's Chuck Yeagers and Yuri Gagarins that will put it all on the line with early tech for humanity to take that next step - we have to accept the inevitable and hope that luck is on these brave soul's side
idiotsecant
You might have a significant portion of those customers that are into that
ZeroCool2u
My friend and I are so excited about this bot that we're actively looking for AI grants to apply to for funding the purchase! The price is incredible for what you get, but we both work in the public sector :/
codekansas
We're exploring some options - maybe a rental option in the future. Would like to make it accessible to everyone
swyx
congrats! just sharing also the behind the scenes talk that one of your engineers did at AIE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS92RdBvI90
pj_mukh
Pretty sweet! Don’t have the time (or budget) to directly invest in the hardware but do you have a list of open source “open” software problems you are looking to solve?
codekansas
We do! https://bounties.kscale.dev/
We haven't updated it much but it's a good starter point
pj_mukh
Amazing, pretty nice list! Two quick suggestions:
a) some of these definitely look they could be done without hardware or with light hardware support from a staff member?
b) if you do a) and are open source completely I bet you don’t even need to do bounties. The increased participation could mean some great community generated solutions quick.
codekansas
I think it's tricky to manage an open source community effectively while still being opinionated on the product. I don't want to get too sucked into coordinating adhoc contributors - we do have a strong core team of people, and we all live together, which is pretty important. But yea, still figuring out what the right dynamic here will look like. Thanks for the suggestions!
srameshc
I love the idea of humaniod robot and commercially available. I like to think of such expensive things as an investment rather than a toy if I have to buy. Question is what are some good use cases that can be solved with such a humanoid robot ?
codekansas
To be honest, I don't know that there are many applications today which humanoids are the best form factor to solve. I would view it more as a form factor that is likely to get much more useful over the next few years, and having the hardware in your home lets you try out new techniques as they come online.
Personally, I think the first real use cases will mostly be entertainment. Humanoids have a high "coolness" factor. Also, I think there's a long tail of random problems which you don't want to buy a new robot to solve, but which, if you have a robot lying around that isn't perfect but is "good enough", might be possible to solve imperfectly. For example, I just had a newborn baby, and I was thinking it would be nice if I had a static arm that could hold his bottle for me. There's a lot of tail end problems like that in your day to day life. But I think the really interesting capabilities will come once there's very good end-to-end models running on-device.
srameshc
Thanks for an honest response. I did some google search and I see that even a simple Robotic arm costs over $15, so K-Bot is at a good price point . If I have to invest purely for learning and trying to integrate with something like Gemini Robotics SDK, do you think it will work ?
codekansas
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of use case we intend to support. Basically, we want our robot to be the best mass-produced robot for this kind of experimentation.
iuhytgrfvecdsw
[dead]
deepdarkforest
> the demand side, the basic problem with humanoid robots is that they're mostly useless right now ... ... to square this circle, ... we will provide free hardware and software upgrades until we are able to make the robot fully autonomous...This way, we can have some extra cash upfront to kickstart development
Congratulations guys! The technical stuff is above my paygrade, but you have a cracked team and with open source you will have a great chance to be close or at SOTA level at your price point.
However, it looks to me that your core thesis is yes, when the autonomous robots get good enough, even at a medium family car price range they will sell like candies. Sure. But since you also want to have the cash now, to who exactly are you selling? Yes you promise that you will support the full autonomy option, but this sounds weirdly similar to Tesla selling cars promising the FSD, which we all know how that story went.
I'm not saying you won't deliver, I'm just saying you might need to a bit more careful in your story selling/narrative for this. For example, i would be super interested to get one for like 2k if it's not useful now, but paying 10k for essentially promises and possible upgrades is a bit iffy. Hence i would like to at least see some plug in and play current usecases? Even if they are just for fun.
codekansas
I spent two years on Tesla's FSD team, and I think from a cash flow perspective for funding R&D this model did make a lot of sense - basically, it takes cash upfront for training models, but there's zero marginal cost for distributing the models once you've developed them.
I think this kind of "promise the future, pay now" model does alienates some people, especially when the tech is not ready today. That's why we're open sourcing everything, to avoid the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today. The core idea is that the people who bought FSD early on were very invested in it's success, and that feedback loop is very important for improving machine learning models at scale. The problem happens when actually delivering on the tech takes a long time, but I think we have a fairly clear technical roadmap to make our robot useful. At least, I think there are a lot more intermediate benchmarks for driving value for a humanoid robot than there are for self-driving cars, so I think people who buy it will have a stronger feeling that it is constantly improving.
deepdarkforest
From a cash flow perspective of course it makes sense to sell the future before you have it as working product. It just needs a great salesman or narrative to keep it going, im not arguing that.
> that feedback loop is very important for improving machine learning models at scale
Oh will you have your own feedback loop with let's say user's data? Or you meant as an example?
> * That's why we're open sourcing everything, to avoid the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today*
I agree here, it helps the today, but I dont think it helps the feeling of overpromising on what is ready today, its more like, even if it's open source , it does not increase the chances of it being ready/autonomous in the future. (im just playing devils advocate here)
I also agree with the intermediate benchmarks for sure, this is more to what i was referring to, it would be nice to see some more short term usecases/fun applications that are realistic to hit today or in the nearer future, that would drive a lot of sales value, at least for me, rather than go from now to full autonomy. Good luck!
codekansas
> Oh will you have your own feedback loop with let's say user's data? Or you meant as an example?
That's more or less the idea - obviously since it's open source we wouldn't scrape peoples' data without their consent, but I would hope that people would contribute to the project in some form. Like, the core idea of the open source ethos is that building something like this collaboratively is a better / cheaper way to scale data collection / experience than us trying to collect all the data ourselves.
> it does not increase the chances of it being ready/autonomous in the future.
Yea that's true. At the end of the day it's just technical execution, so it's pretty risky. I just prefer that if people sign up for something risky, it's pretty transparent what exactly it is they're signing up for :)
timhigins
> we're open sourcing everything
Does/will this include the training data, hyperparams, and weights for the models?
People will be reluctant to buy an "open source" robot if the key ML magic to make it work is closed off, e.g. if you charge a subscription for it.
codekansas
Yeah of course. That's kind of the whole point - I don't think you can really trust a humanoid robot in your house around your family if it is not clear what it's running. Basically, for myself, I would not want to buy a closed sourced humanoid, and I view myself as relatively representative of the early adopter mentality. So personally I think this is the right way to build a great product.
I basically believe that in a world where humanoid robots are actually useful, we will not have any trouble monetizing. Probably we will verticalize manufacturing at some point in the future. I think the bigger risks for our business model are not from people copying us or something, but from not making progress fast enough.
dbmikus
This is awesome! How much of your team's time goes into working on the physical hardware, versus RL simulation environments, versus managing all the training data from the real robot and the simulations?
I'm super interested in learning more about the training process of world and robotics model and the data challenges there.
codekansas
Thanks!
We're all pretty cross-stack - there are some hardware people and some software people, but the product is quite integrated. Personally, my time has been mostly focused on the RL stack recently, and after there are more robots in the wild, I suspect my time will transition to working on building this data feedback loop.
I try to answer questions pretty actively on our Discord so happy to chat there about whatever you like
dbmikus
I'll hop in there!
Hi HN, I'm Ben, from K-Scale Labs (https://kscale.dev). We're building open-source humanoid robots.
Hardware video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhZi9rtdEKg
Software video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXi3b3xXJFw
Docs: https://docs.kscale.dev
Github: https://github.com/kscalelabs
HN thread from back in May: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44023680
I started K-Scale because I really wanted a humanoid robot to hack on, so I knew that if I built one, I would have at least one customer. It was before the Unitree G1 came out so the cheapest option at the time costed over $50k, but I figured I could build one for about $10k using COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) components, which would be a much better price point for indie hackers and developers.
We built the first version using some 3D printers and parts that I bought off of Amazon and Alibaba. It was not great, but it let us build out the full pipeline, from designing and building the hardware to training control policies in simulation. We actually did most of this in about two months, and had a standing, waving robot by YC Demo Day (although it wasn't good for much else!).
Since then, our focus has been on figuring out how to go from a hobby-grade robot to a consumer-grade robot, without inflating our BOM (Bill of Materials, i.e. cost of all the parts) or having to set up our own factories. This is surprisingly difficult. A lot of the supply chain for robotics components currently goes through China, but tariffs have made it difficult to rely on Chinese suppliers for components. Also, even a $10k price point is pretty expensive for most customers, for a humanoid robot that has fairly limited capabilities.
Our solution to this is to open-source our hardware and software. This makes it easier for us to navigate tariffs and manufacturing challenges. By making our reference design public, our suppliers have a much easier time figuring out how to offer us competitive solutions, and our manufacturing partners are able to more easily adjust our design for their production processes.
On the demand side, the basic problem with humanoid robots is that they're mostly useless right now, and it will probably be a long and fairly capital-intensive journey to make them useful. My expectation was that there is a large pool of latent interest from people like me who are interested in hacking on humanoids, and that this customer segment is a much better customer segment to sell into than more traditional business-focused robotics applications. As someone in this customer segment myself, I felt that open-source software and hardware would be a strong value proposition, particularly for developers exploring bringing humanoids into their own business verticals.
More philosophically, I think it is important that there is a good, open-source humanoid robot. I think the technology is likely to mature much more rapidly than many people currently expect, and the idea of armies of humanoids owned by some single company walking around is pretty dystopian.
Right now, we're selling our base humanoid robot, K-Bot, for $8999. The main reason we're selling it now, instead of waiting to do more R&D, is because we're trying to negotiate volume prices with our own suppliers before we do final DfM (Design for Manufacturing). For example, we are able to negotiate better volume pricing for actuators and end effectors than what the average indie developer would be able to get for low-volume orders.
However, a lot of the people who want to buy a humanoid robot today do so because they want a completely autonomous robot to do all their chores, which is a pretty hard (although exciting) thing to build. To square this circle, we're offering a "Full Autonomy" option - it is the same robot hardware, but we will provide free hardware and software upgrades until we are able to make the robot fully autonomous. This way, we can have some extra cash upfront to kickstart development, and start to build a core group of people who are aligned with helping us improve the robot's capabilities across a diverse set of environments. From our customers' perspective, it's a way to de-risk buying a first-generation product from a young hardware company, and to have a bigger influence on how the technology unfolds.
The best part about building open source software and hardware is getting torn apart by people smarter than us, so we'd love your feedback!