A Vice President at a humanoid robotics firm recently expressed extreme frustration after an article published by Wired drew attention to what the publication deemed unsettling aspects of the company’s robot fingers. The critique centered on how the marketing materials for the Neo, a new robot developed by Norwegian-American startup 1X, portrayed the machine.
The Wired Critique of 1X’s Neo Robot
Last week, *Wired* published an analysis of 1X and its Neo humanoid robot. While acknowledging that the marketing surrounding the device was “decidedly carnal,” the article noted that the robot’s hands were impressive, potentially matching or even surpassing human dexterity.
The article included specific commentary from *Wired* writer Boone Ashworth regarding a pattern he observed in 1X’s promotional content. Ashworth wrote about scenes featuring smooth jazz and soft lighting, where “the robo digits curl around a wine glass, turn off a light, unzip a jacket, and gently fondle some grapes.”
Ashworth questioned this marketing approach for a robot designed to function as an interface, noting that the Neo would initially feature remote human operators allowing interaction within a home environment. He stated: “Not to kink shame, but this is a strange strategy for selling a robot that can also become a portal for human operators to peer into and interact with the things in your home.”
VP Takes Issue Publicly on X
Despite being one of the less harsh reviews ever written about robotics, Dar Sleeper, Vice President of Product and Design at 1X, took Ashworth’s comments personally. Responding to the *Wired* piece on X-formerly-Twitter, Sleeper reacted strongly, criticizing the author and lecturing other tech journalists on journalistic conduct.
“I gave Wired the exclusive on our hands launch, and they wrote a really weird article about how we are sexualizing robotics,” Sleeper posted. He stated he felt “pretty betrayed” because this was not what he believed *Wired* had agreed to report on. Sleeper added that he noticed signs of “dishonesty and malice in the journalism community.”
Sleeper also disclosed sending a follow-up message to the writer, stating: “It was nice talking to you, but I wanted to let you know that I didn’t enjoy your article at all.” Furthermore, Sleeper posted an unrelated quote referencing other publications:
I would like to note that I believe both Financial Times, Forbes & Bloomberg to be incredible institutions. You guys are killing it and I respect your ability to always innovate when things are changing.— dar (@radbackwards) July 11, 2026
Sleeper continued his critique by saying that while he understands the need for inflammatory content to gain clicks today, journalists should still recognize “something special.” He concluded by regretting offering *Wired* the exclusive on what he described as one of history’s most significant technological advances and wished the writer luck with their remaining career.
Counter-Arguments from Tech Community
The executive’s highly public protest suggested that 1X was keen to control how the “sexualization” of humanoid robots was perceived. However, tech journalist Joshua Topolsky offered a counterpoint via Twitter, suggesting Sleeper had exaggerated the article’s scope.
Topolsky tweeted that the claim implied the entire piece focused on the robot attempting romance. Instead, he pointed out that Ashworth’s critique consisted of “roughly two paragraphs commenting on the marketing of the robot and the privacy issues of the Neo’s human control mode,” where a person would be remotely controlling the bot, potentially within private family settings.
Topolsky concluded by advising Sleeper: “I appreciate that the founder embraces journalism and expected a certain framing, but this post kind of exaggerates a rather positive and mild take on his product into something it’s not… If you want journalists to engage with your work, you must expect them to see things you might have missed. This seems to be one of those cases.”
