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)

[Basel A]

I agree with the posts above saying that with no agreed-upon definition of "robot," this discussion is pointless. One thing I would add is that even within FRC, there's a wide range of technical complexities. At the lower end, FRC robots really are just advanced RC cars: open-loop control, no autonomous functioning. At the high end, FRC robots have industry-quality control schemes, are tracking targets and scoring in them. Some definitions of robot could split FRC into multiple categories.

[bobby5571]

Great question! For a number of years, I led the Engineering Team of the Northrop Grumman's Unmanned Ground Vehicle Subsidiary (Remotec). Our "Robots" have been used by military and first responder bomb squads. These are teleoperated vehicles and save lives every day they are in use. They are called bomb squad robots. Autonomy is one facet of a robot's capability. " Self drive cars" are "cars" first. So I would take issue with anyone who claims that FRC Robots do not qualify as Robots. The autonomous period of a match demonstrates they are capable of achieving this goal also.

[gblake]

Just for fun ...

To keep any future debate lively, ask the debaters to find me an "autonomous" machine that isn't operated by something that is alive (biological wetware). I'll be surprised if they are successful. (1)

Someone usually operates (turns on and/or configures) "autonomous" machines.

Once an autonomous machine is configured and activated, in a very real sense it is equivalent to a rock I drop from my hand. (2)

Blake

Note 1: I'm setting aside debating whether any biological wetware machines spontaneously/randomly evolved out of previously inanimate matter.

Note 2: Typical autonomous machines certainly aren't like rocks in *every* way, there are plenty of differences; but in a philosophical debate ...

[Jared Russell]

According to a 6 year old I once met at a demo, our FRC machine was not a robot because, "How can it be a robot if it doesn't have a face?"

[pwnageNick]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

According to a 6 year old I once met at a demo, our FRC machine was not a robot because, "How can it be a robot if it doesn't have a face?"

^This kid gets it.

[ratdude747]

Trying to explain FIRST and FRC to my boss led to this sort of misunderstanding/disagreement. To him (and in our industry), these are robots:







A lot of principles apply but to this day I wonder if using the word "robotics" in my resume was a stretch considering the industry and that my boss may have felt i was overselling myself a bit (not that it matters, he likes my work for the most part). The definition of a word is what the speakers of the language deem it to be, and in automotive manufacturing, FRC ain't the definition of robotics (not to say they don't think we're cool).

[chapman1]

1) Autonomous mode, is most certainly "robotic".

2) An activity based on an entire match of autonomous mode without the hands-on excitement and interpersonal communication of tele-op would attract - just guessing here - 3% of the kids currently involved in FIRST?

3) "“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain