Talk:Robot/Archive 3

New Definition

I have replaced the definition of Robot, with something, I believe, covers the machines we call robots. It's not a sharp definition, in the same way that robot is not a sharply definable word. The definition looks a little cleaner now too. Rocketmagnet 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! +5 Insightful. You might want to add the Darpa Grand challenge vehicles to the list of cars between Bigtrak and KITT. Cphoenix 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I've added the DARPA cars to the list. I think you're right that that's needed. Rocketmagnet 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

demining

The demining link is only to a particular company and could be considered an advertisement. Another link, which has a more detailed comparison and study of the issue is http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/ .

I would like to ADD this link (not just delete the other one). To contact me, please e-mail robotworks (at) gmail

130.95.52.218 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this new link has to do with robots. Rocketmagnet 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the basis on problems facing those doing demining (with or without robots) Robotworks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then add the link to the Demining page. Rocketmagnet 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit link to IEEE-RAS

{{editprotected}} The link to the IEEE-RAS (IEEE Robotics and Automation Society) page has changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org. Can somebody change that? Ovz 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking for the link to be changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org ? It is already that. Rocketmagnet 10:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talking robots

I was just trying to clean up the links on the AI page, moved the podcast one here, should have asked first to see if you wanted it, sorry... will leave it now to see what you think. bugone

False Reference

Bruyninckx, Herman, De Schutter, Joris. Introduction to Intelligent Robotics - This source does not seem to be a real book. Both authors listed have publication lists at their personal sites and they do not mention this as a book or article that they have written. I think its a false source.

Is it possible to find out who wrote that reference and ask them? (apart from looking through all the diffs one by one) Rocketmagnet 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

locked with vandalism

well this article appears to be being maintenenced right now with vandalism present so whenever this is unlocked, can someone please revert and yell at the vandal on his talk page... it was the second latest change. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Robot

It is a tough job. Imagine a human who receives suggestions, information or orders from an external source. Is he an autonomous being or a remotely controlled being ?

In my own private thinking, a robot is any machine which can make independent decisions for on-going or future actions based on its own sensors and based on information from external sources, if available -- decisions which are NOT already programmed, although segments of the resulting actions may be, as in human reflex actions.

All other machines, including those now often spoken of (hyped) as robots, are simply remote controlled and/or pre-programmed devices -- One clear example is probably the existing surgery machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.188.43 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that all of those (preprogrammable) machines are almost universally known as robots (even is some of us don't agree). It would not be right for the Wikipedia to decide that they were not actually robots. I think that this article has to acknowledge that there are a range of machines which get called robots, some more than others, and try to explain why that is. Rocketmagnet 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- but the article should explain the primary definition, then explain how degraded versions are (however inappropriately) still mis-designated as "robots" by those too lazy in their reasoning to understand the difference. Muddled thinking is the single greatest barrier to man's progress save, perhaps, politicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.50.28 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But what is the primary definition? And how do you know that? Is it just your opinion, or is it an independent fact? Rocketmagnet 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any universally accepted definition of a robot, judging by the references cited in the article. Consequently, there is no "fact" available. Therefore, opinion is all we have (We can debate "fact", too).

My suggestion to remedy much of this "fuzziness" is to place "robot" as a category under a new article, "autonomous machines", which, of course, includes "living" humans. Oops ! -- Now we need a definition for "living".

Consider this idea : "Autonomous Machines do NOT necessarily have to have a material embodiment". Is that a reasonable statement ? If not, why not ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allenwoll (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I've tried to cover that fuzziness in the first section of the article, by explaining that some machines are called robots more often than others, and trying to find a pattern in that, (appearance of agency).

Autonomous machines without bodies (software bots) are covered in the article already. Rocketmagnet 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot: An artificial creation able to react and make decisions on it's own, without need for a human operator. Example of a true robot: ASIMO / Example of a false robot: Most robotic toys. A false robot is controlled via a remote, computer or some other device operated by humans, casuing it to obey the commands put before it. It is unable to make choices on it's own, and therefore is not a robot. It is also unable to explore and react to it's environment, unless told to do so by it's operator, at which point the operator must control the ways in which it responds, explores, and reacts to any given situation (i.e. it must tell the robot to turn left or right while exploring, and must tell the false robot how to react to changes, such as avoiding being stepped on by a human; the false robot would typically sit there, about to be squashed, but with human commands can go left, right, forward, backward, or any combination of those directions to avoid the threat, but while return to beeing inactive and stationary once the tasks have been completed). A true robot would be able to decide how to explore, such as making the choice between entering a room, or walking/ driving down a hall. In the face of danger, it would be able to react on it's own, and be able to chose the method by which it would preserve itself ( though it does not necessarily have to make the correct choice), or devise methids of it's design to escape the situation. This does not mean that a preprogrammed automaton is not a robot, as it can still choice which preprogrammed behavior to carry and best meet it's goal. A robot does not neccesarily need to be able to manipulate it's environment. A robot entirely on wheels that can make choices is still a robot, even if it cannot pick up an object or move things around (with intention, as the wheeled robot may ram into an object, thus moving it, but this is not truly manipulation). The robot does, however, need a physical embodiement. Programmability is also not a nessecity. For example, a robot that cannot be tampered with internally (loss of limb [if the robot has limbs] still counts as tampering) is still a robot, even if it cannot receive new programming. If any of this is wrong, please say so. Geo 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Example of a true robot: ASIMO / Example of a false robot: Most robotic toys." - Where does this come from. How do you know this. Don't forget that, most of the time you see Asimo performing, it is being remotely controlled. Only occasionally is it responding to its environment. Rocketmagnet 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I had not known that ASIMO was being remotely controlled. But in a sense, one could say ASIMO is still a true robot because it is self controlled some of the time, albeit rarely. And, when the goal of the ASIMO project is met (though with the rapid advancement of technology, it probably never will be), a robot available to the public for use in homes, it is extremely likely that ASIMO will be free of his remotely controlled shackles and chains. Geo 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the point is, why did you pick that definition of robot? What makes you think that is the correct one? Rocketmagnet 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was 100% correct to everyone on planet Earth, or that it was a definition. It is more requirments, as I see them. And, to answer you question, I think this is right because a machine unable to make choices is a machine. A machine able to decide for itself, preserve itself, and help itself (or request the help of others when needed without using a lame recordinng that just goes off when it gets stuck) is a robot. Or at least in my opinion. I never said yours was wrong by the way (or anyone elses for that matter). Geo 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I just want to know why people have the opinion they do. Where do people's definitions of robot come from? I believe that the article should acknowledge that there are many opinions about this, and try to explain the pattern of which machines tend to get called robot, and which don't. Rocketmagnet 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most people think a robot is simply a moving machine, regardless of wether they are in control of said machine or not. But I can't speak for them, as I have my own opinion stated above. Geo 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm always interested to hear new definitions of robot, especially if people have references. Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Asimo be better Defined as an Android than a robot? I have been of the opinion that a robot is programmable, and an android is artificially intelligent. I believe the author's definition is excellent, but I would like to add my own clarification to this debate. A robot does not need to be intelligent to be a robot, but an Android must be intelligent to be an Android. --208.31.142.31 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An android is a robot which resembles a man and a gynoid is a robot which resembles a woman. It means something similar to 'Humanoid'. As far as I am aware, the word android has nothing to do with intelligence. Take a look at the wikipedia definition of Android. Rocketmagnet 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition discussion reference

Since we are talking here about definitions of robots, I added this page as a reference from the main article (currently ref number 6). I don't know if that's really allowed though, because this might count as original research. Anyone know? Rocketmagnet 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link Nominations

I nominate WowWee Robotics for getting a link in the external links section. In fact, there seems to be a shortage of discussion on robotic toys in this entry. Perhaps a section could be added to Robot on that topic. Thoughts?

Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Why not write some more? Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robots and Androids

This is a relatively light hearted look at recent developments in anthropomorphic droids.

http://www.vaasapages.com/RobotsAndroids.htm

--Malcolm Pemberton 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robots Wikia

I suggest include in the external links : http://robots.wikia.com --Altermike 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) give me some amo was one of the most well used sayings my automaton said writen by rosie[reply]

Split

Actually, I am wondering if it would be a better idea to make a whole separate page on robotics as User:ThurnerRupert tried to do. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Candidacy

I would really like to see this page a good article. I took the reason it failed the first time from the archives and put it back up at the top. I hope to be doing more work on it soon. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote history and got picture of older robot; these were the last of remaining reasons this article failed. Barring any objections I am going to renominate it.

Hi NightFalcon. I am also working on this article in order to bring it up to the quality levels required for candidacy. I totally re-wrote the definition sections, and am currently re-working the Contemporary uses section. I believe there is still much work to be done to make it a first class article. So, please don't nominate it just yet. Rocketmagnet 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Anything you want me to do? N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that it might be nice to have a timeline in the History section. Anyone up for that? Rocketmagnet 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work to be done before re-nominating

These are some things I think should be done before the article is re-nominated. Let's not just do the minimum.

References - We need to find references for as many of the statements as possible.
Images - The old Japanese robot is good, but I still think we need more.
Structure - There are big chunks of text which aren't well structured, and don't lead the reader through them smoothly. Especially Contemporary uses, History, Current developments and robotics. Someone should go through each section, and totally re-write it, using the information which is there, and supplying references for as much as possible. I am currently working on Contemporary uses, which I will post in a week or two, when I'm happy with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocketmagnet (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem of an old robot is currently rather aggravating to me. I have been looking for a non-copyright photo of one of the older turtles. (Are pictures from Smithsonian copyrighted?) Currently I am drawing a diagram of one from a bunch of photo's, and will put that up when I finish it. After that, I'll rewrite the history section entirely, and add a timeline, unless someone else has done it. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage of robots

Is it possible for robots to be sabotaged? Is it possible for robots not to be able to be sabotaged?

What on earth kind of a question is this? The answer to the first question is "obviously" and the answer to the second question is "no." 'Kash 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

robotoid

I'm doing research for robotoid and am trying to track down the word's origin. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -Eep² 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic minor edit to definition for the sake of clarity

I've changed "a typical robot must have several, but not all of the following properties" to "a typical robot will have several, though not necessarily all of the following properties", as in its original form this sentence could (in theory) be taken to mean that if a machine did have all of the following properties, then it couldn't be called a robot. It's clear enough from the context, but I just thought it might be worth removing the ambiguity. --Dependent Variable.

Well spotted. I totally agree with the second change, but I'm not sure if must or will is better. Rocketmagnet 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean; will introduces a whole new ambiguity... How about splitting this into two sentences and rephrasing as: There is some debate as to which machines qualify as robots[3][4][5][6]. The definition is typically applied to a machine with several, though not necessarily all, of the following properties? --Dependent Variable.

New Current developments section - Please help

I'm working on a whole new Current Developments section. As with the changes to the Contemporary Uses section, I'm trying to give it a lot of structure, headings etc. I want to try to give a good coverage of everything that's the state of the art, and the cutting edge of robotics. It could end up pretty long, but it's the 'meat' of the article. If anyone wants to contribute, please do. You can find the work in progress here. Rocketmagnet 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Probable Vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robot&diff=134072317&oldid=133916362

“Juanelo Turriano made a wooden humanoid robot in the late XVI century that was called "El Hombre de Palo".”

El Hombre de Palo translates to The Man of Stick. Has anyone heard of this guy or this robot? It seems to be vandalism to me so I am removing it for now. NightFalcon90909 ^Talk 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the links, the Spanish Wikipedia talks about El Hombre de Palo. I can only assume it's not vandalism. Rocketmagnet 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed what I think was vandalism

The first line read:

Robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent designed for total world domination and annihilation of the human race.

I undid this edit because I don't think this is true. The article is full of examples of robots that aren't designed for world domination- in fact, I don't know of any real robots that are. If this really supposed to be true, please explain! Tcturner2002 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Developments

Added another major chunk of article, replacing Current Developments, which I think was a bit of a mess. There's a lot more to come. The work in progess is on my talk page. Please feel free to contribute to it, and to edit the new stuff I posted. Rocketmagnet 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

This article still needs lots more material. Specifically, does anyone have anything to add on the subjects:

Navigation
Intelligence
Sensing
Wheeled robots

I think that the following sections could also use a re-write:

History
Dangers and fears
Literature
Robotics - Maybe it could be deleted or reduced a lot, as this already has its own page?
Robots and human-machine interfaces - I'm not sure what this section is for. Maybe delete?
Competitions

Anyone interested in taking on one of these sections? - Rocketmagnet 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge from

I am inclined to think we should have a separate page for robotics (the study of robots) and robots, but I would say currently the robotics page is way behind the robots page. In particular, the robotics page has no references, whereas if it were really reflecting scientific or engineering disciplines it should have more references than robots. It may be that it is not really sustainable to separate the concepts. I've put up the "merge into"/"merge from" tags to see what others think.--Jaibe 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep them separate. The robots page is getting quite long, and it's only going to get longer. The robotics article will also be a fairly long page one day, with references too. Instead of merging them, why not improve the robotics article? Rocketmagnet 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a nice section about bipedal robots, but nothing about multi-legged robots.

Please go easy on robotics. I am a robotics professional and have been making robots for 25 years (yes really) and there isn't much I don't know. The problem is that robotics is an umbrella term and information on robotics nearly always falls into the categories of robots, industrial robots or robot software. That's why you won't easily find references. Robotics1 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the tag for the merge has been removed by Disavian. I wrote to him: You say both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.

What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between robot and Industrial Robot.

The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'. Robotics1 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Do you think the wkipedia definition of robotics is worse than the wiki definition of robot? The robots article is pretty good, despite the tricky definition. I'm sure the robotics article will be good one day too. -- Rocketmagnet 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the Robotics page isn't too good, and has much text which is more about Robots than Robotics. There is a great deal to do on that article. However, I do think we need a separate article. The Robots article is already very long, more than twice the recommended 32k. There is still a lot of information I believe needs to be added; more general topics about the concepts in robotics, e.g. (inverse) kinematics, modeling/simulating, trends in technology, more about what we can learn from robots, different types of control (simple sequence, subsumption architecture, evolutionary, etc.). The Robots article may not mention these topics, or may touch on them very briefly. Please, let's keep both articles, because we need them. -- Rocketmagnet 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. There should definitely be two separate articles. But we need to think about what belongs in what article. For example the (as you say) very long article on robots contains a section called 'robotics'. Why is that there when there is a separate article called robotics? Then within the article robotics there is a section called structure which *might* belong in robots. On the other hand kinematics might properly be part of robotics and not robots. And then there is that section called 'common uses of robotics'. This really is not robotics IMO; it's common uses of robots.

I'm certainly not advocating a merge of robotics into robots, rather a bit of movement both ways. Robotics1 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, we're agreed. Why not jump in and start making some changes? -- Rocketmagnet 12:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put my pen where my mouth is! Thanks alot. It will take some thought and planning and may take me a while. Robotics1 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just jump in and move/delete those blocks of text which are in the wrong article. Maybe add some headers of sections you'd like to see written, and put a sentence of text under each one, then people can fill them out late. -- 84.45.206.219 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]