| ▲ | michaelt 3 hours ago |
| I once had a robotics professor who argued any definition of 'robot' broad enough to include roombas and self-driving cars and industrial robot arms (even if made narrow enough to exclude remote-control toy cars, cars with cruise control, CNC mills and washing machines) would inevitably define cruise missiles as robots. Meaning the world had 'killer robots' before we had digital computers. Instead, he argued the definition of a robot is "I know it when I see it" |
|
| ▲ | dauertewigkeit 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| What's wrong with a cruise missle being defined as a robot? It is one. Also I'd argue that a CNC machine is a robot as well, no different than a programmable industrial robotic arm. IMHO, a dishwasher isn't a robot because it is neither versatile in its objective, nor programmable. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Also I'd argue that a CNC machine is a robot as well, no different than a programmable industrial robotic arm. It's true - a robot arm is not so different from a CNC machine. But a 5-axis CNC is not so different from a 3-axis CNC, a 3-axis CNC is not so different from a laser cutter, a laser cutter is not so different from a vinyl cutter, a vinyl cutter is not so different from a large-format printer, and a large-format printer is no so different from an inkjet printer. | | |
| ▲ | TehCorwiz an hour ago | parent [-] | | I used to write printer drivers. I jet printers are tiny evil robots and I’ve been saying so for years. |
| |
| ▲ | ozgung 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the distinction is about the interaction with physical world. I robot must change its own position and/or can be able to manipulate other objects. A washing machine does’t care about the pose of the laundry inside. No direct manipulation. It just rotates the drum with a motor. A self driving car locates and moves itself. A robotic arm manipulates objects. They are like half-robots. A “robot” robot can do both. | |
| ▲ | PowerElectronix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A cruise missile is much less versatile and programmable than a dishwasher. You can program a diswhasher to brew beer. | | |
| ▲ | david-gpu 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > You can program a diswhasher to brew beer. Oh, Jesus. Here we go. I have no doubt that it has been done. Googles a bit... Could not find anything other than people using dishwashers to disinfect beer bottles. You can't leave us hanging like that, dude. Please tell me it is true. |
| |
| ▲ | chii 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > neither versatile in its objective, nor programmable. how programmable does it have to be for the robotic classification to stick? A cruise missile also cannot be programmed to be general - you can only program it to follow a trajectory. Just like you can only program a dishwasher to do dishes in a particular way. | | |
| ▲ | detourdog an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Autonetics designed the inertial guidance system for the Minuteman 1 ICBM. They also sold it as a general purpose computer and distributed to Universities to learn about general purpose computers. It took realtime input from gyroscopes and starmaps and calculated output for the thrusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-17B | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Then my Desktop PC is a Robot too... It needs to be versatile in it's actual physical function, not how the individual components can also be used. | | |
| ▲ | detourdog 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I wasn’t so much claiming it was a robot only that it was general purpose computer. Definitely a kin to a drone. Is a drone a robot? |
| |
| ▲ | squidmaster an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | cowlevel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most robots are programmed to do one thing well. You could program a cruise missile to fly around in circles or chase the sun, just like you could program an industrial robot arm to wave like a music conductor, but they don't because that doesn't match the goals of their users. | | |
| |
| ▲ | blitzar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > CNC machine is a robot Who ever controls the CNC machines will win The War Against the Machines. |
|
|
| ▲ | ostacke 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A cruise missile being a robot is not far-fetched, I’d say. In Swedish both cruise and ballistic missiles (and other similar munitions) are called robots within the military. |
|
| ▲ | stymaar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An anti-tank mine is a robot. |
|
| ▲ | ktallett 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Roombas, self driving cars, industrial robot arms (depending on what they do), cruise control,cruise missiles, are all robots by the dictionary definition. They react to their environment. That's the classifier. His view of I know it when I see it is nuts but he is right on many of the classifications. Some were incorrect though. But a robot is just anything that has a sensor to interact with the environment. We have simply changed the meaning to be more human like which is not accurate. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They react to their environment. That's the classifier. An industrial robot arm, out of the box, only has internal sensing (joint position, torque etc) and a start/stop button - can't sense the external environment at all. But I've got a light on my porch that turns on when it gets dark. By the 'react to the environment' definition the former is not a robot, and the latter is. | | |
| ▲ | ktallett 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It would have to have a force torque sensor which interacts with the environment around it (aka the object being manipulated). Hence it being a robot arm. However if indeed an industrial arm doesn't have that, then yes robot is the wrong term for it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | TomGarden 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "I know it when I see it" has to be up there in terms of useless thought-terminating clichés together with "no smoke without fire" and "if he wanted to he would" |
| |
| ▲ | kgwgk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For those unaware, this was famously stated as a test for hardcore pornography by a Supreme Court of the US justice in 1964. | | |
| ▲ | TomGarden 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. It's really bothersome. I think the modern day equivalent is the constant huffing and puffing around where to draw the line for tech legislation, with the implicit message that 'if a line is hard to draw, we should not draw it' and a constant bad-faith battle for perfectly defined legislation. The answer to 'where do we draw the line for this thing that has widespread negative effects' is always "somewhere". |
| |
| ▲ | nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is that there is no objective measure one can use and the definition at any given time is dependent on the cultural and societal context. Something that might have been considered pornography 100 years ago might be considered tame today. | | |
| ▲ | roenxi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It goes a bit further than that. If there isn't a somewhat objective definition then you can't ever be sure that two people are talking about the same thing. Sharing the same context isn't enough to reliably get a convergence of beliefs about whether something falls into a category. And it is a mistake to start legislating about it because the laws are going to be meaningless. | |
| ▲ | detourdog an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “I know it when I see it” has the flexibility to adapt with social norms. | |
| ▲ | TomGarden 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What I mean is that throwing up your hands and saying 'I know it when I see it' is entirely pointless. There's a reason scientific papers have an (often long) section for definitions. | | |
| ▲ | danaris an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not pointless. It's acknowledging that this is a place where rigid, universal definitions, that include everything that is X and exclude everything that is not X, are not possible. That human judgement is necessary to determine what is or isn't X. This doesn't mean that we have no guidelines whatsoever for how to recognize X. We can list qualities that a robot either must have, or should probably have, and anything that definitely doesn't have them probably isn't a robot, and anything that has enough of them probably is a robot. | | |
| ▲ | TomGarden an hour ago | parent [-] | | I just don't think we'll be able to agree (and that's okay). I'll just put my thoughts here, not expecting that you'll meet me anywhere. Human judgement in itself is not uniform or defined enough for it to be useful, but dispersed and more random than just situational. And yes, universal definitions in general are extremely rare outside of a subset of definitions in hard sciences. The only reasonable thing we can do is agree on a definition in a certain context, ie definitions in a scientific paper or in a conversation. But 'I know it when I see it' or some vague idea of human judgement doesn't even work as a definition within a defined context, and therefore doesn't help us find common ground or make a conversation useful. Which is why I characterize it as a thought-terminating cliché. In a way, this entire back-and-forth is an example of us 'knowing what a thought-terminating cliché is when we see it' which unsurprisingly, to me, is unhelpful. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Common speech is slippery, definitions change over time, and the only way we can define words is to see how people use them. In technical context we do define words so that everybody knows what we are talking about. A good example is the use of the term AI, and how we use it in CS vs how the general public understand it. |
|
|
|
|
|
