Talk:Robot/Archive 9

I can't salvage this section. I'll park it here for the time being:

I remember this Super Bowl ad: http://www.technologymarketing.com/bw/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541524. That page really doesn't say much more than that the ad existed, and the writer claims it was in poor taste. Has anyone seen a ref that says more, for instance, that the network pulled the ad because of complaints? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section links have been vetted several times here, but the current WP:GAR review and upcoming peer review are going to require a lot fewer links. Rather than doing something rash, I think it makes sense just to transfer discussion to the proper venue, which is probably Talk:List of basic robotics topics. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yahh, that section was a big random mess. It's a shame there's no "See Also" here anymore ('cause you just know someone will want to add one) - however, I see nothing on what you've excised of compelling interest. Some look interesting but lead to crappy articles. Uncanny valley and Control theory are mildly interesting. Franamax (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a link to Control theory from "automatic control"; it's one of the first links after the lead. Uncanny valley is already linked and explained in the proper section. I'll be happy to work any other links into the text. Thanks for your feedback all along, Franamax. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, see the GAR review above; I'm not going to have much time between now and Oct 20 (the WP:V0.7 deadline), so I'd appreciate some help with tracking down some of the kinds of sources the GAR review is asking for. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've sandboxed up a table as a candidate to replace the "Mental Agency" criteria list. You can see it here. I'm not sure whether it works any better than the existing list - opinions? It might work better with another column for "Example"'s. I dunno, but I wanted to see how it would look. Franamax (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer the bullet points more than the table. And now that I'm comparing them, I wonder if the Timeline table should be changed to bullet points? Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Although we failed the GAR review, we've got a pretty good idea what to work on from the review. Anyone is welcome to work on any of their recommendations, and I hope to get to work on it later this month. Martin and the 1.0 people assigned A-class to this article a year ago (in September); I just asked on his talk page if we could demote to B because of the failed GAR, and he's fine with that. I've recorded the demotion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. "Idaho National Laboratory's Robotics Program" at least isn't a commercial site, it's a .gov url and they don't seem to be promoting anything (other than presumably their funding), and they do have tutorials. I'm fine with it but I'd be fine without it, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In 'May's Big Ideas' on the BBC, May said that 'robot' means 'drudgery' in Czech and 'labour' in Slowak. The article gives both meanings, but not this distinction between languages. Does anyone know if this is correct? A Czech or Slowak perchance? DirkvdM (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. We've had a lot amount of input on what related words mean in various languages; check the footnotes in the Etymology section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think way too much focus in this article is spent on Defining Characteristics, Definition and Etymology. Do we really need three sections to figure out what the article is even about? I'd recommend combining those sections into one single tightly-edited paragraph. Jdietsch (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP 88.71.58.254 posted the same material at Robot that you just posted. I'll copy the same questions here that I posted at 88.71.58.254's userpage:

Hi. The information from Hitchhiker's Guide might be useful in the article Robots in literature; I'm not sure because I haven't worked with that article. It's not useful IMO in Robot, because this article can only touch briefly on literature. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me why you think this is something that a reader of Robot would want to know, that is, why do you keep adding this to Robot?

In the book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as: "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with!"

(Feel free to reply here if you like.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IP 88.71.58.254 is not me but I liked its entry regarding the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation definiton of a robot very much. Maybe it is more appropriate to have it in "robots in literature". But then, why is there a "literature" section in "robots"? Why are Asmimov and his poor pseudo-scientific robot stories mentioned? That's fiction. The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.111.2 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, robots is one of the few articles where the literature is actually important. Much of the public's opinion about robots comes from books and films, as does much of the inspiration for robotics engineers and ideas for new robots. The literatire really is an important part of this, strange though it may seem. Although I think the HHG quote is a silly one. Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An edit last night made some of the images smaller, and bunched them together so that the edit buttons are in the wrong places. There are arguments both ways; most readers don't click on the thumbnail images (maybe they don't know to click on them); on the other hand, I agree that it was hard to fit the images into the text that we had. Any thoughts on whether we like the images better before or after the edit? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to reorder them again so as to alleviate this. While I'm at it I'm removing the Tin Man image as the Tin Man evidently isn't a robot any more than the Cowardly Lion is a lycanthrope. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the 4th recent criticism involving the literature section. Copyediting articles with a long history is harder than making up an article from scratch, for me at least, because I have to respect what was there, but I'm thinking that we would be better off keeping the literature stuff in Robots in literature. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be treated as immutable right now, to be honest. It's likely that the article will need to be rethought before it meets current GA criteria, as incremental improvement of what's here might not be enough, as I'm sure you suspect given the great work you've done on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Best of luck with this; I'm going to stop watchlisting for a while. I need to write some AI and robotics articles I've been putting off, which means I have less time for copyediting. I'll come back to this article early next year. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry! I had not realized that I would cause so much trouble! Sincerely, Kelvin Case (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) )

No trouble at all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi chaps. Just came back after a long time away. What's happened to the images? At the risk of sounding like an arse, why the following?

• The pick and place robot image has moved to the top, away from its text. Does the intro need two images?
• The ASIMO and KITT pictures are together, again away from the text they refer to.
• Where did George Devol go?
• The image in Robotics Jobs and Training doesn't fit nicely.

Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Now for my main point. When I worked on this article a while back, along with the text and images, one of the things I tried to get right was the visual structure of the article. A large article such as this, which is aimed at a wide audience can easily put people off if it seems too texty and poorly laid out. The visual structure of the article conveys a lot of information. It should guide the eye. To this end, I used several techniques: images, symmetry and bullet points.

I am sad to say that, coming back to the article, a lot of this layout has been destroyed. I understand that you guys are trying to achieve GA status, but it really seems a shame to blindly follow the GA requirements, while ignoring some of the subtle needs of the reader.

I know that one of the GA suggestions is that text is better than lists, and often I would agree with that. Some articles on the Wikipedia really are just lists and barely anything else. But sometimes breaking up information into bullet points is increadibly helpful to the reader. (I'm glad that the bullet points under Defining Characteristics are still there.

I'd be very happy to try to re-layout some of this article, but it's pointless doing it unless we're all in agreement. Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest external link on assistive robotics for hospital patients might be suitable for Topic_outline_of_robotics#Robotics agencies, organizations, schools, and education programs. I couldn't tell; the main page is poorly translated ("that have the skill of helping to persons with dependence"), and the "About Us" and "Areas" sections have a lot of "we intend to ... " language. This EL isn't suitable for Robot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This was removed:

These issues have not gone unnoticed in the commercial world with entrepreneur Ben Way starting the worlds first robotic defence company.^[1]

On the basis that "there's no current problem with marauding neighbourhood robots that need to be zapped with microwaves" but that kind of misses the point of why it should be included; this is the worlds first(which is interest worthy) company addressing the problems we could face with robots. This is not a company planning(which I agree would go into the future of robots) to develop these ideas but a company doing this right now, I presume there products are designed for the current military market such as taking out UAVs. Taking it out would be a bit like saying this article should not have anything mentioned about military use of robots because the terminator does not exist yet. Maybe it should be in a different section, but interested in other peoples opinion if there is consensus to remove it it should be removed; I maybe biased as I have been researching Ben Way for a while, but still think it is wiki worthy. --Up2datenow (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Register piece, is makes a point of saying that it's a company name with great claims but not an indication in sight that it is an actual serious company anywhere close to having actual products. The piece also points out the the backing company has started quite a few "flava-du-jour notionry projects". I don't think this is solid enough to belong in the Robot overview article. Perhaps in an article on military robots or future robots (or possibly stock promotions), and with the caveat text "claims to be". Right now we can verify that a company claims to exist and claims to be doing it, but we can't verify that the company is actually any of those things. I'd say take it out until more info surfaces. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this direct interview with Ben Way looks quite serious and based on his record I would take it seriously I think we should keep it --Danfarlls (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Thrillist is a gloriously free daily email on the newest food, nightlife, travel, entertainment and gadgets in your 'hood." Not a reliable source, Ben Way isn't a roboticist, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's no product, there's no reporting of a product in WP:reliable sources, and if there were, it wouldn't be appropriate for Robot, which is a bare-bones summary article. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the new ways of robotics-manufacturing is the open-sourcing of the software ("brains") of the robot. This has been done with projects such as the Open Automaton Project (oap.sourceforge.net), Leaf Project (www.leafproject.org/), RobotCub, OpenRAVE and The Humanoid project, Roborealm, ... please include in article and make a new article about this phenomenon.

I figure that open-sourcing and diy-instructions may lead to home-builders of usable robots in the near future, against still realistic prices (25000$ or so; which is -if one manages to build a robot as near helpful as a man, and can keep the device for a lifetime), still quite cheap. See the Aiko-project for the cost and DIY-building.

Cheers, KVDP (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Open-source_robotics#Uses should actually merge into this article. It's basically a list of things, and not very interesting. But perhaps there could be a mention of hobbyist robotics here. Or maybe it would be better suited to the Robotics article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Open-source_robotics#Uses should remain separate from the autonomous robot section because it is an intersecting domain, not a subset of the topic of autonomous robots; i.e., open source items can be autonomous or not. This will remain the case even after the Open Source article is improved to the point that it justifies reading. Jdietsch (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely not merge. List of items of open source applications are merely repeats of topics already included. Open Source is not a type of robot, but the software as far as I am aware and this is just a list of open source software for those fields. I have removed the tags. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, perhaps a small reference to (friendly and evil) robots in computer games may be added, an example is the robot of Half Life 2. Also, Goddard (the robo-dog in Jimmy Neutron) should be mentioned as it is the only all-purpose/helpful robot in popular culture.

81.245.179.182 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose dividing this section in 2:

• -all purpose robots (eg "humanoid robots")
• - specific purpose build robots (eg factory robots) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.191.32 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• No need. It was already nicely divided into two sections: Robots which are better than humans, and robots which are worse, but humans don't want the job. Rocketmagnet (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding documentaries in external links. Documentary's to be added:

• James May Big Ideas documentary "Man-Machine"
• Michio Kaku's Visions of the Future documentary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.191.32 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should new electronic dishwashers also not be mentioned in the dedicated robots-section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.126 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

perhaps I-Qbot and QRIO can be mentioned in the article. See http://www.personalrobotics.nl/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=85 Also, perhaps I-sobot can be mentioned; it's but a toy but it seems very intresting; ie particularly since it's the only mass-produced robot, and since it's very cheap http://www.robotsrule.com/i-sobot/blogger.html http://www.isobotrobot.com/eng/more/index.html http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/rc/9520/

• There are so many great robots out there. Sadly, there just isn't room to mention them all in this article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What kind of "brains" does a robot have exactly, and can this info be added in text ?

Different robots are designed different ways. Dedicated robots typically have minimal computing power in a microcontroller, FPGA, etc. More sophisticated systems, such as autonomous robots, tend to run in a client server environment with a microcontroller server operating low-level motor controls, and other "heartbeat" functions and a PC client(s) handling higher-level function. Some computationally intensive sensors may have their own FPGAs AND their own dedicated PCs above and beyond the robot's core systems. Jdietsch (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether a robot is based

• around a true computer (motherboard with CPU and operating system as Linux, autonomous system with Linux (eg microcontroller-based; eg Atmel168-based as Arduino)

• or whether its based around a microcontroller with a OS especially written for the robot

The first one would allow eg the use of a regular small computer (eg mini-itx, eeeBox, gPC) to be implemented and provide the brains of the robot. It would thus allow open-source development of robots, as the operating source may be used for any robot, rather than needing to be made specifically for one robot.

I was wondering after reading a docment on the RoMeLa DARwIn bot see http://www.me.vt.edu/romela/RoMeLa/RoMeLa.html This bot is reportedly by either a RS-485 transmitter or a RS-232 wires, hereby implying control from a regular computer (running LabView and IMAQ Vision) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.131.67 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently saw a blog around robots. It mentioned the Virtual Cogs VCMX212; does this mean this microcontroller mobo is used in robot building ? See http://robotics-visionexperiments.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

http://microcross.com/html/micromonitor.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.144.206 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a chatterbot (eg Elbot) can be used in the main control unit (computer) to enable interaction with people; this technology too is robot-independant. Speech can easy be added to the robot using text-to-speech software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.128.52 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The ASIMO image should be removed and placed at humanoid robot section. It gives the impression that 'a robot' is always a humanoid robot; this is incorrect; there are much much more simple (task orientated) robots; in no way visually similar to ASIMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.11.163 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever single image you place there gives the impression that a robot is always that type of robot. ASIMO is an archetypal robot, and I think that it is an excellent image for the top of this article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The follwing image can be implemented which would adress the matter:

Litter picking can be added to article as a task robots may perform; an example is http://www.plasticbamboo.com/2007/03/22/figla-cleaning-robot/ (aldough this type of robot may not yet be used to locate and pick litter in the high grass) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.168.152 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

isnt a telerobot not a robot at all (as it is not autonomous but human controlled) also, autonomous caterpillar-tracked and wheeled robots are not mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.48.38 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the defining factor is the levels of extrapolation, since until we develop AI technically all robots are human controlled :) I can see the edges blurring in the definition, but I would offer that the moment there is a direct mechanical link, the definition is more correctly a 'remote control device'. When human commands are given some interpretation before being applied as immediately as possible, the device is a telerobot. When the device is responding autonomously to inputs based on pre-programmed responses, we can let the 'tele' fall away. I have no refs to back that up, just offering it as a starting point for our approach? :) Wrayth (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In the headline it states that a robot can be a virtual artificial agent. It refers to bots instead of robots. This has nothing to do with robots. Please remove this nonsense from the article entirely. Perhaps a

-tage can be added instead

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.63.183 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure it out. When I look at the page normally, I see the following first line:

"A U SUK , and exhibit intelligent behavior, especially behavior which mimics humans or other animals."

When I check it under the edit page, it doesn't show this. When I preview, it shows normal text (a robot is a...).

What's going on?

ManicParroT (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has a lot of pictures, so much so that they are beginning to interfere with the formatting and readability of the article. I would suggest that the actual amount in the article be reduced, and the rest removed to a gallery section at the bottom of the page.24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that we must add such category into article because we are going soon to full automatization with robots - which will change our lives and our current world forever. The mankind is on the threshold of new technological break in production and building construction with robots. Today automatic productions lines are too expensive, but tomorrow (in this century) with progress in electronics development and research - they will be universal (manufacturing of different kinds of products on the same line) and very cheap to build. By the change of the world - i mean of course - China. Today China is the greatest powerful country with main advantage of cheap labor. All of biggest western corporations transfered manufacturing into China because of this advantage. Indisputable fact - that the total automatization with robots eventually make production very cheaper in costs and better in quality than in the China today - this will allow corporations to return and take out all current productions to home - close to the western consumer with saving money on unnecessary delivery from China. This will cause an improbable damage to the all China with political instability there. Millions of people in China will be replaced by machines - which you don't need to pay any salary. This will completely change geopolitical structure of all world with returning main dominance to the technology advanced Western world. This is just simple logic conclusion and we shouldn't ignore or hide from it. Sorry for my not so polished english.Westsomething (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball   That is, we can't make or use predictions of what _will_ be or _might_ be. We can only summarize what others have said/written in verifiable sources. If you can find good examples of books/journals/articles by reputable people that talk about this, we might be able to refer to those. (But not Science Fiction :-) ) Shenme (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is projected that by 2020 autonomous robots will reach the simulated intelligence of a monkey. That may not seem that smart, but it’s smart enough to do most labor intensive jobs when coupled with detailed routine programming. When robots are capable of mining their own resources and manufacturing their own parts the labor for their production will be free. When robots can ship and sell themselves their distribution will be free. The only charge required for their production would be the price of raw materials and the rent of the factory in which they were produced. From a capitalist prospective there is an enormous profit margin for business owners in an industry run this way, but it displaces countless workers.

When robots are capable of fulfilling all menial labor the divide between business owners and laborers will become outrageous. With business owners making total profit off every good produced by cutting out the cost of labor their wealth will sky-rocket while all of their former human laborers plummet into destitution as they find themselves unemployed. Yet the working class is also the consuming class, so if the working class looses its income the business owners loose their consumer market and the economy will collapse.

In order for a Capitalist nation to survive the robot revolution two things need to happen. First, social and economic measures need to be taken immediately in preparation for autonomous robotic industrialization. Some form of compensation needs to be planned for workers displaced by robots to keep them from falling into total disparity and, conversely, steps need to be taken to insure that big businesses don’t have total control over the robotics industry. Robots aren’t simply an advanced form of computer, nor are they simply an evolution of the common machine. The significance of robots is of the same grandeur as nuclear energy.

The second thing a Capitalist nation needs to do to survive autonomous robots is develop them first. It is of the utmost importance that Capitalist nations develop autonomous robots before a Communist country does because if a Communist country implements a fully autonomous workforce before Capitalism is ready for it, the Capitalist economy will be flooded with goods manufactured for free by the Communist nation. This surplus of extremely cheap goods will wash away the Capitalist financial system making its economy crumble to the ground. A Capitalist human labor force is no match for Communist robots.*Westsomething (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a similar post at Talk:Robotics, the last four paragraphs of which are word-for-word identical with the last four above. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is true that robots do actually create more of a hazard to our existence than not. As we create more and more robots,with the next being more sophisticated we do infact cancel ourselves out. There is a constant higher realm, if you like each time a new robot is implimented. We as human become less and less valuable as each stage is constructed. The use of robots creates the use of other robots which in turn create the use of more sophisticated robots. Eventually their sophistication will rule the develpoment of the world. The robot will always help us make more logical decisions. Creating a new robot world. All will be taken care of by robots with logical decisions and non-biased opinions. It will infact create a brand new world without war, famine, or problems of any kind. Humans will become free of any prejudices or restrictions. You'll see. Carl Kravis (robot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Call virtual agent a script, service, program, bot, virus etc but not robot. I am rewording by now. Robot is always a machine.--MathFacts (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The common usage of "robot" no longer applies to a physical machine. Wikipedia itself has a whole bunch of software 'bots to perform maintenance tasks on articles, for example. ~Amatulić (talk)

Those are bots, not robots.--MathFacts (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They are robots. "Bot" is a contraction of the word "robot". Furthermore, a software simulation of a physical robot is also a robot, but virtual. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A 'bot' is merely a computer application running a predetermined script. Various dictionaries are universal in their definition of a robot as a "physical machine" of some type. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article shows that it concerns electro-mechanical machines and not any kind of software. A virtual agent is briefly mentioned only in the lead and the Definitions section. Also, the virtual and software agent pages that support "virtual agent" do not mention "robot". It would be more appropriate to either have a hatnote pointing to bots, or to refer to that page in the Definitions section. At any rate, the current lead is too clumsy: for the sake of some principle of completeness it starts by mentioning "virtual", but then has to say "In practice, it is usually an electro-mechanical machine". Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Even electro-mechanical machines have corresponding software simulations; in fact, these days all robots start out as virtual agents during their design phase. Accordingly, I have reverted the lead back to its original form, which has existed by consensus for a long time until MathFacts came along and inserted his own restrictive definition. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Software simulations of robots are not robots.--MathFacts (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

MathFacts, software agents are frequently referred to as robots. See, for example, a file on many web sites called "robots.txt" which informs the "software robot" which indexes the web site for a search engine. The word "bot" is a contraction of the word "robot". Rocketmagnet (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MathFacts has made bare assertions that have no backing except for personal opinion. There is ample evidence that 'robot' is a descriptor for any agent, virtual or real, that performs robotic functions. This is an encyclopedia. This article isn't encyclopedic if the subject of robotics is confined to physical hardware only. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the question above, for what they're worth:

1. IBM refer to one of their test software suites as 'Rational Robot' http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/tester/robot/
2. Wikipedia itself claims that other terms for 'internet bot' are 'web robot' or 'WWW robot' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_bot
3. Electronic Financial Market Algorithmic trading software is sometimes referred to as 'robo trading' or 'robot trading' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robo_trading http://www.mytradingrobot.com/ http://www.forexrobottrading.com/
4. Dictionary.com agrees that 'bot' (in the sense of a virtual agent, rather than a fly larvae) is a shortening of robot http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bot

Taking the above examples as a starting point, I'd offer that while I agree with MathFacts that it's not the technically correct association of the term, the colloquial understanding that the virtual agents are merely non-physical robots has developed to the point that the article would be remis not to include it. After all, the physical component aside, the functionality... that of replacing human labour with autonomous actions based on pre-programmed reactions... is the same. If it makes anyone feel better, we can remember that there is still a physical component to virtual bots... hardware within each hosting machine is directly affected, and we are replacing physical keystrokes and generating visual effects on screens ;) Wrayth (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The name "robot" given to a script is just a homonym!!!!! Not related to robots! Macaldo (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added/moved the definition of what is a robot by the RIA into the lead in an effort to spruce it up a bit. The definition section itself is quite cumbersome still, however the RIA definition really deserves a place in the lead. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that too many people tinkering with this article are just self-appointed experts. The definition section went on for paragraphs, how ridiculous. Someone even referenced the Webster dictionary :S :S. That dictionary just makes up new spellings for words and someone thinks they should cite it like it's an encyclopaedia. I've studied robotics at university for years and when defining a robot, it has to have inputs (from sensors), outputs and some sort of internal thinking. It must also be a physical thing, not just a computer program. Traffic lights and that fit this definition, but they don't get called robots because the term is generally only given to machines that move - traffic lights have no moving parts, so it's weird to call them robots.

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, so it should be able to make its own definitions anyway; we shouldn't have to cite custom dictionaries and self-appointed know-it-alls. Encyclopaedia Brittanica is an encyclopaedia and it makes its own definitions. As someone actually studying in the field, I would define it as: "A physical machine with inputs and outputs, as well as some internal decision-making." Some people will call a remote-control toy a robot if it looks like a metallic person, but most robotics people would just regard this as a machine. Any definition that insists it has to look like a human is coming from an era before robots were actually used for any significant purpose. If you are insistant on citing someone, you can cite me or you could email Professor Hugh Durant-Whyte who is a mechatronic scientist and member of the Royal Society.

We should stop talking about the West's fear of all robots in general because they're all going to be like Terminator - that seems to be an idea where people think that everybody else is afraid of robots. From what I find, people are scared of terminator robots, but they're ok with other robots, even if they look a bit like people (but not the ones in the uncanny valley). Owen214 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Moved from top to bottom) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I can see that there is some desire in your statement to right the wrongs on the article page.

There seem to be several issues that need discussing here - some raised by yourself and some that are more from a need to correct the article due to other problems.

First of all lets tackle a couple of points from your statement.

We can see that there are a wide variety of robots and robotic mechanisms that need to be addressed in an article as encompassing as "Robot"

TO include all of those definitions we would need to cover things from human analogue right through the spectrum of robotic arms and on to smaller details such as those lying at the boundary of robot and autonomous mechanisms which it would be correct to include. I would agree that things such as signals on a railway line would not normally be considered a robot but as you have pointed out they move they have input and output and internal decision making - by your definition they would be included ?

You need to accept that there will be a complex set of decisions made to decide where robot, robotic mechanism and autonomous machine start and end.

These complex definitions lead us to the conclusion that subjective interpretation is necessary to define which category a system or machine will fall.

When is a robot not a robot - what makes an autonomous machine not a robot and why is it that mobility does not mean moving around the floor/air/sea ?

THose definitions that have been used are in many cases misguideed and it is time that some of them were removed. For example I am going to remove the references to the "Robotic Institute of America" as there is no such thing - also there are not actual references correctly supplied for that definition and all the places that it appears are non reliable as they all come from one book which incorrectly states there is such as a place as the RIofA

As for Mechatronics - that is certainly a new word - does it not merely mean mechanical electronics ?

Secondly you are saying that Wikipedia should be able to make it's own definitions.

This is not really true.

Wikipedia makes encyclopaedic claims which are backed up by references. Definitions must also be backed up by references, normally quoting primary or secondary sources, which make those definitions undeniably correct and substantiated by multiple sources. Even Encyclopaedia Brittanica cannot "make up" definitions, it has to source those and would quickly fall into disrepute if it defined things incorrectly.

Definitions in the early days were instigated, as are all new technologies and ideas, by people who could not forsee those changes we have had in materials and technologies and would certainly not have foreseen a world where their arm and shoulder could be copied, placed on a platter bolted to the floor and used to assemble cars. It is necessary to show where robots have come from and that also includes those early pioneers and their work.

Thirdly you mention "West's fear" - do you think there are not people in the East or South that also fear that ? Is it possible there are people in the West that do not fear that ?

Let me point you to the EATR to illustrate the very point that brings about those fears. A robot that was designed to eat plants and chicken fat as fuel and once pointed out that it could easily be programmed to "eat" human remains instead of chicken fat - is it any wonder that press releases made sure that the manufacturer of the fuel cell denied their intention of it eating human battlefield remains?

It is correct that the original idea of robotics was to mimic human characteristics but we are in a world where it takes only a few people to change things from benign to malign and quickly we can find ourselves in that very world that we were assured would never happen.

I, personally, am not afraid of terminator robots. They cannot exist in this world at this time. I do not fear that they will come to fruition in my lifetime - however I do fear that robots such as those could arise in the future and that our children or children's children will have to go a long way to ensure that malign is kept benign.

A robotic arm which follows simple commands from a computer to perform repeated mechanical tasks and can only decide "Weld now" "Wait we have no product yet" and "put this here and that there" are still robots. They are not autonomous and if they were would probably argue that it was time for a coffee break.

You yourself say "before robots were used for any significant purpose" - there is not a robot (which looks like a person) that is used for any significant purpose and until there is a breakthrough in technology that allows a thousand fold increase in computing power, communications and storage we may find that the best robots on the planet are the machines we have now - Animals including Humans

In conclusion I think you are somehow saying that people are stupid for their definition of robots looking like humans and the idea of them taking over the planet. It is not too far a leap of faith to imagine a robot in ones home tidying up and making small repairs to the home. Those robots could easily be reprogrammed to bash in your head or chop you up into small pieces. Do not tarnish creative thought - it is the very thing which gave us the robotic arm the jet engine computers and a man on the moon.

Robots are a tool to aid humanity in its tasks and benign tasks are out there as are malignant ones. Robots are already in development which crawl around the floor vacuuming up rubbish as are robots which would move around waiting for targets to shoot rockets at and just because they are designed by the military for flying over combat zones and taking out terrorists make them no less malignant than terminator

Anyway - Have you joined the robotics group yet ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit too philosophical about this Chaos, the main thing I had problems with was the quoting of all these definitions which didn't really fit with each other. Most of them were outdated and wrong anyway. I don't know enough about the rail sensors so I woulnd't know if they're robots, but I doubt they would fit with the common use of the word at the moment. When I said "before robots were used for any significant purpose" - that occassion happened decades ago and the current humanoid robots are good enough to describe as having a significant purpose. I suppose that if you wanted a definition that encompassed all scenarios of telling the difference between a robot and a robotic mechanism, by the way things currently get named, you could say that in order to be a robot, it has to have at least 2 degrees of freedom chained together or it must move more than 1 body length. So a robotic arm would count, but a CNC machine would be a 'robotic mechanism' since its degrees of freedom are independent of each other. A train signalling thing would also be just a 'robotic mechanism'. The robot vacuum cleaner can move more than 1 body length, so it would count as a robot.

Btw, when I said "the West's fear of robots", I meant the Western world (Britain, Europe, Australia, NZ, USA..). The article was talking as though the vast majority of people in these countries think of robots as machines like Terminator, but I feel that this opinion has passed long ago and therefore should no longer be attributed to our culture. p.s. good idea, I've joined that robotics group ;) Owen214 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool - the more the merrier- well apart from the diff of opinions lol :¬)

I was trying to show that the robot article is the main article and covers everything from robot through robotic arms and industrial robots down to robotic mechanism. These should then have separate main articles for each of the sub divisions of applied robotics.

I know the talk pages are not for chatting but with the "significant purpose" I was talking solely about mobile androids what do you see as the significant purposes of current mobile humanoid robots/androids ?

As far as I was aware they were pretty much limited to fixed automata and the actual moving around androids are limited to walking around (or falling over and not able to get up again lol) and simple tasks such as going to a different room and getting a stapler (and the one I saw took five minutes by which time I would have got annoyed and gone to get it myself)

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate Owen's desire to have a more concise article, I think you've covered the base point well. If we restrict the definition to 'A physical machine with inputs and outputs, as well as some internal decision-making.', then the calculator on my desk is a robot, as is my watch, and even the thermostat on my water-heater if one included purely mechanical decision-making.

The truth is that despite the rather narrow focus of Owen's claimed work, the actual usage of the term 'Robot' applies in common usage to a wide range of entities, both physical and robotic, and any article that claims comprehensiveness (such as an encyclopedia article) must include these entities.

The current article, and specifically the definition page, does an excellent job both of explaining the difficulties of defining the edges of the concept, as well as outlining the various approaches towards doing so. Wrayth (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

^ah, I should've said "computer-based thinking". Also, user interface things wouldn't count as inputs for the robot (ie buttons, dials, switches). Giving words like 'robot', 'robo-' or '-bot' to things isn't just a technical thing, many companies do it as a marketing gimmick - lots of remote control toys claim to be robots just to seem more technical than they are. Software programs sometimes do it as well. At university, we would not classify anything as a robot unless it had a physical presence. If we wanted to make a definition here, we could just say that all the current definitions would agree with the statement that a robot is ... Owen214 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the common University definitions are trumped by those of the majority of the rest of the world, whether or not its the victim of marketing or popular fiction. Working on the idea of defining by limiting at least some of the inputs to non-intentional or at least non-direct human or environmental factors is a very interesting concept. The real trick is of course finding comprehensive definitions in some kind of linkable or referenceable third-party location, which leads us inevitably to the vagueness and the lack of consensus... the referenced third parties currently don't agree.

Ultimately we have to accept that we're dealing with a term originating in an old play and mutated by fiction media. A university student's multi-axis manipulator is as far from the complete definition as is Roomba or a kid's Transformer toy. Virtual robots, even as a colloquial concept, are just as relevant as Devol's Unimation products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrayth (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)