FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I searched CD for a thread with a similar topic and could not find one, so here we go. I was on YouTube viewing the Sronghold reveal once again so I could gauge field element scale and decided to browse through the comments this time. This isn't the first time I've started a thread with a possibly controversial topic with regard to YouTube comments, so please don't reply with something along the lines of "they're YouTube comments, what do you expect?" as this does nothing to contribute to the discussion. My post in 2013 titled "UNgracious UNprofessionalism" is the thread that I am talking about, and it turned into quite a heated discussion.

So here is the comment that I saw:

This is not the first time I've seen or heard someone refer to FRC robots as simply r/c cars. I don't wish to detail the short lived and sassy conversation between OP and another fellow FIRSTer about how OP was not impressed at how the robots had only a 15 second autonomous period, but this is what I had to reply:

My main reason for starting this thread is to ask this:

Do you, members of CD and the FIRST community, think that FRC Robots fit the definition of "robot" or are they just expensive, glorified, industrial r/c cars? I personally believe that these are robots of course!

What is your opinion, and what are the reasons for why FRC robots are indeed robots, or why they can be regarded as more r/c cars than robots?

I've made my case in my quoted comment, so what's yours?

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

They are "Human Dream and Inspiration Enablement Devices" but since that takes too long to say and explain I use the word "robot".

Much as wires, nuts, bolts, switches, relays, batteries and light bulbs launched me into a life of computers and electronic engineering; I'm taking these "robots" and helping launch kids today into the future. Was what I built then a "computer"? No, not by today's standard. But I helped build today's standard.

The roboteers I work with are going to build tomorrows standard. So if you are unhappy with us using the word "robot"(*) wait a few years to see what our inspired roboteers come up with. It's pre-future time, be part of it!

(*) And if you are unhappy about me using "robot", let me break your heart over what we've done to the word "cheesecake".

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Look, I'm a robotics engineer who works for robotics companies. If you get more than one robotics professional in a room, they'll all disagree on the definition of robot. The CEO of iRobot thinks a vending machine is a robot. I disagree. Drones are remote controlled, AUVs aren't, both are generally considered robots. FIRST robots definitely meet many commonly agreed upon definitions of robots. Some will disagree. Good for them. In my opinion, it's not worth arguing over.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

That's one way to put it. For those in FIRST, we tend to say "it's not all about the robot" because we know that the machines we build are mainly the catalyst for "Dream and Inspiration Enablement."

I argue that we do indeed use robots in our competition, but to spend too much time debating on whether or not these machines are robots is missing the point. I expect someone who is unaware of FIRST's model for inspiration to have more of a focus on the machines vs what they do for the students.

Even if FIRST was just an r/c car competition, you'd still be getting just the same out of the program. I too sometimes wonder about easier ways for someone outside FIRST to understand the "not all about robots" concept.

I don't think it's worth arguing over and taking too much time with someone who disagrees either, but it's more of the tone of those that I've seen or heard that mention the "r/c car" idea that can bug me a bit. It's used in a way that devalues FRC and takes credit away from the hard work of the students. It's less of "those machines are mainly remote driven" and more of "because these machines are remotely driven, this competition is of less value to me as a viewer."

Those who think this are likely in a very small minority though, but for the sake of curiosity, I'm still interested in how others would react to or have reacted to those who don't see the automation side of the teleoperated period.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Ask the police or bomb squads that use "robots" in their line of work. Many of our creations are more sophisticated than what they use. May not be as robust but more advanced technologically. Just sayin

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Autonomous says that is not correct.
Also teach pendants on industrial robots.
Look up the movie Metropolis and the word robot's etemology.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Yup, the root for "robot" is the Czech word "robota" meaning "forced labor"

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

So the question becomes. Who's really the robot? The students or the creation. :D

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

This is what we call snobbery, we are all guilty of some form of it. Never look outward for validation, you will be disappointed. Ignore the haters and build some robots.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

http://www.davincisurgery.com/

Is the "da vinci surgery" a robot? The biggest similarity between RC, First and it is that they are controlled by humans.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Others have said it above - there is no one agreement here. To add my two cents, as my work/career has evolved from teacher/FRC mentor toward "STEM/robotics education professional" (whatever the heck that may mean ;)), I've become increasingly more interested in defining these types of terms, especially for/within the confines of the K-12 robotics education market.

The "Standards-Based Robotics Competition Curriculum Development Framework" defines a robot as, "An electro-mechanical device that can perform tasks. A robot may act under the direct control of a human and/or autonomously under the control of a programmed computer."

The framework is a product of an NSF funded project (Abstract here: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0455835) that I was a part of and it was first published in 2006-07. The document is now used as a reference document for robotics education in many places, including here: https://resources.tstc.edu/j/BEST/pu...cs_Rubrics.pdf

Over the years since the Framework was established, my work has included a need to refine this definition so it's a little more easily understood, and the most recent iteration is a part of the VEX IQ Curriculum which defines a robot as "any man-made machine that can perform work or other actions normally performed by humans." The IQ Curriculum then goes on to break down three categories of robots: "teleoperated", "autonomous", and "hybrid".
pertinent information found here: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexiq/edu...at-is-robotics

Like others have said here, there are many folks who will disagree, define, and redefine based on their expertise, interest, and perspective. This is also an evolving field that is certain to keep undergoing change. However, from a K-12 education standpoint (and perhaps beyond), this is the best definition/explanation I can offer today :).

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

This etymology discussion belongs in the Chit-Chat forum and hopefully someone will reassign it.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Arguing etymology with the internet is pretty pointless. I get that you're trying to "make it loud", but I suggest you put your effort somewhere where it is more likely to have a positive outcome.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I agree with the posts above saying that with no agreed-upon definition of "robot," this discussion is pointless. One thing I would add is that even within FRC, there's a wide range of technical complexities. At the lower end, FRC robots really are just advanced RC cars: open-loop control, no autonomous functioning. At the high end, FRC robots have industry-quality control schemes, are tracking targets and scoring in them. Some definitions of robot could split FRC into multiple categories.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Seems like the comment is arguing semantics, much like the IACNAP campaign or It's-Cement-Not-Concrete guys.

If we abstract the comment a bit, it's like the person is saying "nothing is a robot until everything is a robot". There's always a human in the loop with robots, even the DARPA Grand Challenge bots. The GC bots simply had the human intervention at programming time versus realtime.

From a human capital perspective, teleop versus autonomous doesn't matter. For teleop, we spend the time controlling the robot. For autonomous, we spend the time wondering why the robot didn't do what we wanted it to do. In the end it's about the same. (edit - same time. The autonomous requires a different skill set altogether)

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Where does the idea come from that something has to be 100% autonomous to be considered a robot? Nobody is backing up that argument with really anything other than "because I said so".

I'm having trouble finding the thread, but there's a few from roughly 10 years ago with the same debate, where people concluded that nothing about being a robot prohibits a human from operating the machine at some point or another.

Finally, FIRST robots do indeed have autonomous operation in many ways. Not just the autonomous mode, but in the control loops and state machines that automate the shooters, elevators, and arms of the best robots in the community.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Haven't we seen a few FRC robots that don't even have wheels? :)

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Original discussion here. And Pinecone, it was only 6 years ago :)

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Great question! For a number of years, I led the Engineering Team of the Northrop Grumman's Unmanned Ground Vehicle Subsidiary (Remotec). Our "Robots" have been used by military and first responder bomb squads. These are teleoperated vehicles and save lives every day they are in use. They are called bomb squad robots. Autonomy is one facet of a robot's capability. " Self drive cars" are "cars" first. So I would take issue with anyone who claims that FRC Robots do not qualify as Robots. The autonomous period of a match demonstrates they are capable of achieving this goal also.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

1) Autonomous mode, is most certainly "robotic".

2) An activity based on an entire match of autonomous mode without the hands-on excitement and interpersonal communication of tele-op would attract - just guessing here - 3% of the kids currently involved in FIRST?

3) "“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

;) Just for fun ...

To keep any future debate lively, ask the debaters to find me an "autonomous" machine that isn't operated by something that is alive (biological wetware). I'll be surprised if they are successful. (1)

Someone usually operates (turns on and/or configures) "autonomous" machines.

Once an autonomous machine is configured and activated, in a very real sense it is equivalent to a rock I drop from my hand. (2)

Blake

Note 1: I'm setting aside debating whether any biological wetware machines spontaneously/randomly evolved out of previously inanimate matter.

Note 2: Typical autonomous machines certainly aren't like rocks in *every* way, there are plenty of differences; but in a philosophical debate ...

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

According to a 6 year old I once met at a demo, our FRC machine was not a robot because, "How can it be a robot if it doesn't have a face?"

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

^This kid gets it.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Trying to explain FIRST and FRC to my boss led to this sort of misunderstanding/disagreement. To him (and in our industry), these are robots:







A lot of principles apply but to this day I wonder if using the word "robotics" in my resume was a stretch considering the industry and that my boss may have felt i was overselling myself a bit (not that it matters, he likes my work for the most part). The definition of a word is what the speakers of the language deem it to be, and in automotive manufacturing, FRC ain't the definition of robotics (not to say they don't think we're cool).

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Can confirm. Work in IT. Spend lots of time with manufacturing companies, hospitals, energy companies, and more. Engineers do not agree on anything.

Robots have sensors for input right? Well, what is a controller if not a set of sensors for input? It's a silly debate.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

Forgive me if you've heard me say this before, but I think FIRST needs to make a game where there's a huge penalty for not moving at all during autonomous. The number of teams that do nothing in autonomous every year is ridiculous.

As an example rule, let's say that driver control doesn't begin until you leave the starting zone of the field. You can either make your robot drive a few feet or hope that your teammates come to push you out of the zone.

There's no team where turning on motors for a few seconds is out of reach. If they can't it's because they've prioritized something else.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I get the frustration that many of us feel when many robots don't move during autonomous. This rule at first glance sounds good, but there are some practical problems to think about. The first is that you would need to define the game in the right way to make this practical. In many games there is a substantial penalty when your robot interferes with another robot's autonomous mode. In others there are potentially really bad mistakes that can happen in autonomous that should be avoided. Some teams opt to do nothing not because they can't but because they don't want a mistake to cost their alliance. We have had sensors that prevented a collision during autonomous, making our robot not move very far.

Another consideration is that this rule will definitely lead to more matches (potentially many more) where robots sit and do nothing. There is nothing more frustrating in FRC competition, for any team but particularly for new teams, than having a dead robot.

Yet another consideration would be that sometimes the field communication system can mess up a team's autonomous mode. We had at least one match this year where another team not being able to connect to the field led to a reset of the communications. Our autonomous mode had been selected, but when the field reset this choice was lost. The robot did nothing, even though it was consistently scoring. We ended up losing that match 118-119. That was frustrating but nowhere near as frustrating as it would have been if as a result of a field reset we had not been able to move at all for the entire match.

I think if you want to increase the number of robots that do something in autonomous the best solution is to provide a sufficient incentive to get teams to do something. In general positive incentives tend to be more effective in game theoretic / behavioral economic motivation anyway. (Humans tend to underestimate the chance of events triggering negative consequences and overestimate the chance of events triggering positive consequences.)

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I think the GDC tried to implement something like this in 2015, and the result was that even fewer teams bothered with autonomous at all.

This year struck a good balance in my opinion. 2 points just for running motors a few seconds, and 3 more bonus points if you could just make it over a defense. I wouldn't mind seeing some form of disincentive for smashing into the opposing alliance wall at full speed though.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

My take:

If you don't leave zone X (in the right direction) by the end of auto, -2 points/robot AND temporary disadvantage. If you do leave, +5 points/robot. If you leave in the wrong direction, then that can be discussed later--game-dependent.

The temporary disadvantage would be that for 10 seconds, you are stuck in auto unless you leave the zone (by any means). At 10 seconds or zone exit, you're put into teleop.


That being said, points for running your motors is good, with more points for doing more being better. But I suspect that a mild point penalty for not moving in auto--and a piece of code, from FIRST, that is set up for "move so far"--would provide a large incentive to teams to make sure everybody moves in auto.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I like the way you're thinking. There's some room for creativity in the autonomous mode rules. It's rarely something other than gain a few points for completing easy objectives, more points for hard objectives, and a big penalty if you interfere with the other alliance.

As for the specifics, I like the idea of losing some points, and not just gaining them. In games with the scoring levels we've seen recently, 7 points probably isn't enough though. 2014 had 5 points for driving over a line and a lot of teams didn't do that. My first thought had been to make moving in auto worth like 50 points, but then that might make games where one partner was missing unwinnable from the get go. If instead there was a penalty for robots left in an area the alliance isn't totally hosed.

I also like the idea of a temporary disadvantage. This is something FIRST has done before. In the 2004 game if a certain action didn't happen in auto then gamepieces were held back for a certain number of seconds.

Also, as mathking brings up, there may be some teams that don't do anything for fear of messing things up. One way to reduce this is to eliminate penalties for interfering with the other teams during autonomous.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I think it's a good idea but at the same time I disagree. There have been matches where they start the match without us, even when we were banging on the glass, so we didn't get a chance to do auto since we didn't have time to select one, I'm notrying even sure if we had codecided loaded from the Rio, like I don't know if it was reading it. If they waited until everybody was ready like they are suppose to, it may work, but things can mess us and the auto on a robot may not start.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

I'm not sure that I totally understand what you mean, but couldn't you solve your problem by having a default that's not "do nothing"?

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

It was awhile ago so I don't remember it all but our default auto didn't work either. I wanna say we weren't connected to the field but it seems like they would have noticed the light. I was just trying to say in a world where everything worked as its supposed to, it would be a good idea but there are times where the field messes up.

Re: FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?
 

The problem we, and others, have had is that if you use the dashboard to select an autonomous mode, and the field has to be reset in order to get another robot to connect, you can lose your dashboard selection of autonomous mode. This happened to us at least once this year where when the reset happened we lost the selection and the drive team was unable to get the attention of the field crew to wait.

There are a number of different ways the the FMS to robot interaction can cause problems. (This is not a complaint about the FMS, so please let's not start that discussion in this thread.) Any sort of complicated communication system like that is going to have problems from time to time. I think that punishing a robot for not moving by making it not move for an even longer time is not the way to go. That would make one of the most frustrating situations in FRC, a robot that is unable to move, far more common. It would also disproportionately disadvantage inexperienced teams. Adding incentives to make it worthwhile to move is great. And avoiding game rules, such as we had in 2015, which encourage some teams to tell others not to move as a standard plan is also a good idea. But please let's try to not to increase the number of times robots can't move.