3 ms·
If we constantly have to change our technical terms to fit whatever misconceptions the "common folk" have... well that's a lot of pointless redefinition and rec
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
If we constantly have to change our technical terms to fit whatever misconceptions the "common folk" have... well that's a lot of pointless redefinition and recoining.
- linkjuice4all 4y agoWhich one of these counts as a "music playing robot"? - Toyota Partner Bot [0] - A general purpose humanoid robot that can play a trumpet - Automatica [1] - A group of assembly arms that can play instruments - A Player Piano [2] - A bunch of servos stuck to musical instruments Arguably they're all robots - they use automation and mechanical means to actually play the instruments (not a synth reproduction of an instrument). But you'd be hard-pressed to convince someone that a player piano is a robot these days. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Partner_Robot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Partner_Robot [1] https://www.themusicman.uk/kuka-robot-nigel-stanford/ https://www.themusicman.uk/kuka-robot-nigel-stanford/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_piano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_piano
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoAll of them are robots in my book. Robot is a technical term, and technical terms need precise definitions. While I see the point that laypeople might not be convinced, I'm fine with that. I don't think redefining the term is actually useful for people who design and build robots. I'm not a roboticist, but I'm sure they already have various terms to denote varying levels of autonomy and active perception.