What is a robot

Respect the first comments, a robot that do things completely self-referential like moving but totally autonomously without doing nothing else it is not a robot and can be classified in the range of the useless machines

So if a robot should do something, we have a couple of different approaches to find the answer.

The first is bare mechanical, so anything that can do a series of coordinate actions maybe considered a robot, including some complex yet efficient engines from the previous centutires. By this point of view for example a self-playing piano is a robot that we program with a punched belt then he can repeat what a human can do.

The second approach is that should do something of intelligent and interactive. I mean from the bare concept of answering to a question up to making very complex action sequences.

As the game theory teach us, we should never be distracted by the complexity of the situation, but the moving algorithm. By this point of view it is less "robot" a machine able to do thousand of actions with a super sophisticate program than a simple engine (i.e. a keyboard and a monitor) able to make complex inferences.

The final point in this though is that none of these can be considered robot in terms of "human like things". Independently by the complexity these are knowledge systems and not thinking systems. Cognitive psychologists can enjoy a lot but these are always lifeless dolls. So in a commonly accepted vision the large meaning of the term robot can be covered by any knowledge system able to manage correctly the links of its internal cognitive base (I don't use the term database because it is minimising the concept). Well all these are robots.

So we can define as robot in a generic definition as a mimic system with a - more or less - complex cognitive engine able to interact with the real world depending on some input conditions. No matter is are sensors, a keyboard or a banana. The point is that all these systems out of their context are simply (again) lifeless dolls.

IMO we use the term robot to generically distinguish fully controlled machines (like an excavator) by autonomous ones (in specific and restricted conditions). What I consider as robot it does no matter, my opinion is that this is one of those terms that should be reviewed and their meaning rewritten periodically to update the word to the actual context.

How do you think that the term robot will match with an experiencing system instead of a knowledge based ?

Enrico

And where do AI systems fall into this, for example IBM's WATSON jeopady playing computer, is this regarded as AI or simply an extreamly good search engine

I agree that the word ROBOT has been overly generalized to mean almost anything with a microchip that can move and I too agree this term needs to be better defined as I love ROBOTS but dont think my toaster or coffee maker should be called one, a cleaver machine, programmable machine etc, perhaps.

Even my CNC project with all its computer controlled parts with movement is not a ROBOT, but it is a programmable machine

Peter

AI is has no moving parts

Even my CNC project with all its computer controlled parts with movement is not a ROBOT

I'd call it a robot, because the CNC welding machines in the car factory are called robots. Just because milling cutters existed before CNC that does not disqualify them as robots.

But what about plotters? They can be described as CNC pencils... are they robots? If not, why are Doodle Bots called robots? If yes, what about a laser printer? Does moving a pen qualify as a robot, but moving a laser beam not?

Are fabrics produced by knitting machines or robots?

Does the movement have to have a certain DoF? If yes, how many?

A robot is a machine, that's for sure but when turns a machine into a robot?

I think part of the original definition included Humanoid like

Car manufacturing robots are really a partial robot as they simulate a rather storong ARM, A full robot with AI (Self Aware ???) would become an Android or Gynoid

Maybe. But it's meaningless... I know many humans that don't pass it

BTW: Do you remember Eliza? Do this passed the turing test ?

A robot is a machine, that's for sure but when turns a machine into a robot?

When it starts thinking  unexpected thought and you can teach things it/he/she never known

Enrico Miglino wrote:

BTW: Do you remember Eliza? Do this passed the turing test ?

Some believe it did.

Yes, I am old enough to remember Eliza. In fact I programmed a version in snobol. I don't think that it passed the turing test. AFAIK no programm passed. Some claim that their programm did but this is allways disputed. There is the Loebner Price for the best chatbot of the year, the contestants manage to convince around 1/3 of the judges that they are human. So I guess that's the state of the art.

I think part of the original definition included Humanoid like

That's an android / gynoid then.

That would rule out most of the machines we usually call robots like industrial robots. So I don't think that should be required. But an interaction with a changing environment and reaction to thoes changes would be IMHO.

The citation of Eliza was almost provocative. The point - IMHO - that Eliza & sons CAN'T pass the Turing process is that all the AI orientation is mimic. The reason, I think, most depends on the implicit awareness to be not able to do better. So if we can't solve the problem, we change the terms of the problem in a more solvable form. Remain the fact that the first AI studies started from mimic, reached the highest theorisation levels around the mid of '80s then a general empasse and the fast growing of the world of fast computing technologies and real world data acquisition through always cheaper and sophisticate sensors opened the door to a great lie, almost globally accepted as the truth: mimic machines are sufficient to do what the industry need, so we call robots, include strong programming behaviours and decide that this is AI.

I simply disagree and have my personal theories. The point, just to close with a question is: how much is risky and dangerous in the today technology scenario if someone really setup a silica-mind able to take really autonomous decisions based on what can learn making abstractions ?

most industrial robots are humanoid but only part of the human, namely the arm including the shoulder that is typically mounted to a firm base, consisting of shoulder, elbow, upper and lower arm, wrist and a manipulator (Hand)

most industrial robots are humanoid but only part of the human, namely the arm including the shoulder that is typically mounted to a firm base, consisting of shoulder, elbow, upper and lower arm, wrist and a manipulator (Hand)