Error, small talk entry not found
April 9, last year, Donald Trump postponed his Liberation Day tariffs, fuelling a stock market rally led by artificial intelligence (AI) optimism. That optimism turned to fear this year as joy towards AI’s productivity enhancements morphed into panic about how many businesses it would destroy.
That panic reached an even higher level of urgency last week, when James van Geelen, a thematic investor and former entrepreneur who founded a healthcare company before moving into investment research on Substack, hypothesised that AI would lay waste to the entire global consumer economy, leaving generations of white-collar workers redundant.
Stocks in software companies have plunged since Anthropic began adapting its Large Language Models (LLMs) to code better versions of their software. As one analyst observed, “If code can write code, who needs coders?” That fear spread to the share prices of real estate firms, cybersecurity companies, IT services & outsourcing provides, as well as financial services and wealth management businesses.
And anyone who has seen the short movies made in the last week with one or two prompts into graphic AI tools from China’s DeepSeek must also ask what happens to the jobs of the hundreds of VFX engineers and artists that typically fill the credits of modern-day action and fantasy movies.
One sector that still seems to be enjoying optimism is robotics. As Figure 1., and Figure 2., illustrate, some portion of the optimism that previously resided in the AI and software thematic appears to have migrated into robotics.
Figure 1. Global X Robo Global Robotics & Automation ETF (ASX: ROBO) 1 year.
Source: Google Finance
But here, once again, there is a range of views about how humanity will benefit from Robots, be destroyed by them, or experience neither benefit nor loss.
Figure 2. Global X Robotics and Artificial Intelligence ETF (NASDAQ: BOTZ) 1 year.
Source: Google Finance
But despite the optimism, a debate also exists about the future adoption and utility of humanoid robots.
On one side are the “Engineering Realists,” led by pioneers like Rodney Brooks, who has spent 50 years in robotics and decades as MIT Robotic Professor and at Rethink Robotics. On the other side, are the “Embodied AI” optimists like Citrini Research’s James van Geelen, who believe we have arrived at the ‘GhatGPT tipping point for AI-driven autonomous humanoids.
While both agree that robots are a matter of “when” rather than “if,” they differ wildly on the “how” and “how soon”. And the answers to those questions will determine whether the BOTZ and ROBO ETFs remain at record highs.
By way of example, Citrini Research argues that Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, such as NVIDIA’s GR00T, have finally given robots a “brain worth the battery power,” allowing them to learn tasks like doing dishes in a week. Brooks, however, argues this is a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, predicting “deployable dexterity” will remain “pathetic” until at least 2036. He argues current machine learning is “collecting the wrong data” and can’t solve the deep mechanical problems of force sensing and materials.
Brooks sees a lack of progress in autonomy, while Citrini sees a data-gathering opportunity that will accelerate the learning of VLA models, pointing to the crashing cost of hardware – specifically Unitree’s US$16k humanoid – as proof robots are finally on a Moore’s Law-style cost curve. Brooks, however, remains unimpressed by these low-cost units, noting they’re often too weak, for example, to provide the physical support needed for human-centric tasks like caring for the elderly or incapacitated.
I reckon the two views clash most sharply on the humanoid design. Citrini views the humanoid shape as essential because our world is “ergonomically tooled” for two arms and ten digits. Brooks, however, dismisses the “humanoid” form as marketing, suggesting practical robots will be task specific and eventually evolve modes of momentum and specialised appendages – superior to human forms – to become useful for those specific tasks.
By way of example, Brooks points out that current bipeds are inherently unsafe; if they lose power, they don’t just stop – they fall over.
Meanwhile, another significant difference lies in the deployment strategy. Citrini Research highlights tele-operation (remote human operators take over when robots fail) as a brilliant “bridge”. Brooks views this same trend as a plan to roll out remote-controlled “puppets” rather than truly autonomous helpers that might justify current stock market optimism.
In terms of timelines, Citrini sees widespread humanoid use in warehouses (like Amazon’s Digit) and eventual “consumer crossover” within 3-4 years. Brooks considers the claim that robots will be in 10 per cent of homes by 2030 to be historically implausible, noting that no technology – not even the internet or mobile phones – has ever scaled at that rate. He emphasises that without new mechanical systems, these robots will remain too dangerous to be in close proximity to humans.
After examining both sides of the debate, my take is as follows:
- In a rush to be first, the “offshore pilot” model is the most likely solution to the autonomy gap, allowing companies to sell and deploy robots immediately in structured environments like warehouses and simple retail tasks without needing to solve the artificial general intelligence – “AGI” or “dexterity” problems Brooks identifies.
- While companies roll out humanoid shapes, Brooks is likely right that cost and complexity will ensure functional utility wins out over aesthetics. We will likely see “humanoids” with specialised grippers – retaining the arms for “ergonomic” tasks while abandoning the unstable bipedal legs for safety and battery life.
- I have more sympathy for the “pathetic dexterity” view proffered by Brooks who warns it will likely prevent robots from entering the home (kitchen, laundry, child and elder care) for much longer than investors hope. The complexity of “multi-fingered dexterity” in unseen environments remains a massive engineering hurdle that “more data” may not fix.
Ultimately, investors need to be careful not to conflate robots in structured environments like BMW and Porsche’s factories, with the broad adoption of Terminator-style humanoids everywhere, including in the home and on the battlefield. The robotic “ChatGPT moment” is real in the factory, where the environment is predictable. But I agree we are likely a long way from everyone owning and deploying a fully autonomous butler in their home.
*This article was written on 26 February 2026.
Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chairman of Montgomery Investment Management. Roger has over three decades of experience in funds management and related activities, including equities analysis, equity and derivatives strategy, trading and stockbroking. Prior to establishing Montgomery, Roger held positions at Ord Minnett Jardine Fleming, BT (Australia) Limited and Merrill Lynch.
He is also author of best-selling investment guide-book for the stock market, Value.able – how to value the best stocks and buy them for less than they are worth.
Roger appears regularly on television and radio, and in the press, including ABC radio and TV, The Australian and Ausbiz. View upcoming media appearances.
This post was contributed by a representative of Montgomery Investment Management Pty Limited (AFSL No. 354564). The principal purpose of this post is to provide factual information and not provide financial product advice. Additionally, the information provided is not intended to provide any recommendation or opinion about any financial product. Any commentary and statements of opinion however may contain general advice only that is prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial circumstances or needs. Because of this, before acting on any of the information provided, you should always consider its appropriateness in light of your personal objectives, financial circumstances and needs and should consider seeking independent advice from a financial advisor if necessary before making any decisions. This post specifically excludes personal advice.
