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.
Then what makes that different from a gaming console? It does preprogrammed response on the screen, responds to external stimuli…
Gaming consoles are not machines; they’re not largely mechanical. At most, they have vibration functions. Robots have mechanical emphasis.
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.”
Any machine that is computerized is a robot.
-Isaac Asimov
I think that should about sum it up.
So according to Asimov, cars and airplanes are robots.
I don’t think it sums it up quite as neatly as you thought.
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.
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?
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.
Are the controls (joysticks) considered to be sensors, or simply inputs?
I would consider that a matter of semantics rather than of essence. The system analysis could be done with either choice of label.
Is there a distinction between sensors and inputs?
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.
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).
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
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.
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?
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.
It’s still a robot, but there are certain groups which frown upon that sort of behavior.
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.
Already mentioned in this thread, but couldn’t a robot be 100% mechanical?
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
anything, such as a photoelectric cell, that receives a signal or stimulus and responds to it
so wouldn’t a joystick be a sensor?
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.