Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

The other day I had a conversation with some people after giving a demonstration of our robot, and they said that if someone drove it, it wasn't a robot. They felt that the only difference between our robot and an RC car was that ours costs a lot more, and if our "robot" was a robot, then why not your car or even a microwave. Your car does more without you knowing than most FIRST robots, and all you need to do for a microwave is press start.

My questions are:

Does the 10s autonomous mode make it a robot?

Does the fact that its for a competition make it a robot?

Or, are we just making expensive RC cars?

If none of these are true what do we spend 6 weeks doing?


I was curious what other people thought of this.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

We're making expensive RC cars that slowly are becoming real robots with the introduction of more autonomous challenges.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

So Cory is right.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Robot: see definition in Wikipedia.
EDIT:

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

robot n 1. A mechanical device that resembles a human being and is capable of preforming human tasks or behaving in a human manner. 2. A person who works mechanically without original thought. 3. A machine or device that works automatically or by remote control.

So by definition 3 above, our robots are robots. Cars are not robots as they do not work by remote control (cars you and I drive). Microwaves could be a robot I guess.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

My answer: It depends. If you're fielding a robot without any autonomous or pre-programmed trickery, then no, it's not a robot.

But with the advent of the CMUcam getting real competition use, I think we're seeing more and more robots that are, well, robots. It's even starting to spread beyond autonomous mode, with some teams trying to put aiming and even firing control this year in the hands of their RCs (with the humans only butting in when they have to), or automating an approach to the corner goal to get any doors to drop at the right distance away.

Now, how robot will the robots be next year? One can only guess--but this year was a pretty good year for them.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

We spend 6 weeks (minimum) inspiring students of all ages to "get into" science & technology.

The Robot, whether it is a real "robot" or not by definition is only the vehicle for the overall goal.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Remember, the MARS rovers also use human input to drive, but use sensors and other things to make it easier. I'd say now, if you are using the cameras and other sensors, then yes, it's a robot. If you have a box that dumps balls and doesn't move during auton, then no.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

i believe yes. why? it is a mahine designed to complete a task without direct physical contact from an outside source ie a human. so based on this an rc car is a robot lacking in manipulator.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Whoops.... Mike all ready pointed out the definition. Anyway, they are definately robots.
No. The definition is lacking. Teleoperated robots are capable of making decisions and doing actions independent of the operator.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

If in fact we are not building robots, does that make our work any less important or inspirational?

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

I would agree with you if we were talking about the earlier generations of cars, which were purely mechanical devices. However, I think most cars nowadays do fall under the category of being a robot. Most cars have advanced computer systems and sensors incorperated into their mechanical systems. The computers and sensors enhance it's ability to drive well, and also monitor for possible problems. Every day, it seems like cars are becoming more intelligent. Have you seen the commercials for the Lexus LS460? This car can park all by itself, with minimal human input. And of course, lets not forget the DARPA Grand Challenge!

The key to determining whether or not something is a robot is whether or not it has artificial intelligence. Any device which recieves input, interprets that input, and makes appropriate output based on those decisions - has artificial intelligence and is a robot. Purely mechanical devices are not robots, even if they are powered electrically by an on/off switch (that is operated by a human). However, if the device can gather data, and make independant decisions based on that data - it is a robot.

Under this classification, many everyday devices that we would not normally think of as robots - are in fact, robots. My answering machine, cell phone, thermostat, washing machine, computer, air conditioner, etc. - are all robots.

FIRST robots and RC cars are robots too. They take a radio signal, process it, and make intelligent output decisions based on the information it is given. Even if the output is merely to turn a motor on - it is still a robot because it has the intelligence (controls system) to convert a radio signal to a mechanical movement. It may not seem very advanced, but a device need not be complex to be considered a robot. It needs only one, basic characteristic - artificial intelligence (taking an input, thinking about it, and making an appropriate output).

--Jaine

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

just cause it doesn't move during auto doen't mean its not a robot

the way I define a robot is something that takes electronic data, interprets it with a macro/microcomputer, then with mechanical devices manipulates physical objects

well what is the OI other than a set of electronic sensors(analog sensors and digital sensors)
the way I see it is the OI sends data to the robot then the robot interprets the data and does something physical

is a airplane a robot . . yes(the new ones with the fly by wire thing)
is a RC car a robot . .yeah why not
is a microwave a robot . . yes . .but only if it has a spinning tray(otherwise its purely electronic)

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Agreed... Mike is right on here.

I've talked to various people at demos and such who think FIRST is no big deal because they think that FRC robots are not real robots. After talking a few minutes about autonomous modes and some of the programming and sensing challenges involved, some of these people still think that FRC 'bots are not robots. Then, I mention the whole mentoring and inspiration part of FIRST.

At that point, if they STILL want to argue that FRC does not involve robots, but rather remote-controlled devices, I agree with them and hope they don't ever get involved. Mabye I'm quick to judge here, but if someone is that hung up on a simple definition and can't see the point of the program, then we're probably better off without them.

AB

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

What’s in a name? That which we call a robot, by any other word would smell of magic smoke.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

If it smells of magic smoke, it is a robot? I would think if it smells like magic smoke it used to be a robot. :p

Wetzel

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

FLL's got robots!

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Yeah, they do. No teleoperation there. Well, maybe a little bit of dead reckoning, or point-and-shoot.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Much like the piece of paper inserted into a golem's mouth made it live, the magic smoke makes our bots live.

Personally, I think we're just one power surge at Nationals away from having a couple dozen Johnny Fives.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Thats true.

Does it make sense that the FLL robots made mostly by middle school students are autonomous, but the FRC robots, build by high school students and real engineers, aren't?

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

As Woodie or Dave said at kickoff a couple years ago, "We know autonomous is hard - that's why we make FLL do it."

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Couple dozen, more like a couple hundred! :D

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

You kind of need to think about the games that each plays. FLL plays games by themselves while FRC bots compete both with and against other bots.
Programming autonomous for just your own bot is one thing, making it have to interact with the 5 other bots on the field is another.;)

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Let's see how well those FLL robots can do autonomously when there's 5 other robots on the field, and game objects which roll around and are effectively in random locations all the time... :cool:

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

<off topic>
lets give FLL mplab... the CMUcam, a few gyros, ultrasonic rangefinders, geartooth counters, IR rangefinders, limit switchs, and potentiometers. We'll just see how much their robots will do then.
</off topic>

I say if it still has magic smoke inside of it, and is capable of at one point releasing that magic smoke, its a robot.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

If we are not building robots, then I have blown the last twelve years under a serious misconception.

Of course our robots are robots.

Pick the Robot!
 

Which of these is a robot?

Yeah, most of us would agree that these are robots. But what about this one?


In the life science field, the Beckman Biomek FX is called a robot - a liquid handling robot, to be precise. While we're handling things, is this a robot?


According to the manufacturer, it is.
All of those were pretty well planted in one place, but how about this little guy?


Yep - they call it a robot, even when it's being driven by students.
Well, if that's a robot, I ask you, how can this not be one?



Disclaimer: I've worked with robots for most of my career, starting with Unimation 6-axis arms in the 1980's up through today with lab robots like the Biomek. Even turned a 40 ft long bridge crane into a remote vision and control "robot" for a nuclear waste processing study for the Department of Energy. Whether a 'bot was under pre-programmed control, adaptive autonomous control, telerobotic operation or operated by a teach pendant, they were all robots. Except for the little Puma 260, FRC robots are the most versatile and fun of them all!

Re: Pick the Robot!
 

Whatever it might be called...
1. If one kid stays in school because of First... its worth it.
2. I wonder if the people raising this question could build one themselves.
3. Its better than watching MTV all afternoon.
4. Its awesome to see your hard work in action.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Some people would say that a robot must have at least one sensor; or, the robot can in some way extract information from its environment and respond to it.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Actually I guess I just repeated what you said, but not everyone would agree with that definition of artificial intelligence.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

I dont know about you but i've never seen an RC car with the following AUTOMATIC features:

> Auto Targeting
> Auto Firing
> Dynamic Braking
> Sensors/Limit Switches
> Logical semi-automatic operation (such as ball elevators with escapements)
> Autonomous operation, even if it is short.

There's no way you can call these things big RC cars, especially the ones from this year. I'd also like to add that it would be nice to see an increase in the autonomous time limit, maybe to 20s~30s....

-Q

Re: Pick the Robot!
 

Wow IBM 7545's, we got one of these on loan from Antenen Robotics to use at our robotics club (seperate from team). Didnt know anybody was still using these for actual production, great data drive robot if you take the time to write the serial driver.

I know its off topic, but what the hey.... :rolleyes:

-Q

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

yeah about that, the magic smoke typacly means death to the bot, especially where electronics are concerned. but nice analogy.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/portal.php?
 

Because Lego robots don't turn into a massive disaster if you misprogram it.

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/portal.php?
 

Well, neither should ours if its built well enough; however, they may cause a huge mess if not programmed correctly. :yikes:

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/portal.php?
 

Well by disaster I mean everything besides the robot well be in danger.:)

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/portal.php?
 

Yeah, I misunderstood your first post.:o

That happened to us in '05 we were testing auto mode and the robot took off into all the desks in the classroom while we scrambled trying to turn it off.:ahh:

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

Yes, they are robots. And i agree with boiler, even if we're not, does it really matter. we are all still learning valuable life lessons

Re: Are FIRST robots actually robots?
 

I don't think it really matters but if people really have issues calling them robots then they can label them a MOI.
Mechanism Of Inspiration.