Are they really robots?
 

I was having a discussion today with someone in the robotics industry today that brought to the forefront a question that had been in the back of my mind for a while. The question is "Are we really building robots?" The issue being that our creations are primarily teleoperated.

He suggested that by emphasizing the mechanical and electrical aspects of our creations to the detriment of software that FIRST and associated vendors are being harmful and preying on the ignorance of the average high school student to what a "robot really is".

I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this topic. I'll wait a bit before I post mine here.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Yes we are building robots but in a simple way. We are using sensors and other things to build objects that move on their own. We have a autonomous period too. Could we do better? I think so otherwise you could call it an expensive and very"smart" (can't think of another word) remote control car. My dad installs AS/RS machines and even though mostly autonomous they have user control and they way they go about it isn't much different than the way we do, we just have different operations. If you don't want to admit it's a full robot than maybe a "dumb" robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

This has been brought up before, a few years ago. There's a couple of old threads on the topic. (I'm just too lazy to go look them up right now.)

Now, I'm going to counter that question with a simple question: If an industrial robot (say, for example, an automotive welder) is taught what it is supposed to do by being guided through its motions and then told, "OK, go do this and tell us if you break down" is not a robot when it is guided through its operation (because that involves direction from an operator), then should we say that whoever is marketing it as a robot is lying?

Or how about the Mars rovers? Do those count? After all, they are guided by human controllers here on earth. They just have a lot of autonomy over what they do--but they're still controlled.

I could go on with the list--PackBot and Talon come to mind, as do some flying unmanned "robots"--but if you're going to call our creations not robots, then you need to be prepared to call out all of the above as not robots as well. Just because something is remotely operated does not mean that it is not a robot.

Either that, or everybody is being fooled, not just high school students.

It may also be that the term "robot" has a wider meaning these days, probably because there isn't a nice short term for "smallish remotely-controlled device that moves around and does stuff".

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I wonder if he/she read the same article I did before starting this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=86445

Re: Are they really robots?
 

No.

They are glorified r/c cars.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Definitely remote controlled death machines. We get 0:15 to autonomously run it, but overall it's human-controlled.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I guess the way to answer this is what is a robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

A common definition of "robot" is a machine that that senses the world around it and uses this information to interact with the world in a way that it appears intelligent to an observer. So by this definition, most FIRST "robots" are not robots as w/o a constant stream of human input, they won't do much. I agree with the term "glorified RC cars."

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Citation please. The value of this definition changes if it is from wikipedia, Marium-Webster, an engineering dictionary or yourself.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Ok, so the general consensus seems to be trending towards most teams (of course there are always exceptions) building glorified RC cars. So the next question is, "Is that a bad thing?" Are we doing a disservice to the industry and to the students by promoting this as a robot competition?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

What IS a robot? Are the DARPA Vehicles a robot? Is a military drone a robot? The only thing that I can think of that I would classify as a robot 100% are the ABB / Fanuc / etc robots we have in our plant. They are built using the same basic components we use in FIRST - servos, encoders, camera, and closed loop computer control.

Much like autonomous mode, the robots rarely run longer than 15 seconds in any one program, and many of them require frequent human interaction. Oh - and they have no legs.

Every one of the technologies the kids learn in FIRST are applicable to the Robotics field - from business to cad to the controls sytems and the manufacturing.

I have no problem calling a FIRST robot a robot.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

The New Oxford American Dictionary states this -

robot |ˈrōˌbät; ˈrōbət|
noun
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, esp. one programmable by a computer.

Merriam-Webster Online -

Definition of ROBOT
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

Based on both of these it appears for the most part we aren't building "robots" as most teams focus on teleoperation rather than autonomous in my experience. However, given that many of our robots are equipped with senors to provide autonomous function we do have "robots" during the autonomous mode even if they drive in a straight line.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I've taken a few robotics courses at CMU and have talked with a few of the professors in the robotics institute. What I stated pretty much reflects their opinion. This is coming from some pretty respected names in the robotics field such as Manuela Veloso and "Red" Whittaker.

I don't think it is a bad thing that FIRST robots are not really robots. The goal of FIRST is to change our culture into thinking that science and technology are really cool. If the rules changed to ban/greatly reduce teleoperation, then the games will have to be really simplified as making a "smart" AI is really hard. The game would be much less accessible as 1) programming AIs is really frustrating and teams w/o a strong foundation in programming would really struggle to arrive at anything useful and 2) the game will be much slower paced and probably be perceived as boring by the audience watching the game. Compare a FIRST match to a Robocup match using the NAO humanoids. It would be nice though if FIRST gave larger incentive to successfully doing autonomous. I don't think FIRST will ever be able to go completely autonomous anytime in the near future but if a team is able to go above and beyond in implementing autonomous, why not reward them?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I don't actually compete in FRC, but I am doing FLL and VRC (and I'm still deciding if doing both in the same season was smart :rolleyes:)

My thoughts:
Are the machines built in FRC really robots during the autonomous period?
From what I've read here, I think the consensus would be "yes."

Are the machines built in FRC really robots during the driver operated period?
Debatable.

What changed?
Only the controller changed: In autonomous, the machine is self-guided. In driver operation, the machine is guided by the human.

Therefore, at what point does everyone agree that a machine turns into a robot?
When the machine is autonomous

Conclusion:
The machines built in FRC are "true/real" robots only during autonomous mode, but in driver operated mode, they are just highly sophisticated, computer aided, remote controlled machines.

FIRST is not "being harmful and preying on the ignorance of the average high school student to what a 'robot really is.'" In actuality, FIRST is exposing students to the challenge of building a "real" robot (at least for autonomous mode), while still keeping the majority of the challenge "easy" enough for non-programmers. This encourages rookies that "Hey, I can do this too!" but still allows more advanced teams to create increasingly complex programmatic aids for the driver.

Sorry for the long post... I'm normally succinct (engineer-like), but I felt that this deserved a little more time.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I guess the dishwasher in our kitchen is a robot, but the NURC underwater robot notBob sitting in the living room isn't. But the HERO 2000 next to notBob is. Sometimes.

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.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I remember being in 3rd grade and talking to my parents about the definition of a robot. What we came up with has agreed with just about everyone I've talked to about it:

A robot is a machine that is controlled through a programmable computer, that is capable of autonomous or pre-programmed behavior, but it can also be "tele-operated" (to borrow a FIRST term).

I would argue that FRC does build robots, even if they are not fully-autonomous, machine-learning, bajillion-integrated-sensor robots that require tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and years of development to fine-tune.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

We teach high school students to build Cyborgs.

"self-regulating human-machine systems" - 1960 Clynes & Kline.

Our human-machine entities are joined at the joystick...

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I always thought robots were reprogrammable machines... But TBH, the ones we make seem like just complex RC machines

Re: Are they really robots?
 

In the WPI Robotics Engineering Department, the general (read: boiled down) definition of the robot is a machine that can sense the world, make "decisions", and act upon the world.

IMHO FIRST robots are true robots in that sense during the :15 of autonomous. However, many robots continue to use sensors throughout teleoperated. So, while they're not entirely autonomous, they're still performing autonomous tasks throughout the entire match and are thus robots.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

So if it's controlled by a computer that's not programmable, it's not a robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Reminds me of the arguments I used to hear about "What is art?"

I came up with my own personal definition, which has served me quite well over the years: (scroll down)

Re: Are they really robots?
 

It may be easy to look at this from another point of view for people who thinks that FIRST Robots are just machines during teleoperated mode and not robot. Is it just an expensive remote controlled vehicle?

What is the definition of a remote control car? My definition and the common definition is that a remote control car will do exactly what you tell it to do. If you move a joystick, it will move. It will never disobey you unless the battery runs out. I would argue that a FIRST robot with sensors is not a remote control vehicle. It is because even in teleoperated mode, it may behave differently than what your joystick says. It just takes your input as a suggestion and together with other input, makes a decision what to do. It does that to protect itself from damage, to stay within the envelop/rules or for whatever reasons that it was programmed to do. You may think that you are remotely controlling the robot but you are not. Since it exhibits artificial intelligence, it should be classified as a robot.

On the other hand, a FIRST Robot that does not use sensors during teleoperated mode is a remote control vehicle.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Hmmm....I wonder if the joystick is a sensor?

:)

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Sounds like humans are robots.
1. Sensors -- Eyes, nose, etc
2. Controller/program -- Brain/teachings
3. Kinematics/Mechanisms -- Arms,Legs,etc
4. Actuators/Motors -- Muscles

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think I'm going to bring that one up with my biology teacher... we're discussing the definition of life. I think as technology progresses, definitions might have to change. :rolleyes:

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Back in 1976, Tom Sheridan (Emeritus, Prof Eng & Applied Psychology [Mech. Engr.], Prof Aero & Astro, Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- and former office-mate of Dr. Woodie Flowers) defined the term "Telerobot" as a device that exhibited the capabilities for either teleoperated control, autonomous control, or shared supervisory control between the two modalities (*1). Later, in 1992 (*2), he refined the definition with a clarification of supervisory control as "in the strictest sense, supervisory control means that one or more human operators are intermittently programming and continually receiving information from a computer that itself closes an autonomous control loop through artificial effectors to the controlled process or task environment."

Based on both the strict interpretation, and the intent, of Sheridan's terms, it seems that current FRC machines perfectly satisfy the definition of "telerobots." I would have no problem at all using that term to reference the devices we build. The only real implication of this is that the "FIRST Robotics Competition" ("FRC") will have to be renamed "FTC." The current "FTC" will have to find another acronym. I dunno, perhaps "FVC"? :)

-dave

*1 - NASA Telerobotics Program Plan, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Headquarters
*2 - Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. MIT Press, Cambridge. p. 1. ISBN 9780262193160.



.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Don't some people say humans are living machines? :)

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I would say we build robots because they at least think for themselves to some degree. Even if you just press a button or move the stick on a joystick, (implying your judgment and thought on it) the robot has to make sense of it and act accordingly. I would say the lowest level definition of a robot would be that it takes input (which could just be its own programming), interprets it, and acts using some form of kinematics/actuators (no kinematics=computer).

It certainly wouldn't be a robot if it was completely mechanical parts. That's a machine or tool. I'd think that would be too direct to be a robot. Likewise, many people think RC cars are not robots, their level of control is too direct. I would agree if the RC car was very simple and just used circuits to transform the radio signals into power for motors. But if the RC car was complex - a glorified one - I would call that a robot.

Another aspect to remember is the "common conception" of robots. Things are labeled as robots if they have robot-y aspects like: looking like humans, small vehicles, arms, actuators, and if they do cool things. A washing machine could technically be a robot, but it doesn't have any of these aspects and its purpose is more like a machine, so that's what it's called. Our robots are very much "roboticy," as the common person would think.

Here's an idea: make a list with various levels of "robot-ness." Where does it stop and turn into something else?
-Sentient humanoid
-Sophisticated autonomous robot system (think car manufacturing)
-Simple autonomous robot system (think hobby robot)
-FIRST Robot
-Complex, semi-autonomous, semi-direct-control "RC car"
-very direct RC car
-"car" with two motors that have long wires going to two switches that are held in operator's hand. (RC car without the RC, plus it's simple)
-electric drill
-computer (just software)
-mechanism or linkage (just hardware)

Anyone think of a different kind of list or different things to add?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Why not ? You can make sensors, actuators, power sources, and computers from completely mechanical parts.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

But then they would be more mechanisms or machines. I know what can be done with just mechanics, but I'd be pretty impressed if you were able to make a full fledged "robot" like a hobby robot out of just mechanical parts. Even RC cars have electronics for the radios and stuff.

I'll even give a link to something (mostly) mechanical: A mechanically programmed Lego car: http://tinkernology.blogspot.com/201...-computer.html I would still call this a robot because: it has multiple robot-y aspects as described above, and I would count this unique way of programming still programming and "deciding for itself."

What I'm talking about is like if you scrapped all electronics on your FRC robot, had a really long hand crank with a universal joint that gives power to the wheels, and a similar hand crank for directly altering the steering. That's more of a very fancy mechanism.

But I guess people might want to call even that a robot because of its robot-y qualities. I guess I'd be ok with that if it really is robot-y enough. Times change and the term robot is loosely applied, like the dishwasher analogy in reverse. That's why I include robot aspects as part of my personal definition above.



Here's something I thought of: on Mythbusters they often build "robots/mechanisms" to run their experiments. They call them robots. Are they really robots? Would that apply?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

again, why?

if it has a power source, and sensors, and actuators, and a computer to process the signals from the sensors and send commands to the actuators, why is it not called a robot simply because it has no electrical or electronic parts ?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Not neccessarily, if the mechanism is designed to react in response to stimuli (read as forces) in a way that could be considered interaction, that might be debateable. Remember, People have built mechanical computers before, not much needs to be done from there to get a robot.

EDIT: Autonomy is more direct than remote control. why then does a MORE direct system disqualify the device as a robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

A robot is any object that passes inspection.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Ok, I see where you're getting at. You're right, I guess that would count, but that's like a really specific ambition project for no electronics, like what I mentioned before:
But what I was talking about was more general, like my other example:
PAR_WIG1350 said I would take that to be a mechanism that has interaction (with forces), not something that interprets signals and "thinks" on some level.

He also said That's confusing to me. Autonomy is more direct in that there's no "middleman," but it's more *complex* in that the robot really thinks and decides. When I say more direct, I mean less thinking/interpreting signals and just direct movement/action.

Hope that helps; does that portray my ideas?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

This is where you're getting tripped up I think. A program that makes a decision is executing a series of equations and performing an action based on the answer. There is no reason why a mechanism couldn't be designed to perform the exact same calculation and take the exact same action based on the answer. The reason that it's not done normally in real life is complexity, size, and efficiency.

Check out this very cool machine that uses several "binary mechanical computers." These computers are programmed by placing pins in different locations, but they are computers none the less. Their final machine will use sensors to synchronize the clock with the rising sun through the use of shape-memory alloy wire and a very unique lens.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Might be off topic a bit, but consider the carburetor, vs electronic fuel injection. The carburetor is a relatively simple mechanical device that uses some pretty basic principles to meter fuel quite accurately under many different operating conditions. EFI uses a computer, several sensors, several actuators, a sort of complicated program, and calibrated lookup tables to do the same job.

I doubt either is really a robot, but the analog mechanical device is my favorite if I'm the one paying for and maintaining the thing.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Or consider a gas turbine engine fuel control. Up until about the early-70s, these were analog hydromechanical computers. They consisted of 3D sliding cams, spinning flyweights, EDM-contoured valves, servo valves, check valves, pistons, levers, pressurized metal bellows, helium-filled coils, etc etc.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Please navigate to:

http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/learn_more/history/

and you get:

According to the Robot Institute of America (1979) a robot is:
"A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks".

With this debate, we will see what the community thinks when the BSA Robotics Merit Badge is published April 2011.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think a lot of people - laymen - think of a "Robot" simply as a mechanical man. A machine that mimics the shape and motion of a human.

From that perspective, many people would think our machines weren't robots, but some other kind of machine.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Hmmm ... that's a vaguely familiar acronym ... where have I heard that before? :rolleyes:

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think they are robots.

Every time the operate moves the joystick, presses a button, or something else he is sending a signal (which acts the external stimuli) to the robot telling it to execute a piece of preprogrammed code in response.

In even more abstract sense you could think of the driver station as a big sensor array. The driver is creating the external stimuli that in turn makes the robot execute a preprogrammed response.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Then what makes that different from a gaming console? It does preprogrammed response on the screen, responds to external stimuli...

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Gaming consoles are not machines; they're not largely mechanical. At most, they have vibration functions. Robots have mechanical emphasis.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Are they Robots?

I think the various messages in this thread have unequivocally established that the answer to this question is: "Of course they aren't robots; they are obviously and unambiguously robots."

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think that should about sum it up.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

So according to Asimov, cars and airplanes are robots.

I don't think it sums it up quite as neatly as you thought.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Parts of some of them are, certainly. Cruise control, the fuel metering system on just about any modern car, paddle-shifting transmissions, the entire hybrid powertrain on a Prius, etc. An airplane under the control of an autopilot is an autonomous robot using just about any definition that doesn't require robots to have hands.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Autonomy seems to come up often in this discussion. This brings me to three questions:

Is there a distinction, as far as autonomy and the classification thereof is concerned, between closed-loop and open-loop programming?

Are the controls (joysticks) considered to be sensors, or simply inputs?

Is there a distinction between sensors and inputs?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I don't think such a distinction would be important when deciding whether or not a machine counts as a robot. There are many examples of open-loop robotic "pick and place" machines in assembly lines, for example. But there's definitely room for debate on the topic, and one could make a valid comparison between totally open-loop systems and clockwork wind-up mechanisms.

I would consider that a matter of semantics rather than of essence. The system analysis could be done with either choice of label.

I probably wouldn't use the word "sensor" to describe an input device such as a keypad. Sensors typically measure or detect a quality of the environment, while inputs can be pure information without a definite physical analog.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I'd classify inputs as being more general and sensors as a specific type of input, though I'll decline to define it here. One might also distinguish inputs which require human interaction as "manual inputs".

But just to add to the confusion, within each manual input probably lies some kind of sensor and/or transducer - within keypads there are gizmos which close circuits when enough force is exerted (switches) and within joysticks there are thingamabobs which sense position and output voltage (potentiometers).

- Steve

Re: Are they really robots?
 

When an operator is operating a robot is the operator using the robot or is the robot using the operator?

Are we not just part of the robotic system... our eyes, brains and hands doing the same functions as other sensors that the robotic system uses to perform a particular function..

BE the robot...!! Resistance is futile....

Is the task what makes the robot? In fulfilling the task we are just helping the robot make the decisions it must to function...
Our input comes from our very own sensors.... which are programmed in our brain.. we use those sensors to send stimuli to the robot which allows it to take those signals and translate them into movement... and task fulfillment...

Robot philosophy

Re: Are they really robots?
 

What happens if a robot controls its own joystick. Is it really a robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I've always wanted to make a little demo robot which is a simple arm holding a joystick. When the joystick is pushed left, the arm is powered right, and vice versa. Completely off topic, but it would certainly be cool to see.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

We had a robot in '04 that, while holding it's own controls, rose up out of a floor on a lift, turned and found the drive team, then drove to the humans to deliver its' controls.
This was for an SBPLI fundraiser dinner while the diners watched with Also Sprach Zarathustra playing.

... then it nearly ran over a small table someone had placed in the way holding the boombox playing the 2001 Space Odyssey theme...

If it's klutsy is it still a robot?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

My first reaction is "No, but why does it matter so much?"

I can say that regardless of whether or not it's a robot is utterly irrelevant to FIRST participants. The definition of a word doesn't subtract from the invaluable experience the community derives from FIRST.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

It's still a robot, but there are certain groups which frown upon that sort of behavior.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

You can't build a robot without a frame. You can't build a robot without electronics. You can in fact build a robot without software.

Re: Are they really robots?
 

Already mentioned in this thread, but couldn't a robot be 100% mechanical?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I think Da Vinci would disagree with the electronics being needed policy we're following

Also how is it could they not be robots if your reasoning is that they are remotely operated by humans during teleoperated period if they can also function autonomously during autonomous period

Airplanes can be completely mechanically operated machines, but can also pilot themselves if need be. In addition the dictionary.com definition of sensor is
so wouldn't a joystick be a sensor?

Re: Are they really robots?
 

I forgot to mention this but yes airplanes should be classified as robots at this point. They can land by themselves. They can fly by themselves. The only thing I'm not entirely sure about is them taking off on their own.