Hyundai Introduces Its Next-Gen Atlas Robot at Ces 2026 [video]
Key topics
The unveiling of Hyundai's next-gen Atlas robot at CES 2026 has sparked a heated debate about the awkward transition from a dynamic robot demo to a static model, with some commenters feeling it "killed the vibe" and others seeing it as a clever segue. While some, like BloodyIron, praised the transition, others, including krisoft, criticized it as anticlimactic and a missed opportunity to showcase the robot's capabilities. The discussion reveals a divide between those who appreciated the demo's technical prowess, like mxschumacher, and those who were distracted by the abrupt change in pace. As the comments unfold, it becomes clear that the presentation's tone and pacing are just as important as the technology itself.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
1h
Peak period
55
0-6h
Avg / period
11.6
Based on 81 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 6, 2026 at 6:40 PM EST
3d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 6, 2026 at 7:46 PM EST
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
55 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 9, 2026 at 2:03 PM EST
15h ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Sometimes, demos are just not ready on time. It's a reality of life. Not every company throws baseballs at their Cybertruck windows onstage.
Anticlimax because the first robot hyped up the entrance of the second robot. It was emotionaly conveying that “hey you think these groovy movements are great? Check out this guy.” But once it become clear that the next guy is just a dumb statue it deflated. How lively the first one was made the second one that much worse in context. A step back.
That is the emotional fail. But perhaps you don’t care about that. Think about what additional message the stage presence of the second robot conveys. The first robot estabilished that they can make a smooth robot. They drove home that the robot is usually autonomous, but in any way it is not pupetted by a guy in a motion tracking suit. The presentation covered how the robots will be used, who will be the first pilot costumer, how will it be introduced and how will it be manufactured. These are all great answers to a concern someone from the audience might have.
But what is the concern to which the second robot is the answer for? Did you doubt even for a second their ability to make the same robot you can already see on the stage but in blue? Because i didn’t. Not before they shown the static demonstration. If they just said “we are working on a production optimised, and streamlined v2” i would have totaly accepted that they can do it.
The only message the second non-working robot communicates is that they are having trouble with their production model. They couldn’t even make it stand in one spot and wave politely! Something is cooked with it and badly. It adds nothing positive to the message of the presentation while introduces the very visible sign that something is wrong.
Now, do I think they won’t be able to solve the problems eventually? Of course not. Heck maybe it will be up and running within days. But why show something which is not working? It is such an unforced error. The first robot could have just done the dance then pointed at the screen and then walked out and nothing would have been less about the whole presentation.
Sure. It is not a mistake with grave consequences. Something can be a mistake and not matter much in the long run. Like the CEO could have went on stage wearing mismatched shoes, or wearing a red clown nose. It wouldn't ruin everything. Wouldn't bankrupt them. If the robots are good they will be still sold. But it would just undermine the message a little bit. For no good reason whatsoever.
The fundamental questions will be: Do the robots work? Are they cheaper than the equivalent labour from humans? (including all costs on both sides of the comparison.) Nothing else matters in the long run. They could have just never went to CES and it would be all the same.
> Im sorry, but this is just too much.
ok :) if you say so. But then tell me. What did the stage presence of the second robot add to the show?
>"We just couldn't pry the actual production samples out of our engineers hands at the lab this week. "
sounds like "Our CEO ordered samples to be shipped but those pesky engineers just wouldnt do it guys!"
>"Um, so we're going to be showing you videos"
Except they didnt even show videos, just some bad CGI aka "We rented this huge ass auditorium to show you our pet. Golden elephant is currently in our basement, he is tired right now so instead look at all those cool drawings my nephew made"!
Considering that, either of two things would be sufficient for them to make general purpose robots:
* It will be one of their numerous business lines and provide substitutable labor for the others, not all of which are in car construction
* Considering they are in things from credit cards to railways to steel, they would like to add a new product line of selling robots to other customers
None of this is outrageously out of line. Various companies start with some business lines and end up with others. This is particularly common in Korea where Samsung wasn't always a semiconductor company. Hyundai themselves were in construction first. Closer to home, Amex was a logistics company. These things happen. Perhaps you are familiar with Softbank which was a PC software publisher and is now an investment company.
Second, I have to imagine that there are spillover effects for their other robots. Being able to make legs that are nimble is good for the ability to make grabber arms for industrial robots. So even if the humanoid product line goes nowhere, they could end up with better material handlers.
People seem to misunderstand how easy it is to build a humanoid robot and how hard it is to program robots in general. Even if you build a humanoid robot that is perfectly general purpose mechanically, you will still need to program it like a computer that just happens to have arms and legs.
Expensive compared to other industrial robots?
Maybe wait for a consumer version... without 56 DoF. Although who knows what kind of laundry folding might be possible with 56 degrees of freedom, and fully rotating joints!
What claim will Elon make next to defend the stock price?
Needs more manipulation. Such elaborate fingers and all it does is mime carrying a box. There are some brief material handling demos at the end, but nothing challenging.
There's been considerable progress in robot manipulation in the past year, after many decades of very slow progress. This year's new manipulation demos have been for fixed base robot hands. Robot manipulation still isn't good enough for Amazon's bin picking. The best demo of 2025 is two robot hands opening a padlock with a key, with one hand holding the lock while the other uses the key.
We'll probably see this start to come together in 2026.
Tesla’s R&D has been shit for years. The value it brings to the table is mass-manufacturing expertise.
Tesla can bomb the robot for a while. As long as it keeps its plants online, it can buy or partner with one of these guys with its manufacturing platform (and political connections).
Not a bullish case. But also not a death knell.
I don't see how that squares with the ramp-up and QC issues that are well-documented at this point.
They’re shipping. Nobody else is on a battery-electric platform.
That doesn’t port perfectly to robotics. But it’s a good enough fit to give them, at the very least, a seat at every auction.
(Tesla also has cheap acquisition currency in its stock.)
Or Hyundai EVs breaking down 10x more often than worst ICE cars according to ADAS.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-s...
We don’t know the capabilities of either and how they match up against Tesla’s Optimus and FSD.
Manufactured (No pun intended) political outrage most likely. Seems to be the M.O for the last few years at least.
What's to stop a hacker from hacking into the tesla update server and pushing an update that causes all teslas to max accelerate right off bridges?
I wonder if over-the-air updates for cars will cause new legislation and a new regulatory body making it illegal to push a murder-update to cars, cause otherwise someone will surely do that.
It's neither that easy to "just hack anything", nor does the world have skilled malicious people that want to commit murder, if only they could do it through hacking instead of with a gun.
Like, this fear-mongering about "what if the hackers turn this into a weapon" seems like such a silly worry in a country where anyone can trivially acquire a gun and a bump-stock, or a car, or a drone and materials for a bomb. Or a canister of gasoline and a pack of matches.
IANAL.. I know current US computer crime laws are extremely broad and ill-defined. Curious to hear opinion from someone who actually knows some law.
also
"the next version is totally ready, but here's a full-size model"
Most likely the cooling of the actuator motors. You need to keep the magnets in the motors under their curie point or they stop being magnets. At the same time the coils right next to the magnets are heated by the electricity going through them.
We’ve been spoiled by 10 years of highly choreographed, multi-take Boston Dynamics sizzle reels. What we just saw was the transition from R&D Showpiece to Factory Tool.
The "awkwardness" is what actual deployment looks like.
It’s electric (no hydraulic leaks).
It has 56 DoF (redundancy for complex assembly).
It’s being deployed in Georgia now, not in "3 months maybe."
Tesla is shipping Optimus Sub-Primes. Hyundai is shipping a boring, reliable, high-torque worker. I’ll take the boring static model that actually has a spec sheet over another backflip video any day.
We don't actually know how boring or reliable it is.
But the key here is really the mind. Atlas looks strictly worse for a given task than any other kind of robot. Its only advantage is the touted lower training costs. It's very unclear how that really measures up. You can see a robot do cool stuff on stage and imagine it must be great, but the only thing that really matters for manufacturing is whether they can lower the training cost for new tasks to much less than what other static non-humanoid robot manufacturers make.
There it seems dubious. They only seem to talk about and demonstrate one task, engine part sequencing. It appears to be just a pick and place task. It's not obvious why existing robots can't do it well. They make general claims about how it's often not worth automating a task, because it changes too quickly or it costs too much to program a robot. Sure. But that's a statement about the quality of AI not the form of the robot.
Existing pick place machines work great and can handle messy real world noise like objects being in random positions and places. They are much, much faster than a humanoid robot will be, and much cheaper. So what's Atlas' advantage on the factory floor?
https://www.fanucamerica.com/solutions/applications/picking-...
https://youtu.be/CbHeh7qwils?t=437
What happened?
On one hand, this is great. It portends that all of us will benefit from intense price-and-feature competition between Hyundai, Tesla, and others.
On the other hand, Ironman 2's Hammer Drones no longer seem so far off:
https://youtu.be/Ryth87k2Mww?t=78
and Robocop doesn't seem so far-off either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECemP5fi_n0
We sure live in interesting times.
So I looked it up and it seems Hyundai owns Boston Dynamics now.
Boston Dynamics and DeepMind form new AI partnership
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46504966
It would be cool to have one at home as a little helper some day.