Only autonmous robots are real robots!
2008-02-13 19:12
Whatching TV, some guy displayed some "installation art", with a "robot horse", some mechanics controlled by electronics, looking oh so funny.
"That´s not a robot", I said.
"Why is noone elses robots but yours entitled to be called a real robot", my wife said.
I tried to explain to her, that what we just saw on TV was an installation, not an autonomous robot!
It is jus tlike "Robot Wars".. These things are NOT "robots" in my terms. They are "Remote controlled things"!
The "robot-magic" happens when you let some logic control mechanics, based on input, and the mechanics change the environment that again resoults in new, not pre-programmed inputs to the logic, that then..
Then you have robot-life!
Then you have an autonomous robot.
Then you have a real robot
(in my terms :)
- fritsl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- by fritsl
Definitions
I have always defined a human-like machine that acts on its own as a robot. Appearantly, what I was thinking about is in reality an android.
In this case, I agree - why are autonomous and rc-controlled machines both defined as robots? I don't think that my RC-car is a robot. If anything, it's a machine.
Actually, there should be a new definition for robots that act independently, that don't need any assistance moving around or so. "Robot" doesn't cut it when "Robot" could define anything mechanical that reacts on outside events. The "real robot". Some autonomous robots I've seen are simply cars that drive around, are those robots? What is a robot? And what are those things refered to as "robots"?
Hi Scorp-Ion :D
- how cool to have you in here :D Thanks for joining!
I have no problem with a car just driving around being "a robot". Autonomous is what cut´s it for me.
Simply the programmer / creator should not have set up what it should do, but set it up to sense, and act acordingly, based on "Purpose" rather than "strict code".
So - IMHO a line-follower CAN be a "an autonomous robot". Not if it is coded so it has fixed values, and needs calibration, but if it adapts to the circumstanses, and allways just tries to recognize "a line", and drive on it etc..
Perhaps we should make an official definition with A, B anc C's.. if it really matters.. But then again perhaps what matters is to have fun, as long as my wife could only understand why every electo-mechanical device is NOT "just the ones I make" ;)
Frits
Thanks man
Thanks man ;)
Maybe my definition of a 'robot' is a little skewed and I may have been watching too many movies.
A definition & My 2 cents
According to Webster, a robot is:
1 a: a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
b: an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
[It's derived from a czech word - kewl, have a look yourself]
For a less linguistic and more nerdy definition, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
When I first read your discussion I felt that to me the sensory devices were what set a robot apart from other machines. Now I think the requirement that it be programmable is the killer.
A remote controlled device 'senses' it's input in some form, even if it is a stream of simple radiotransmitted commands (like 'move forward'). Does a robot need to have more than one source of input to be a robot? Does a pressuresensor, hooked up to the fender on a remote controlled car, that triggers a crashing noise when the car hits an obstacle, make it a robot (seeing as it now has two sources of input or senses)? Is it impossible, by definition, to have a robot without sensory devices?
Damn... define programmable ;)
THE TRUTH: 2, 6, 12 + self-impact = Autonomous Robot Life!
Here is the truth! (No humble stuff here)
"Does a robot need to have more than one source of input to be a robot?" Yes. Unless this one source is mixed. But only one allways makes it very simple. Very. Dumb, usually. In the grey zone! Also it depends on the source: If the source is only "on/off", then it is not a robot, merely a cofee machine.
The inputs needs to be from at least 2 different sources, have at least 6 different variations. And choise of the robot needs to be made from at least 12 different variations. And most important; The choise that the robot makes must be of a kind that can affect the next inputs to the robot.
Why 2, 6, why 12, why the need to have impact on next input? Because this is how it is! It is the universal truth!
If you have ever made a robot, you can allways hold it against the above proclaimed law of Fritsl, and you will agree; Either you did have that feeling of it being autonopmous and alive (and it passed the above test) or it did not feel autonomous, and did not pass the test, you where never in contact with creation of autonomous independance, it was not alive, it was stupid, just a complicated coffeemachine, dead.
"Is it impossible, by definition, to have a robot without sensory devices?" Yes!
"Does a pressuresensor, hooked up to the fender on a remote controlled car, that triggers a crashing noise when the car hits an obstacle, make it a robot (seeing as it now has two sources of input or senses)?" No - it has no choise, no logic other than On/off, and its output does not have the ability to change the next input, and so it is just a switch!
"b: an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically" - Hey, then I am a robot in the morning!
"2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks" - Hey, then I am a robot in the rest of the day!/ Frits