Foundation Models in Robotics: From Bespoke Machines to Generalist Brains
I’ve been reading a great deal about modern manufacturing, an industry where robotics has been a central figure for decades. For all their success in the structured environment of a factory, these robots have struggled to break out of their cages and into more dynamic, general-purpose roles. This situation is not without precedent; for those of us who use AI, it mirrors the exact challenge we had with natural language processing until very recently — our models excelled within their narrow domains but couldn’t transfer their capabilities beyond the specific use cases they were built for.
For anyone involved in building AI applications today, the term “foundation model” — or “frontier model” — should be a familiar one. We’ve seen foundation models revolutionize knowledge work through language processing and redefine creativity with visual generation. But a more interesting question is now on the table: what happens when a model needs to do more than process digital bits? What if it needs to physically act in the world?
This question brings us to a long-standing frustration in robotics. Historically, every new application has been a bespoke, ground-up effort. If you wanted a robot to fold laundry, you had to build a custom system for that specific task. If you then decided you wanted it to make coffee, you were essentially starting from scratch. This approach is akin to designing a new car for every single trip — it is slow, costly, and does not scale. It is the core reason we have single-purpose robots bolted to factory floors instead of the generalist, adaptable helpers many have long envisioned.
This is a reader-supported publication. Support our work by becoming a paid subscriber
From what I’ve gathered digging through recent papers, talks, and company websites, that old paradigm is slowly beginning to crack. The goal is to create a single, adaptable AI — a highly capable “robot brain” — that can be pre-trained on the physics of interaction and then quickly fine-tuned to control different robots for thousands of different tasks. The fundamental shift is in the “foundation model’s” output: from generating text or pixels to generating physical action.
The Secret Sauce: A New Kind of Data
The success of foundation models is built on a powerful insight: performance scales predictably with the size of the model and, crucially, the volume and quality of its training data. But where language and image models benefit from the abundant “digital exhaust” of the internet, robotics confronts a fundamental data scarcity. There’s no pre-existing “internet of physical experience” to mine. To solve this, researchers are pursuing three primary “recipes” for gathering the necessary data.
First is learning in a virtual world, a strategy often called “sim-to-real.” Here, a robot practices a task millions of times in a hyper-realistic simulation. DeepMind’s Proc4Gem system, for example, trains robots in thousands of procedurally generated virtual living rooms. In one experiment, a quadruped robot trained exclusively in simulation was able to successfully push a trolley to specified targets in the real world. It even generalized to objects it had never seen, like a 1.5-meter-tall toy giraffe, showing that the learned skills weren’t tied to a specific training environment.
The second approach is learning by watching humans through teleoperation. In this setup, a human operator “drives” a robot using a control rig, and the AI learns from these demonstrations. Google’s robotics models have learned complex tasks like folding an origami fox or packing a lunch box after observing just 50-100 human-led examples. This method provides high-quality, real-world data that captures the nuances of physical manipulation.
The most sophisticated strategy is the hybrid or “data pyramid” approach, exemplified by NVIDIA’s GROOT initiative. This model is trained on a heterogeneous mix of data sources. At the pyramid’s massive base is web-scale data, like YouTube videos of humans performing tasks. The middle layer consists of synthetic data from simulations. At the peak is a smaller amount of high-quality, real-world robot data collected via teleoperation. This diverse diet allows the model to learn both high-level semantic context (e.g., “cleaning a kitchen” involves putting dishes in the sink) and the low-level physical skills required to execute tasks.
The Different Flavors of Robot Brains
As the field matures, we’re seeing a few distinct architectures emerge, each suited for different applications. Understanding these “flavors” is key to seeing where the technology can be applied.
The All-in-One (Vision-Language-Action Models): These are the closest thing to a complete, drop-in robot brain. Models like Google’s Gemini Robotics and Physical Intelligence’s π take high-level inputs — an image of a scene and a text command like “put the Japanese fish delicacy in the lunch-box” — and directly generate the low-level motor commands to execute the task. They handle the entire pipeline from perception to action. The key strength here is generalization; these models can perform tasks correctly even with novel objects (like sushi) or in unfamiliar environments.
The Planner (Embodied Reasoning Models): These models act as the “thinking” part of the brain but delegate the final action. Models like RoboBrain 2.0 or Google’s Gemini Robotics-ER specialize in perception, spatial understanding, and multi-step planning. For instance, you could ask, “Where can I grasp the handle of this pan?” and it would output precise 3D coordinates or a motion trajectory. These planners excel at decomposing complex commands into a coherent sequence of steps, which can then be passed to a separate motor control system.
The Specialist: In contrast to general-purpose models, some foundation models are being built for a single, massive task. Amazon’s DeepFleet is a prime example. It is a highly specialized model focused exclusively on multi-agent trajectory forecasting to optimize the movements of over one million robots in its fulfillment centers. While it can’t pick up an object, it has delivered tangible benefits like a 10% improvement in fleet efficiency. This proves that training a large model on vast, real-world operational data to learn complex system dynamics is a powerful strategy not just for generalist robots, but for targeted industrial tasks as well.
Major Roadblocks and the Path Forward
Despite the rapid progress, AI developers should be aware of significant hurdles. The sim-to-real gap remains a major challenge; skills learned in a clean simulation often fail when faced with the unpredictable physics and sensor noise of the real world. Safety is paramount, and the stakes are infinitely higher than with a language model. A robot “hallucinating” a physical action could lead to property damage or injury. Finally, these models have immense computational and real-time constraints. A robot can’t pause to “think” for 300ms in the middle of a delicate task, so overcoming inference latency is critical.
The same data and safety breakthroughs powering robot brains will shape all autonomous agents
Looking ahead, the field is moving toward a future where training a robot is less about fine-tuning and more about simply prompting it. The ultimate vision — telling a robot to “clean the kitchen” and having it figure out the rest — remains distant but is no longer fantastical. This progress is being fueled by a dynamic between open-source models, like Physical Intelligence’s π, and proprietary systems from giants like Google and Amazon. For teams building AI applications, the takeaway is clear: the foundational technology that transformed our digital world is now being used to command the physical one. As data collection scales and architectures mature, the era of the bespoke robot is ending, and the foundation for the generalist machine is being laid.
For those building agents to navigate digital spaces, the work being done in robotics may seem distant. It’s not. Robotics is, in many ways, the same problem of autonomous action played in more difficult settings. The challenges of grounding a model in reality are magnified to their absolute extreme when that reality is governed by physics, not code. Because the cost of failure is so high — a physical “hallucination” is far more consequential than a digital one — robotics teams are forced to pioneer the most robust solutions for data scarcity, safety, and reasoning.
The creative data strategies they employ, like the “data pyramid” that blends web, simulation, and real-world data, offer a powerful template for any team struggling to source training data for complex enterprise workflows. Their intense focus on “semantic safety” — teaching a model why an action is unsafe, not just that it is — provides a glimpse into the future of building truly trustworthy agents. Watching the field of robotics, therefore, isn’t just about an interest in robots; it’s about seeing the core challenges of building Large Action Models stress-tested in the most demanding environment imaginable. The solutions they invent today will likely inform how enterprise teams build autonomous agents tomorrow.
