Telerobots | The hybrid business model of teleoperated robots as a transition phase to full automation
Xpert pre-release
Language selection 📢
Published on: October 22, 2025 / Updated on: October 22, 2025 – Author: Konrad Wolfenstein
The hybrid business model of teleoperated robots as a transition phase to full automation – Image: Xpert.Digital
The invisible revolution with telerobotics: When people become avatars and robots become bridges between worlds
The birth of a dystopian trillion-dollar industry or the beginning of a new world of work?
Recent news of Tesla's massive order of components for a reported 180,000 Optimus robots has raised a fascinating economic question that has so far gone largely unaddressed. While most observers are focused on the technological challenges of fully autonomous artificial intelligence, a sober economic analysis points to an interim solution that appears both brilliant and deeply troubling. Tesla has reportedly placed a $685 million order with Chinese supplier Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which industry experts say would be enough to produce approximately 180,000 humanoid robots. Delivery of these linear actuators is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2026, suggesting accelerated mass production.
But this reveals a fundamental paradox of current robotics development. The agentic software necessary to enable these robots to independently perform most of the useful tasks for which consumers would be willing to pay simply does not yet exist. Even the most advanced humanoid robots today are at an autonomy level between two and three on a five-level scale, with level five representing full autonomy. Tesla itself has had to reduce its original 2025 production target of at least 5,000 units to around 2,000, and this number also appears to be at risk. The technical challenges are particularly concentrated in the robot's hands, the most complex element of the design, and in the integration of hardware and software. Reports indicate that Tesla has accumulated a stock of partially completed robots missing hands and forearms, with no clear timeline for their completion.
This discrepancy between announced production volumes and actual technical maturity raises a key question: What economic logic could lie behind the mass production of robots that are not yet capable of fully autonomous operation? The answer could lie in a hybrid business model that bridges the gap between human intelligence and machine execution in a way that could have profound implications for global labor markets.
Suitable for:
The economic logic of remote control
The concept of teleoperation—the remote control of robots by human operators—is by no means new. It is already being used in extreme situations such as nuclear decontamination, deep-sea exploration, and surgical robotics. What is new, however, is the potential scaling of this approach to mass-market applications for everyday tasks in homes and businesses. The global market for teleoperation and remote robotics was valued at approximately $502.7 million in 2024 and is expected to grow to $4.7 billion by 2035, with a compound annual growth rate of 25.3 percent. However, these figures do not yet capture the disruptive potential of a fully scaled model of remotely controlled humanoid robots for consumer applications.
The economic attractiveness of this model stems from the arbitrage of global wage gaps. While a software engineer in Los Angeles earns an average of $9,000 per month, the salary for the same qualification in India is around $900. This discrepancy is not an isolated occurrence, but reflects structural differences in the cost of living and local wage structures. Studies of global remote labor markets show that, despite the global nature of digital platforms, remote work salaries are strongly correlated with the per capita income of the respective locations. A one percent increase in per capita income is associated with an average 0.2 percent increase in remote work salaries.
If we apply this principle to physical work performed by remote-controlled robots, an enormous economic dimension opens up. A robot purchased once for approximately $20,000 to $30,000 could theoretically be controlled around the clock by various operators working in countries with lower labor costs. Even with an hourly wage of $5 to $10, significantly higher than the local average wage in many developing countries, this would be considerably cheaper for households in industrialized countries than local service providers. A professional cleaning service in Germany typically costs between €20 and €40 per hour. The same service provided by a remote-controlled robot could theoretically be offered for a fraction of this cost, while the operator in a developing country earns an income significantly above the local average.
The mechanics of such a system would be relatively simple. Similar to existing platforms like Uber, an algorithm could match requests with available operators who possess the appropriate skills. A rating system would ensure quality and reliability. The customer would book a service via an app, such as a two-hour apartment cleaning or the repair of a household appliance. A qualified operator in another part of the world would log into the robot, complete the task, and log off again. The entire process would be managed via a central platform, which would be responsible for payment processing, quality control, and insurance issues.
The training data dimension
But the economic logic of this model extends far beyond the immediate provision of services. One of the greatest challenges for the development of fully autonomous robots is the lack of high-quality training data from the real world. Current estimates suggest a gap of five to six orders of magnitude between the available real-world robot data and the data volumes required for the development of basic models. While simulations and video data can be used as complementary tools, they are no substitute for extensive real-world data.
Large-scale teleoperation would provide precisely this data. Every movement, every decision, every adaptation to unforeseen situations by human operators would be recorded and could be used to improve autonomous systems. Projects like Humanoid Everyday have demonstrated the value of such datasets. This research project collected over 10,300 trajectories with more than three million individual images across 260 different tasks in seven categories, all through highly efficient, human-supervised teleoperation. This data included RGB images, depth perception, LIDAR scans, and tactile and inertial sensor data.
The economic value of this data dimension is difficult, but potentially enormous. Companies that possess comprehensive, high-quality data sets of real-world robot operations would have a significant competitive advantage in developing fully autonomous systems. This data would not only be valuable for their own product development but could also be licensed or sold. The global market for AI training data is growing exponentially, and robotics data from real-world environments is particularly valuable and rare.
For robotics companies, this would result in triple monetization: First, through the sale or rental of hardware. Second, through commissions on the services provided, similar to the platform model of Uber or Airbnb. Third, through the collection and utilization of training data, ultimately leading to the development of fully autonomous systems that would eliminate the need for human operators. This transitional phase could prove extremely profitable, while simultaneously laying the technological foundation for the next phase.
The global wage arbitrage paradigm
To fully grasp the economic implications of this model, one must understand the mechanisms of global wage arbitrage. This economic phenomenon arises when barriers to international trade are reduced or collapse, and jobs migrate to countries where labor and the cost of doing business are significantly lower. Globalization in recent decades has already significantly advanced this process, particularly in manufacturing and digitizable services.
The rise of remote work has opened up a new dimension of wage arbitrage. While the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend, all signs indicate that remote work will remain a permanent feature of global labor markets. A 2021 study by Owl Labs found that 92 percent of European companies are exploring progressive workplace policies such as four-day workweeks and alternative work arrangements. Eleven percent of the companies surveyed even planned to abandon their offices entirely.
This development has implications for both employers and employees. Companies can realize significant cost savings by hiring remote workers from regions with lower living costs. At the same time, workers in these regions gain access to employment opportunities that were previously geographically inaccessible and offer salaries that exceed local standards. However, research also shows that remote worker salaries, although more equal between countries than local salaries, still exhibit significant geographical variation. The exchange rate pass-through rate to local currency wages for remote work is approximately 80 percent, meaning that local currency wages fluctuate almost one-to-one with the dollar exchange rate.
Applying this principle to physical labor through teleoperation would expand wage arbitrage, previously limited primarily to knowledge work, to a much broader sector. Household services, skilled trades, warehousing and logistics tasks, caregiving, and many other areas that were previously geographically bound could potentially be globalized. The economic impact would be enormous. Estimates of the global household services market alone amount to several hundred billion dollars annually. If even a fraction of this market were served by remote-controlled robotics, an industry worth tens of billions of dollars would emerge.
The market dynamics of the Robot-as-a-Service model
The Robot-as-a-Service business model has gained significant traction in recent years. Instead of selling robots directly, companies offer them on a subscription or usage basis, similar to the Software-as-a-Service model. The global RaaS market was valued at $1.05 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow to $4.12 billion by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.5 percent. Another estimate puts the market at $1.80 billion by 2024, with projected growth to $8.72 billion by 2034.
The attractiveness of the RaaS model lies in several factors. Customers avoid the high initial investment required to purchase robots. Instead, they pay a recurring fee for continued use, enabling scalability and flexibility. Maintenance, updates, and software integration are handled by the provider, ensuring operational readiness. For providers, the model offers predictable recurring revenue and better insights into usage patterns, enabling more accurate revenue forecasting and supply planning.
A remote-controlled robotics model would fit perfectly with this RaaS approach. Customers would pay monthly or usage-based fees covering both hardware usage and human services. The platform would centrally manage available operators, monitor quality, process payments, and provide technical support. However, unlike purely autonomous systems, such a hybrid model could reach market viability much sooner, as it would not rely on the complete resolution of autonomy issues.
Various pricing models are conceivable. Time-based models would charge customers for the time they use the service, approximately $15 to $25 per hour. Task-based models would bill based on completed tasks, such as $50 for a full apartment cleaning, regardless of the time required. Subscription models could offer a specific number of hours per month at a fixed price, such as $500 for 30 hours. The actual costs for the operator would be a fraction of this, typically between $5 and $10 per hour, enabling substantial margins for the platform.
🎯🎯🎯 Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, five-fold expertise in a comprehensive service package | BD, R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization
Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital
Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.
More about it here:
How remote-controlled humanoid robots could revolutionize global labor markets
The trillion-dollar vision and the reality
The vision of a multi-billion-dollar industry for humanoid robots is not far-fetched. Morgan Stanley recently predicted that the humanoid robot market could reach a volume of five trillion dollars by 2050, with over one billion units in use worldwide. This projection includes hardware sales of approximately four trillion dollars, with software, data, and services contributing additional volume. Goldman Sachs estimated that the global humanoid robot market could reach a value of three hundred and eight billion dollars by 2035, with approximately 250,000 units for industrial applications and up to one million units annually for consumers within a decade.
The global market for humanoid robots has been estimated at $1.55 billion to $2.02 billion by 2024, depending on the source, with projections ranging from $4.04 billion to $15.26 billion by 2030. These discrepancies in estimates reflect the uncertainty associated with such a young and rapidly evolving market. However, the consensus is that growth rates will be exceptionally high, with annual growth rates between 17.5 and 52.8 percent, depending on the source and underlying assumptions.
The rollout will be gradual, not explosive. Morgan Stanley expects approximately 13 million units in use by 2035, primarily in factories and warehouses. Falling prices will drive adoption. Selling prices could fall from the current $200,000 to $50,000 in wealthy countries by mid-century, and to $15,000 in markets with a Chinese-dominated supply chain. As G7 countries and China's workforces age, humanoids are transforming from futuristic prototypes into practical necessities.
But these projections typically assume increasing autonomy. A remote-controlled transition model could significantly accelerate the timeline. Instead of waiting for full technological maturity, millions of robots could be in productive use within the next five to ten years. Platform companies would build significant market share and customer loyalty during this phase, giving them a decisive advantage when the technology eventually enables fully autonomous operations.
Suitable for:
The workforce behind the machines
The human dimension of this model raises complex questions. Who would these operators be, and under what conditions would they work? The most likely candidates are workers in developing countries, where wage disparities are greatest. Countries such as India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and various African states have large populations with sufficient digital literacy but limited local employment opportunities.
For many people in these regions, remote control of robots would represent an attractive employment opportunity. The work would be less physically demanding than many local alternatives, would offer climate-controlled work environments, and could allow for flexible working hours. Wages, although low by the perspective of industrialized countries, would be above average by local standards. An operator earning eight to ten dollars an hour would earn a middle- to upper-level income in many developing countries.
At the same time, this model poses significant risks of exploitation. The power relations between global platform companies and individual workers in developing countries are fundamentally asymmetric. Without appropriate regulation and labor protection standards, conditions could become precarious. Studies on the existing gig economy and clickwork platforms show that workers often face unclear instructions, receive low wages, and lack social security benefits. The work is often outsourced to third-party companies, further obscuring accountability.
Research on global wage arbitrage in the IT services industry shows that this practice has significant implications for global labor force dynamics. In high-wage countries, it leads to job losses, especially in industries with commoditized tasks. In low-wage countries, it creates employment opportunities but can also lead to wage pressure and poor working conditions if adequate regulations are not in place. The same dynamics would play out with remote-controlled robotics, only with a potentially even greater reach, as it would not be limited to digital services.
The dystopian dimension
Particularly worrying is the possibility of using prison labor, mentioned in the original scenario. Indeed, there are already precedents for employing inmates in the digital economy. In Finland, the company Metroc has been employing prisoners in four prisons since 2022 to perform data annotation tasks for AI training systems. The inmates are provided with computers and training and paid €1.54 per hour, the same rate as for physical labor in prisons.
The ethical concerns surrounding such programs are significant. The EU Platform Work Directive, adopted in 2024, aims to protect gig economy workers and ensure fair wages, labor rights, and collective bargaining power for digital task-based workers. However, the directive does not explicitly mention the specific conditions of imprisoned digital workers. The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits forced labor but permits work necessary in the normal course of imprisonment, provided it is lawful and fair.
The use of prison labor for remote-controlled robotics would further exacerbate these ethical dilemmas. The power imbalances within a prison environment significantly complicate the question of voluntary labor. If the work is poorly paid, lacks meaningful training, and serves primarily to provide cheap labor for private companies, it may violate fundamental principles of human rights and prison reform.
Even without prison labor, the remote-controlled robotics model raises profound questions about exploitation and social justice. Would operators work in virtual sweatshops, with long shifts, minimal breaks, and constant supervision? Would they be adequately trained and supported, or simply thrown into tasks with the expectation of learning through trial and error? Would they have access to social security, or be treated as independent contractors without health insurance, vacation rights, or retirement benefits?
The history of industrialization shows that technological progress without appropriate social and legal frameworks can lead to significant exploitation. The early textile factories in England, the sweatshops in the clothing industry, the precarious conditions in call centers – all these examples call for caution. The globalization of physical labor through teleoperation could create similar or even worse conditions without proactive regulation, as the geographical distance between employers and employees significantly complicates the enforcement of standards.
Impact on local labor markets in industrialized countries
While operators in developing countries may face one form of exploitation, workers in developed countries would face a different kind of threat: job loss. The service sector, particularly in areas such as cleaning, catering, retail, care, and skilled trades, employs millions of people in Europe, North America, and other developed regions. These jobs are often low-paid and offer limited opportunities for advancement, but they represent important sources of income for many people with little formal education or for immigrants.
The introduction of remote-controlled robots would directly compete with these workers. A robot controlled by an operator in India, working for $15 per hour, would be more attractive to most households than a local cleaning service costing $40 per hour. The economies of scale and lower labor costs would force many traditional service providers out of the market.
Research on the impact of automation on employment shows mixed results, depending on the specific technology, industry, and regulatory environment. Studies on industrial robots have found that one additional robot per 1,000 workers reduces the employment rate by 0.16 to 0.20 percentage points, with a significant displacement effect dominating. The displacement effect is particularly pronounced for workers with medium education and younger cohorts, while men are more affected than women. However, other studies have found that overall employment does not decrease at the local level, as job growth in the service sector offsets the displacement effect in manufacturing.
The application of these findings to remote-controlled robotics is complex. On the one hand, it could be argued that the creation of new jobs for operators in developing countries provides some counterbalance to the jobs lost in developed countries. On the other hand, this would exacerbate economic inequality between regions and increase social tensions in affected communities in developed countries. Goldman Sachs Research estimates that the widespread adoption of AI could displace approximately six to seven percent of the US workforce, with the unemployment rate temporarily increasing by half a percentage point during the transition period. The effects are typically temporary, dissipating after about two years as new employment opportunities emerge.
However, this optimistic view relies on the assumption that new jobs will be created at a sufficient pace and in the right way. Historical experience shows that while technological change ultimately leads to more jobs, the transition period can be painful for many workers. About 60 percent of U.S. workers today work in occupations that did not exist in 1940, meaning that more than 85 percent of job growth since then has resulted from technology-related job creation. Whether this historical dynamic will hold for the coming decades is debatable, however, because the speed and scope of current technological change may be unprecedented.
The training data as a Trojan horse
One of the most fascinating, yet disturbing, aspects of the remote-controlled robotics model is its role as a transitional technology. For the workers, it would be an employment opportunity, but for the platform companies, it would be a mechanism for collecting the data that would ultimately render their workforces obsolete. Every action, every decision, every adjustment made by a human operator would be recorded, analyzed, and used to train the autonomous systems.
This process would be largely invisible to the workers themselves. They would perform their daily tasks, controlling robots to clean houses, cook meals, or perform simple repairs. At the same time, their actions would be stored in vast databases analyzed by machine learning algorithms. Over time, these systems would learn to replicate human decisions, initially for simple, repetitive tasks, then for increasingly complex activities.
The ethical implications of this practice are significant. Workers would essentially be working on their own replacements, often without fully realizing it. While some might argue that this is a natural and efficient form of technological advancement, it raises questions about transparency, informed consent, and fair compensation. Should operators be compensated additionally for the value of their training contributions? Should they be informed that their work will be used to ultimately replace them? Should they have a say in how their data is used?
These questions are not purely hypothetical. The existing AI industry already faces significant problems with the exploitation of data workers. Companies frequently hire people from poor and underserved communities, including refugees, incarcerated individuals, and others with few job opportunities, often through third-party companies as contractors rather than as full-time employees. These workers are often paid as little as $1.46 per hour after taxes for data annotation, which is essential for training AI systems. They work under precarious conditions, with few labor protections, and no ability to challenge unethical practices.
Data labeling work is often performed far from the Silicon Valley headquarters of AI-first multinational corporations, from Venezuela, where workers label data for image recognition systems in self-driving vehicles, to Bulgaria, where Syrian refugees feed facial recognition systems with selfies labeled by race, gender, and age categories. These tasks are often outsourced to precarious workers in countries like India, Kenya, the Philippines, or Mexico. Workers often don't speak English but receive instructions in English and face the threat of termination or suspension from crowdwork platforms if they don't fully understand the rules.
The regulatory challenges
Regulating a global remote-controlled robotics platform would be exceptionally complex. The workers would be located in one country, the platform in another, the customers in yet another, and the robots operating in a fourth. What labor laws would apply? Who would be responsible for accidents or damage? How would taxes be collected and distributed?
The existing legal framework is inadequate for this new form of global work. Most labor protection laws are defined nationally or regionally and assume the physical presence of workers within the jurisdiction. The EU Platform Work Directive attempts to close some of these gaps, but it does not fully capture the complexity of remote physical work. Similar challenges exist with tax issues, social security contributions, and liability.
Another regulatory issue concerns data protection. Robots operating in private homes would necessarily have access to intimate details of their owners' lives. Cameras and sensors would continuously collect data, and operators in distant countries would see this data in real time. How would this data be protected? Who would have access to it? How long would it be stored? Existing data protection laws, such as the GDPR in the EU, provide some safeguards, but their application to remote-controlled robotics is untested and potentially inadequate.
There are also questions of national security and economic sovereignty. When large parts of a country's basic service infrastructure become dependent on platforms based in other jurisdictions and employing third-country workers, new vulnerabilities arise. What would happen in the event of international conflicts, cyberattacks, or simply business disruptions? Would countries suddenly lose critical services?
Our global industry and economic expertise in business development, sales and marketing
Our global industry and business expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital
Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry
More about it here:
A topic hub with insights and expertise:
- Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
- Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
- A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
- Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations
Autonomy vs. Teleoperation: Who will win the future of work?
The socio-psychological dimensions
Beyond the immediate economic and legal issues, there are deeper socio-psychological aspects of this development. How would it feel to be served in one's own home by a robot controlled by an invisible person in another part of the world? What kind of relationship would develop between customers and remote operators?
Research on telepresent systems suggests that humans are quite capable of interacting with remote surgeons through robotic avatars while maintaining a degree of social connection. The example of the Avatar Robot Cafe DAWN in Tokyo is instructive. There, café customers are served by humanoid robots called OriHime, remotely controlled by people with disabilities and mobility impairments. The robots become the surgeon's avatar, who can communicate, take orders, and serve food, all from the comfort of their home or hospital. The café has demonstrated that this form of telepresence can work for both surgeons and customers, creating employment opportunities and enabling social connections for people who would otherwise be isolated.
However, this model differs in important aspects from commercial remote-controlled robotics. At Café DAWN, the social and rehabilitative component is central to the concept. Customers know they are helping people who would otherwise have no employment opportunities. In contrast, commercial remote-controlled robotics would be primarily focused on efficiency and cost minimization. The human operators would be interchangeable and largely invisible. Customers would primarily value service and price, not the human connection.
This could lead to further alienation and atomization of social relations. Traditional service relationships, however asymmetrical, involve at least some human interaction and recognition. A cleaner, a waiter, a handyman—all these individuals are physically present and perceived as human. A remote-controlled robot would remove this human dimension and replace it with an abstract service. For the operators, this could mean a form of invisibility, where their work is valued, but they themselves are not seen or recognized.
Suitable for:
Alternative scenarios and possible developments
It is important to emphasize that the scenario outlined here, involving the massive deployment of remote-controlled humanoid robots, is by no means inevitable. Several factors could prevent, slow, or divert this development. The technical challenges of mass-producing reliable humanoid robots at affordable prices are significant. Despite high-profile demonstrations and impressive progress with prototypes, fundamental problems remain. The battery life of most humanoid robots currently lasts only about two hours. Achieving a full eight-hour shift without recharging could take ten years or more. Dexterity and fine motor skills are still well below human levels, with significant gaps in tactile sensitivity and precision.
Bain & Company analyzed in its 2025 Technology Report that humanoid robots are not yet ready for widespread use. Most humanoid robots today are in pilot phases and rely heavily on human input for navigation, dexterity, or task switching. This autonomy gap is real. Current demonstrations often mask technical limitations through staged environments or remote monitoring. Controlled environments such as industrial settings, parts of retail, and select service environments will likely be the first to see humanoid robots deployed—places where the layout and environment are well known and tightly controlled.
It's also possible that the development of fully autonomous AI will progress faster than expected, skipping or significantly shortening the remote-controlled transition phase. Advances in generative AI and large-scale language models are remarkable, and their integration into robotic systems could lead to breakthroughs that eliminate the need for human operators sooner than expected. In this scenario, companies might transition directly to fully autonomous systems without making the investment in infrastructure for global teleoperation.
Another factor is potential social and political resistance. If the impact on local labor markets in developed countries becomes too severe, governments could take regulatory measures to protect domestic jobs. This could range from tariffs on remote services to minimum wage requirements for remote operators to outright bans. Unions and employee organizations would likely exert considerable pressure to protect their members.
On the other hand, ethical considerations and social responsibility could lead to better working conditions for operators. Companies committed to fair practices could differentiate themselves through certifications and transparency. Consumers might be willing to pay a premium for services provided under ethically acceptable conditions, similar to the fair trade model in other industries. This wouldn't eliminate fundamental power asymmetries, but it could at least prevent some of the worst excesses of exploitation.
The long-term perspective
Taking a step back and considering the long-term perspective, remote-controlled robotics appears to be a potential transitional phase in a larger technological and economic transformation. This transformation will ultimately lead to a world with a much higher degree of automation, but the path to get there is unclear and will be determined by many factors.
In an optimistic scenario, automation would lead to massive productivity gains that benefit everyone. The displaced human workforce would transition into new, more fulfilling, and better-paying jobs that machines can't perform. Working hours would be shortened, and people would have more time for education, creativity, and personal fulfillment. The wealth created by automation would be redistributed through progressive taxation and social programs, possibly including a universal basic income. Workers in developing countries would acquire skills and capital through temporary employment as robot operators, enabling them to transition into a diversified, modernized economy.
In a pessimistic scenario, automation would lead to massive job losses without creating sufficient new employment opportunities. The gains from automation would be concentrated among a small elite, while the majority of the population would face precarious employment, declining wages, and diminishing social mobility. Workers in developing countries would be exploited and then abandoned once their services were no longer needed. Social unrest, political instability, and growing inequality would characterize societies worldwide. The surveillance and control capabilities created by ubiquitous robotics would be abused by authoritarian regimes or corporations.
The reality will likely lie somewhere between these extremes, varying between countries and regions depending on their political decisions, economic structures, and social institutions. Some societies may manage successful transitions, with appropriate safety nets, retraining programs, and redistribution mechanisms. Others may fall into crises, with growing inequality and social tensions.
The need for proactive design
The remote-controlled robotics model, if actually implemented on a large scale, would embody these dynamics in a condensed form. It would take globalization to a new level by enabling physical labor across continents. It would create new forms of labor and exploitation. It would enable the collection of data on an unprecedented scale, thus paving the way for even more profound automation.
Given this outlook, proactive design rather than reactive adaptation is required. Governments, international organizations, civil society, and businesses must work together to create frameworks that maximize the benefits of this technology while minimizing its risks. This requires multiple levels of intervention. At the international level, treaties and agreements are needed that establish minimum standards for the employment of remote operators. These standards should include fair wages, reasonable working hours, health and safety protections, and the right to organize. The International Labor Organization could play a leading role here, similar to its efforts to regulate other forms of cross-border work.
At the national level, laws are needed to protect the rights of both local workers and remote operators. This could include imposing taxes or levies on remote services, the revenue from which is used to support retraining programs and social security for displaced workers. There could also be transparency and accountability requirements for platform companies, including disclosure of working conditions, data usage practices, and security safeguards.
Data protection regulations must be adapted to the specific challenges of remote-controlled robotics. Clear rules are needed regarding what data may be collected, how it is stored and used, who has access to it, and under what conditions. Users should have the right to know when they are being operated by a remote-controlled system and the opportunity to refuse. Operators should have the right to be informed about how their work data is used and, where appropriate, to participate in the value created by their training contributions.
The ethical dimension of innovation
Ultimately, this discussion isn't just about technology or economics, but about fundamental questions of ethics and the kind of society we want to build. Technological innovation isn't value-neutral. The decisions engineers, entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers make today will shape the social structures of tomorrow.
The model of remote-controlled humanoid robotics embodies both the promises and perils of technological progress. On the one hand, it offers the potential to make services more affordable and accessible, create new employment opportunities in developing countries, and pave the way for even more advanced automation. On the other, it threatens to create new forms of exploitation, destabilize local labor markets, and lead to a further concentration of power and wealth in a small number of global platform companies.
The question is not whether this technology will be developed, but how. Will it be developed and deployed in a way that respects the dignity and well-being of all involved? Or will it primarily serve short-term profit interests at the expense of social justice and sustainability? The history of technological development shows that the answer to this question is not predetermined. It depends on conscious decisions, political debates, social movements, and regulatory interventions.
In this sense, the discussion about remote-controlled robotics is also a discussion about the future of work, the nature of global economic relations, and the distribution of the benefits of technological progress. It is a discussion that should not be left to technologists and business leaders alone, but must involve all segments of society. Only through a broad, informed, and democratic dialogue can we ensure that the robot revolution is not only technologically impressive, but also socially just and humanly valuable.
The coming years will show whether Tesla's massive component order is indeed the prelude to a new global economic model or whether alternative development paths will prevail. What is already clear, however, is that the convergence of humanoid robotics, teleoperation, and global wage arbitrage has the potential to transform labor markets in ways that are both revolutionary and deeply disturbing. The challenge is to shape this transformation in a way that serves the common good, not just the interests of a few.
Your global marketing and business development partner
☑️ Our business language is English or German
☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!
Konrad Wolfenstein
I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.
You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital
I'm looking forward to our joint project.
