4 ms·
Meh. There is the definition of robots used in academy. Something like "A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a
by krisoft 2y ago
Meh. There is the definition of robots used in academy. Something like "A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically." Or "A robot is an autonomous machine capable of sensing its environment, carrying out computations to make decisions, and performing actions in the real world."
And if you go by that definition you see that things like dishwasher, washing machines, elevators, full authority digital engine controls, surface to air missiles are all robots.
But nobody, not even roboticist, calls those things robots. You don't need a roboticist to load your dishes, or to get to the floor of your meeting, or shoot down an enemy airplane.
The reality is that the real definition of a robot is "a machine which does not work yet". Once it starts working we stop calling it a robot.
Making robots for non-roboticist should absolutely be the goal. Giving that up is giving up making reliable useful machines.
If you can't make a "grab_object" api useful that is because we all together suck at making robots percept and suck at making robots manipulate things. Once we get good at those (if ever) that API will become easy and commonplace. And anyone who doesn't use it to achieve their goals will feel like a weirdo reinventing the wheel.
- pixl97 2y agoThe AI Effect, but for robots.
- eschneider 2y ago> And if you go by that definition you see that things like dishwasher, washing machines, elevators, full authority digital engine controls, surface to air missiles are all robots. > But nobody, not even roboticist, calls those things robots. You don't need a roboticist to load your dishes, or to get to the floor of your meeting, or shoot down an enemy airplane. I guess I'm a roboticist, and yeah, I call all of those robots. Those are _tantastic_ robots that just get their jobs done.
- Izkata 2y ago> The reality is that the real definition of a robot is "a machine which does not work yet". Once it starts working we stop calling it a robot. Counterpoint: Robot vacuums I think the real colloquial meaning is more along the lines of how constrained or hidden the movement is. Elevators stick to a track, dishwashers only move on the inside, missiles pretty much move on a straight line. On the other hand robot vacuums roam the floor, and while a robot arm is rooted to one spot it can move freely in that range.
- krisoft 2y agoThat is probably right. But it also doesn't matter much to me. I don't want to convince people to change what they call things. I want to make things which are reliable and useful for them, and I don't quite mind if they will call them robots or not. I know that they are robots and that is enough for me. ;) > missiles pretty much move on a straight line Only the boring ones! Have you seen long exposure photos of the Iron Dome in action for example? [1] They fly all those swoopy trajectories to be at the right place at the right time. Also it is speculated that when they decide to go for intercept they launch multiple interceptors against every target. One aimed earlier in the trajectory one aimed later. And when the system has a high confidence that the target has been eliminated they re-target the second interceptor against some other one. It is a beautiful and very complex robot. Sadness all around that it is needed of course. 1: https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/CVsuWQwzlBDG_yhJUr6sI16PUK4=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6C4MS5EX3RGRFELIMLSN6AAHCM.jpg https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/CVsuWQwzlBDG_yhJUr6sI16P...