Are they really robots?

FIRST General Forum
#41

Back in 1976, Tom Sheridan (Emeritus, Prof Eng & Applied Psychology [Mech. Engr.], Prof Aero & Astro, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – and former office-mate of Dr. Woodie Flowers) defined the term “Telerobot” as a device that exhibited the capabilities for either teleoperated control, autonomous control, or shared supervisory control between the two modalities (*1). Later, in 1992 (*2), he refined the definition with a clarification of supervisory control as “in the strictest sense, supervisory control means that one or more human operators are intermittently programming and continually receiving information from a computer that itself closes an autonomous control loop through artificial effectors to the controlled process or task environment.”

Based on both the strict interpretation, and the intent, of Sheridan’s terms, it seems that current FRC machines perfectly satisfy the definition of “telerobots.” I would have no problem at all using that term to reference the devices we build. The only real implication of this is that the “FIRST Robotics Competition” (“FRC”) will have to be renamed “FTC.” The current “FTC” will have to find another acronym. I dunno, perhaps “FVC”? :slight_smile:

-dave

*1 - NASA Telerobotics Program Plan, Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Headquarters
*2 - Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. MIT Press, Cambridge. p. 1. ISBN 9780262193160.

.

#42

Don’t some people say humans are living machines? :slight_smile:

#43

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?

#44

Why not ? You can make sensors, actuators, power sources, and computers from completely mechanical parts.

**

#45

But then they would be more mechanisms or machines. I know what can be done with just mechanics, but I’d be pretty impressed if you were able to make a full fledged “robot” like a hobby robot out of just mechanical parts. Even RC cars have electronics for the radios and stuff.

I’ll even give a link to something (mostly) mechanical: A mechanically programmed Lego car: http://tinkernology.blogspot.com/2010/08/programmablebut-no-computer.html I would still call this a robot because: it has multiple robot-y aspects as described above, and I would count this unique way of programming still programming and “deciding for itself.”

What I’m talking about is like if you scrapped all electronics on your FRC robot, had a really long hand crank with a universal joint that gives power to the wheels, and a similar hand crank for directly altering the steering. That’s more of a very fancy mechanism.

But I guess people might want to call even that a robot because of its robot-y qualities. I guess I’d be ok with that if it really is robot-y enough. Times change and the term robot is loosely applied, like the dishwasher analogy in reverse. That’s why I include robot aspects as part of my personal definition above.

Here’s something I thought of: on Mythbusters they often build “robots/mechanisms” to run their experiments. They call them robots. Are they really robots? Would that apply?

#46

again, why?

if it has a power source, and sensors, and actuators, and a computer to process the signals from the sensors and send commands to the actuators, why is it not called a robot simply because it has no electrical or electronic parts ?

**

#47

Not neccessarily, if the mechanism is designed to react in response to stimuli (read as forces) in a way that could be considered interaction, that might be debateable. Remember, People have built mechanical computers before, not much needs to be done from there to get a robot.

EDIT: Autonomy is more direct than remote control. why then does a MORE direct system disqualify the device as a robot?

#48

A robot is any object that passes inspection.

#49

Ok, I see where you’re getting at. You’re right, I guess that would count, but that’s like a really specific ambition project for no electronics, like what I mentioned before:

I know what can be done with just mechanics, but I’d be pretty impressed if you were able to make a full fledged “robot” like a hobby robot out of just mechanical parts.

But what I was talking about was more general, like my other example:

…if you scrapped all electronics on your FRC robot, had a really long hand crank with a universal joint that gives power to the wheels, and a similar hand crank for directly altering the steering. That’s more of a very fancy mechanism.

PAR_WIG1350 said

if the mechanism is designed to react in response to stimuli (read as forces) in a way that could be considered interaction, that might be debateable.

I would take that to be a mechanism that has interaction (with forces), not something that interprets signals and “thinks” on some level.

He also said

Autonomy is more direct than remote control. why then does a MORE direct system disqualify the device as a robot?

That’s confusing to me. Autonomy is more direct in that there’s no “middleman,” but it’s more complex in that the robot really thinks and decides. When I say more direct, I mean less thinking/interpreting signals and just direct movement/action.

Hope that helps; does that portray my ideas?

#50

This is where you’re getting tripped up I think. A program that makes a decision is executing a series of equations and performing an action based on the answer. There is no reason why a mechanism couldn’t be designed to perform the exact same calculation and take the exact same action based on the answer. The reason that it’s not done normally in real life is complexity, size, and efficiency.

Check out this very cool machine that uses several “binary mechanical computers.” These computers are programmed by placing pins in different locations, but they are computers none the less. Their final machine will use sensors to synchronize the clock with the rising sun through the use of shape-memory alloy wire and a very unique lens.

#51

Might be off topic a bit, but consider the carburetor, vs electronic fuel injection. The carburetor is a relatively simple mechanical device that uses some pretty basic principles to meter fuel quite accurately under many different operating conditions. EFI uses a computer, several sensors, several actuators, a sort of complicated program, and calibrated lookup tables to do the same job.

I doubt either is really a robot, but the analog mechanical device is my favorite if I’m the one paying for and maintaining the thing.

#52

Or consider a gas turbine engine fuel control. Up until about the early-70s, these were analog hydromechanical computers. They consisted of 3D sliding cams, spinning flyweights, EDM-contoured valves, servo valves, check valves, pistons, levers, pressurized metal bellows, helium-filled coils, etc etc.

**

#53

Please navigate to:

http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/learn_more/history/

and you get:

According to the Robot Institute of America (1979) a robot is:
“A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks”.

With this debate, we will see what the community thinks when the BSA Robotics Merit Badge is published April 2011.

#54

I think a lot of people - laymen - think of a “Robot” simply as a mechanical man. A machine that mimics the shape and motion of a human.

From that perspective, many people would think our machines weren’t robots, but some other kind of machine.

#55

Hmmm … that’s a vaguely familiar acronym … where have I heard that before? :rolleyes:

#56

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.

#57

Then what makes that different from a gaming console? It does preprogrammed response on the screen, responds to external stimuli…

#58

Gaming consoles are not machines; they’re not largely mechanical. At most, they have vibration functions. Robots have mechanical emphasis.

#59

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.”

#60

Any machine that is computerized is a robot.
-Isaac Asimov

I think that should about sum it up.