Are they really robots?

[Chris27]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

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

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?

[RoboDesigners]

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 )

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.

[MrForbes]

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.

[RoboDesigners]

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

[ATannahill]

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?

[davidthefat]

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

[kstl99]

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?

[RoboDesigners]

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.

[EricH]

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.

[Bertman]

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.

[artdutra04]

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.

[billbo911]

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.