FRC Robots Aren't Real Robots?

[techhelpbb]

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

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

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

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

[tylerc102]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

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

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

[BeardyMentor]

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.

[Mastonevich]

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.

[Rich Kressly]

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 .

[aldaeron]

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



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.

[JesseK]

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)

[Chris is me]

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.

[MrForbes]

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

[Taylor]

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