Are they really robots?

[RoboMaster]

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?