Re: Are they really robots?
 

It seems that defining the term "robot" is just as hard as defining the term "life." :D

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Let's not leave out the Web's wonderful definition source "Wikipedia".

"A robot is an automatically guided machine which is able to do tasks on its own, almost always due to electronically-programmed instructions. Another common characteristic is that by its appearance or movements, a robot often conveys a sense that it has intent or agency of its own."

I like to tell my students that a robot is a device, or system, that performs planned tasks based on it's programming and input from sensors that sense it's environment, automatically.
A robotic devise, on the other hand, reacts to real-time inputs from humans and it's sensors and performs tasks based on programming and those inputs.

Now I don't claim that this is a definition of the two, but I do believe it is a fair representation.

That being said, I believe it is also fair to say that as long as the "robot" functions in autonomous mode, it is both a robot and can function as a robotic device.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I have to ask, what is the relevance of this?

Does the fact that this machine is not totally autonomous mean that I have learned less? Is the knowledge that I gained obsolete? Am I less of a person making less of a contribution because the robot is not a robot?

MY answer is no. I say that I will not let this molehill derail anything that I have done or am doing or will do.

What, in the real sense of things, does this thread add that cannot be gained from a water game thread?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think there are different definitions of robot and robotic and they are evolving. As far as robots only being autonomous what about robotic surgery that is completely controlled by the surgeon?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think I agree with rtfgnow. This debate isn't really that important. (Although this is a debate that I have often with some of my friends!)

What I learn in FIRST (and VEX) is applicable to the "real world" and that is really all I care about. Whether I am making a true robot or just programming an R/C car doesn't matter. What matters is the discipline learned in documenting my work and the mindset of a programmer that I have learned. FIRST has succeeded in its goal of inspiring and recognizing science and technology. Whether or not it uses "real" robots is irrelevant.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Tom,

I'm not sure exactly where I was going either. This was similar to a line of questioning posed to me today and I just wanted to get some opinions and responses from the CD community as I don't think I was able to express my thoughts on the matter very well.

In general, I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread. Whether they are robots or robotic systems is irrelevant. We are not trying to provide the end-all-be-all of robotics education, FIRST is merely a launching point for those interested in pursuing careers in robotics, science or technology. Students can then add to their knowledge through college and potentially other competitions that may be more "pure" robots.

Thanks for the input guys, I appreciate it.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I took a look at the website of a maker of military and police/bomb disposal robots today after I made my earlier post. If "robot" is defined as it was above, that manufacturer would be guilty of false advertising.

I think what has really happened is that the definition of robot has expanded (again--after all, it used to be only used for human-resembling mechanical creations) and the robotics industry as a group has been slow to recognize that fact (with the exception of some manufacturers who push the new definition). Dictionaries are even slower to recognize the change officially.

I think the best term if you want to be totally correct is "semi-autonomous robot". It's a robot, but it relies on operator interface.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think it is a matter if perspective. All robots require output, analysis and input to perform it's functions. Some use an integral computer or computers and are hard wired into the device. Some use a Bio-chemical-electronic computer (our brain)and are connected by radio waves. To my mind, same net result, though it may be much harder to control via the later in some aspects.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Short answer: They're robots.

Long answer: Even if some machines used in the FIRST Robotics Competition are not true robots, the vast majority employ enough of the characteristics of a what a reasonable person would consider a "robot" that as a group they are collectively referred to as robots.


P.S. Don't listen to dictionaries for definitions of technical subjects. Technology moves faster than their editorial committee can vote on new word definitions. For example, look up agile or waterfall in a dictionary. You'll see nothing remotely related to software engineering.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Here is an easy way to defuse the situation. Agree with the questioner.

Answer "No - They aren't robots in many traditional senses of the word. However, we really don't care. That aspect of what we do is not central to the outcome of the program. Saying that we build machines instead of saying that we build robots would not be an important change. Now, lets talk about something important..."

FMC? (FIRST Machinery Competition)

Blake

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I was waiting for someone to say something like that! :)

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Do not share this with that someone in the robotics industry. He may begin to wonder wheather he is really human. :rolleyes:

Re: Are they really robots?
 

According to a display I saw at the Indiana State Fair two months ago, robots have four distinct components:

1. Sensors
2. Controller/Program
3. Kinematics/Mechanisms
4. Actuators/Motors

FRC, FTC, FLL, and VRC have these (I presume BEST and NURC and BattleBots and BunnyBots and the litany of other competitions do too, but I've never personally seen them).

A generally accepted definition of a robot is a machine that reacts to its environment through the use of sensors, actuators, mechanisms, and programmed control. For all the aforementioned competitions - Check.

As for the teleop/autonomous argument, I see no difference between those. Does it really matter if the sensor used by the robot is a potentiometer, ultrasonic device, or joystick? They're all inputs, are they not? There's no direct causation between pushing a joystick forward and the robot moving in a forward direction. The program still has to interpret input data and react accordingly.

To a robot, a human is as much its environment as a soccer ball, vision target, or diamondplate wall, so to force such a distinction simply for the sake of definition would be unnecessary.

Are they robots? Sure. Does it matter if they're not? Other than semantics, not really.

For our next exercise, we should define Beauty and Truth. :)

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Autonomy is not the only discriminator on whether or not something is a robot.

My washer and dryer use a variety of sensors and pre-programmed instructions to wet my clothes, dispense detergent, rinse them, and dry them automatically until they have reached a certain level of dryness. Yet they are not called robots.

At the same time, EOD (explosive ordinance disposal, ie. bomb defusing) robots are (currently) almost always teleoperated, yet the military, industry, and academia call them robots far more often than not.

As it turns out, it is easy to come up with counter examples to any cut-and-dry "is it or isn't it a robot" rule. The higher the levels of physical agency (mobility and manipulation within/of the environment), mental agency (automatic controls, feedback, and reactive behaviors), and anthropomorphism or zoomorphism (the more they physically or functionally resemble a living organism), the more likely something is to be agreed upon as a robot, but it's hard to unambiguously draw the separators.

I recommend that people read the following two Wikipedia pages, which have excellent discussions on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerobotics

My personal opinion is that a large number of FIRST robots have enough (a) physical agency to manipulate and maneuver through an environment, (b) mental agency via autonomous mode and sensor-guided control (via onboard or offboard - ex. joystick - sensors), and (c) functional resemblance to a human or animal - e.g. a soccer or basketball player - to be considered "robots" and not just "machines" or "systems" (an even more ambiguous term).

Re: Are they really robots?
 

^ Yeah, what Jared said. It seems pretty interesting to me that wherever you visit or whomever you speak with in the vastly diverse world of the "robotics industry" you find very intelligent, invested people who tend to call their own gizmos "robots" and other people's robots "gizmos." (please go find George Carlin's bit about "stuff" on the internet if you don't know what I mean :))

I remember being in a similar, and equally amusing, conversation about what "music" is when Rap was becoming more prevalent in the mainstream about 18 years ago.

It would seem to me the conversation here is more about preconceived notions and the widely held misconception that anyone, with their limited viewpoint, no matter how awesome he/she is, can fully define a rapidly evolving "industry" such as this one.

....and if this is REALLY, "...being harmful and preying on the ignorance of the average high school student," someone please explain Tina Haskins' success story (and the growing number of so many FIRST alumni who are doing incredible things in the industry today) to me.