If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by martin+x@y.z on November 30, 2008, 12:19 pm
This is sure to spark a lively discussion:
I am sick and tired of hearing the term "robot" used to describe any
machine or toy with pre-programmed or remote-controlled actions. The
other day I was watching Myth Busters and they were, once again,
talking about building a "robot"-something (a dog this time, for their
shark attack tests). In fact, the contraption they built, as
impressive as it may be, is nothing more than a cute little machine
with an on/off switch. Yet it was called a "robot". If anyone from
that wonderful show is reading this, please start calling these things
"machines", using the term "robot" is an insult to anyone doing real
robotics work. Robo-dog is no different from a hand-drill with a
lever or two attached to the chuck rather than a drill-bit.
OK, so, what is a robot?
I don't think the answer is that simple...
Does unattended computer control make it a robot?
Well, no, a CNC machine will run unattended after the G-code program
is entered. A CNC machine is not a robot, it's just a programmed
machine. It goes back to the days of programmed cloth making machines
that used punched cards for control.
Does sensor feedback make it a robot?
Not really. A number of microwave ovens today have the ability to
sense temperature in order to vary their heating profile to, say,
defrost and then cook. I don't think anyone would call a microwave
oven a robot. However, it should be noted that if the Myth Busters
mechanical swimming dog can be called a robot then a microwave is ten
times more a robot than robo-dog.
Does it have to move to be a robot?
Hard to say. My personal opinion would make me say, yes, of course.
What will we call a true AI-based computer program or assistant in the
future. Something that is truly useful and has "real" intelligence.
Will that be a robot or just an AI program?
Does it have to be able to learn to be a robot?
Preferably yes, although we are a little far from true and useful
learning. Most robotics research today is still trying to create a
basic mechanical platform from which to start doing things. Case in
point are the various bipedal walkers at universities around the
world. Most of them (my opinion) are excercises in futility. Outside
of places like the MIT Leg Lab it seems to be hard to find researchers
that seem to "get it". Most walkers you see out there --like Asimo--
are what I call "statically balanced". They don't walk like we do,
they balance from leg to leg and have wide feet. They also walk like
they are constipated, with their legs permanently bent at the knees.
They are not too far away from using two industrial robot arms upside-
down and calling them "legs". Neat for demos and TV advertising, but
useless for real applications like walking on a rocky road or going up
or down a dirt hill. Should these be called walking machines rather
than robots?
What follows this is: Is walking required to be a robot?
No, of course. Wheeled, flying and swimming robots are categories
where true robotics has a place.
The micromouse competition is an interesting area. The machines built
to run these mazes are probably closer to my idea of "robot" than
anything else: They are programmed by their designer to learn; solve
a problem; optimize the solution and execute it as efficiently as
possible. They use sensors to "see" their environment and use this in
the process of learning.
It is probably clear from my short discussion that I think that the
term "robot" ought to be reserved for something special, not mere
animatronic machines. Here's my basic list of requirements
(incomplete):
A robot must...
... have the ability to learn
... not be remotely controlled by a human being for all of it's
actions. Remote control is acceptable as a form of communication and,
for example, to locate the robot where it must do useful work. If the
machine can perform useful actions on its own after that, then it can
be called a "robot"
... move and interact with the physical world, Ai in a computer is an
intelligent program, not a robot
Top on my list is learning. If you build a cute little hexapod
machine out of the many kits available out there, how does it walk?
Is it walking because you programmed a sequence of motions that make
it walk? Then it isn't a robot, it's a programmed machine just like a
CNC milling machine or your microwave oven. However, if you program a
learning algorithm and the hexapod learns to walk on its own, then
what you have is a robot. Or at least the beginings of it. A much
tougher task than pre-programmed mimmicry to be sure.
You could add to my list a requirement to intereact with human beings
in natural language. However, this can't be an absolute requirement.
For example, if a true intelligent autonomous mine detection robot
existed, I wouldn't want to communicate with it via spoken lenguage
because there are too many opportunities for error. A command-based
interface is probably far safer.
I'll stop here, I'm sure there are many on this list with far more
insight in to this than I may have.
-Martin
|
|
Posted by John Nagle on November 30, 2008, 11:14 pm
martin+x@y.z wrote:
> This is sure to spark a lively discussion:
Troll.
John Nagle
|
|
Posted by martin+x@y.z on December 1, 2008, 2:13 am
> Troll.
Ouch. Not warranted sir. Not at all.
-Martin
|
|
Posted by Curt Welch on December 3, 2008, 1:16 pm
> > Troll.
> Ouch. Not warranted sir. Not at all.
> -Martin
You don't look like a Troll to me.
Maybe a robo-troll? :)
It's not really important how people choose to use the word robot. :)
I do agree that the use of the word has drifted far from it's original
intent but it doesn't bother me. I like all the machines called robots.
The more autonomous and intelligent, the more interesting they are, but I
don't feel the need to debate what we should or should not call a robot.
I do agree that if you want to understand intelligence then learning is a
key factor and any machine without strong general learning is hard to call
intelligent. But I see no need to limit the definition of robot to only
intelligent autonomous slave machines even though that's where the idea
started.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
|
|
Posted by martin+x@y.z on December 3, 2008, 1:52 pm
> I do agree that the use of the word has drifted far from it's original
intent but it doesn't bother me. I like all the machines called
robots.
The more autonomous and intelligent, the more interesting they are,
but I
don't feel the need to debate what we should or should not call a
robot.
It's not like I loose sleep over this...far more important stuff to
worry about these days.
I just think that terminology has to have a meaning. Not to pound on
the MythBusters guys (a show we all love at home) but they call
anytihng with a motor and a switch a "robot". By that measure your
electric power seat in the car is a robot. Or, better yet, cars that
have power seats with preset position memories are ten times more of a
robot.
Maybe that's what I am grappling with. To me a robot has always been
something special. With intelligence or a reasonable simulation
thereof as a prerequisite.
Of course, there are stages to the development of a robot. If you are
studying bipedal locomotion and have a machine with two legs attached
to a pole so that it can walk in circles without falling over, well,
it may be fair to call that a robot or "part of a robot". It isn't
realy intelligent but it is, presumably, part of the R&D process for a
real robot.
An air motor attached to a samuai sword with a manually operated valve
is not, a robot, despite MB claims during these shows. Again, not
picking on them at all, it just happens to be a very prominent place
where the term is used over and over again.
Battle-bots are another example. They are not robots. They are
remotely controlled weaponized vehicles. You take the human away from
the remote control and they are absolutely useless (as neat as they
may look). A real battle-bot would have a remote with a few buttons,
for example: GO, STOP, AGGRESIVE, NEUTRAL, DEFENSIVE, etc. In other
words, human input isn't precluded from the process, but it might be
limited to requesting a state or strategic posture and then the battle-
bot would --by itself-- conduct and run the battle. Big difference.
-Martin
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map