I spent five years building a room-scale robot.
Now I’m working to place that capability into more people’s hands.
Where it started
This began as a personal mission.
I have always wanted to build things.
Long before this project existed, I was drawn to inventing, creating, and trying to turn ideas into physical objects that could do something useful. I wanted to understand how things worked deeply enough that I could eventually make things of my own.
But I followed the traditional path.
I went to college, studied engineering, and entered the workforce. I had considered continuing my education, but there comes a point when the economic realities of building a life begin to make certain decisions for you. I needed to earn a living, become financially independent, and start moving forward in the ways adults are generally expected to move forward. So I left school, found a job, and began building a conventional engineering career.
There was nothing inherently wrong with that path. It gave me experience, stability, and a practical understanding of how products are developed in the real world.
But a few years into it, I began to realize that it might not be the right path for me.
What I had always wanted was not simply to work near people who created things. I wanted to be the person creating them. I wanted the freedom to follow an idea far enough to find out whether it could become something real.
I also felt that, although engineering had taught me how to approach problems, I had never gone deeply enough into any one field to feel genuinely capable within it. Engineering is broad by nature. It teaches you how to think, investigate, and solve problems, but that breadth can also leave you feeling as though you know a little about many things without truly mastering any of them.
I wanted to change that.
I decided to choose one difficult field and go deep enough that I could eventually call myself capable—not because a degree or job title said so, but because I had built something that required the knowledge to be real.
I chose robotics.
Robotics brought together nearly everything that interested me: mechanical design, electronics, fabrication, software, controls, motion, and the challenge of making all those systems work together. It was broad enough to keep me curious, but demanding enough that I could spend years developing real depth.
The next question was what to build.
I did not want to make a small demonstration whose only purpose was to prove that I could make a robot move. I wanted to build something ambitious enough to matter—something that could address a real gap between the sophisticated equipment available to major companies and the comparatively limited tools available to ordinary individuals.
Filmmaking and content creation made that gap especially visible.
At the professional end of the industry, extraordinarily capable robotic camera systems already existed, but they were expensive, specialized, and designed for studios with large budgets and experienced crews. At the accessible end, creators had sliders, tripods, gimbals, and smaller motion-control systems—useful tools, but tools fundamentally limited by their size, reach, and intended market.
There was very little in between.
I began asking whether one person could build a system that helped bridge that divide: a robotic camera platform with genuinely advanced movement and repeatability, but built from accessible components and designed around the needs of individuals, independent creators, and small studios.
Could a camera move anywhere in a room without filling the floor with equipment? Could it be repositioned naturally by hand, save and recall shots, follow subjects, and eventually do the work of several conventional camera systems? Could equipment that normally belonged only to large productions be made attainable, understandable, repairable, and adaptable enough for ordinary people to own?
And could one independently built system change what people believed was possible in filmmaking and content creation?
That question became Open Motion Studio.
What began as a personal effort to become genuinely capable in robotics gradually became something larger: an attempt to close the distance between hobbyist equipment and advanced industrial systems—and to prove that powerful creative tools do not have to remain exclusive to companies with enormous budgets.
Roughly five years later, the first working answer is hanging from my kitchen ceiling.
The Belief
AI is the inheritance of all of us.
Human knowledge is inherited.
Every builder begins with tools, language, research, standards, examples, and discoveries created by people who came before. AI makes that inheritance unusually visible by placing a vast amount of accumulated knowledge directly inside the creative process.
I think that should lead to humility and reciprocity—not the conclusion that creators must surrender everything they make.
I call the principle Open Inheritance:
When inherited knowledge dramatically expands what we are capable of creating, we should look for meaningful ways to return capability, understanding, opportunity, or improvement to the wider world.
That return can take many forms. It may mean teaching the process, documenting failures, releasing useful components, contributing improvements, designing for repair, supporting open standards, or creating an attainable product where none previously existed.
Open Inheritance is not a demand that every creator abandon ownership, patents, licensing, or commerce.
It is a challenge to make sure that what we build contributes something outward—and that ownership is used to spread useful capability rather than merely restrict it for only personal or corporate gain.
Why it matters
We have seen what happens when powerful tools move from institutions into individual hands.
Personal computers did not matter merely because more people could purchase computers. They mattered because ordinary people could use them to create software, businesses, art forms, industries, and entirely new ways of working.
Robotics, digital fabrication, accessible electronics, online manufacturing, and AI-assisted development are creating another such moment.
The components already exist. The processing power already exists. The knowledge is increasingly accessible.
The remaining question is whether these capabilities will be concentrated inside a few companies—or distributed among individuals, workshops, studios, small businesses, and communities capable of using them for their own purposes.
Open Motion Studio is my attempt to test the distributed version of that future.
What happens next
The first working prototype exists. Turning it into something other people can build, buy, modify, or meaningfully contribute to is a different challenge.
That transition requires mechanical refinement, software packaging, documentation, testing, supply-chain work, manufacturing input, community coordination, and sustained development time.
I have funded the first five years myself. I have now reached the point where the project needs more people and more resources than I can provide alone.
Support may take several forms:
Engineers and developers can challenge the design and improve the system.
Creators, filmmakers, and podcasters can identify the workflows and use cases that actually matter.
Manufacturers and suppliers can help simplify, standardize, source, and produce the hardware.
Sponsors, supporters, and commercial partners can fund the work required to turn a private prototype into something other people can use.
And anyone who would want such a system can register that interest. Real demand will help determine whether the next form should be an open build, a kit, a manufactured product, a partnership, or some combination of them.
The direction will be shaped by who shows up.
My commitment is not to give every part of the project away regardless of circumstance. My commitment is to pursue a model that places meaningful capability into more hands while sustaining the work needed to make that possible.
Intentionism
None of this happened by accident.
It came from choosing the work, protecting the time, accepting uncertainty, and continuing on a road I could have left years earlier.
That is what Intentionism means to me: examining the defaults, choosing a direction deliberately, and organizing your actions around the future you believe is worth building.
It is not a claim that every choice will be correct. It is a refusal to live entirely by inheritance, convention, or momentum.
Open Motion Studio is one example of that philosophy made physical.
I do not have every answer about what the project should become. But I believe it is better to build an honest starting point, invite the right people into the work, and discover the answer through action.
Building Open Motion Studio did more than produce one machine. It gave me a tool—and a body of knowledge—that I can now use to create other things.
After five years of highly concentrated technical work, I am allowing the project to enter a period of evaluation while I listen for genuine interest, look for the right collaborators, and determine how its next phase should be organized. In the meantime, I intend to use the system for what it was built to do: film ideas, demonstrate products, and expand what one independent creator can produce.
Open Motion Studio will continue, but it does not need to consume every form of work that follows it. Intentionism is meant to be large enough to hold the robot, the products it helps create, and the other ideas I have not had room to pursue yet.