Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: What's a ROBOT? (was Re: consumer robotics)
Organization: The Armory
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 11:05:14 GMT
Message-ID: <D0JIsq.7A7@armory.com>
References: <3bvfq4$ecm@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <1994Dec5.215916.10683@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> <clint.laskowski-0612940900080001@jjwwjj.mixcom.com> <1994Dec7.022425.11958@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 59

In article <1994Dec7.022425.11958@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>,
Roger Barry Hertz <rbh@wolverine.utias.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <clint.laskowski-0612940900080001@jjwwjj.mixcom.com>,
>Clint Laskowski <clint.laskowski@mixcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <1994Dec5.215916.10683@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>,
>>rbh@wolverine.utias.utoronto.ca (Roger Barry Hertz) wrote:
>>
>>>    A robot is a reprogrammable device that performs tasks under
>>>    automatic control.
>>
>>I don't know if I like the above definition. It doesn't say anything about
>>a robot sensing its environment or adjusting its actions in reaction to
>>changes in its environment. "Automatic control" implies this, but it is
>>not neccessarily so. For example, a car on automatic control will simply
>>drive off a cliff if given the chance ;-) But a mobile robot will sense
>>the drop-off and turn around. Then again, maybe there is a difference
>>between an "intelligent robot" and a plain-old (dumb) "robot." 
>
>I would agree, an intelligent robot is no different then a dumb
>robot, other then how smart the programmer is, and what kind
>of sensors are on it.  Your car driving off the cliff may just
>have been ``dumb'' in that one scenario, but its still a robot.
>Therefore ``automatic control'' isn't so bad, just that the term
>is slightly antiquated.  What I meant is that the device has a
>computer or a processor to help it synthesize sensor data and
>adapt to the environment (but that's too long for a definition).
>
>>I think the
>>phrase "mobile robot" almost automatically implies "intelligent mobile
>>robot." This ties in strongly with the idea that intelligence as we
>>understand it comes from being mobile or motile. We often think of people
>>and animals as being intelligent, but we rarely think of plants as being
>>intelligent.
>
>With this argument, when a person sits at their desk all day,
>typing on their computer, do they drop a notch in intelligence ;-)?
>Yes, they might not be doing a task requiring mobility, but 
>the task requires dexterity.  Many manipulators can be programmed
>to be intelligent (depending again on the programmer and sensors)
>and are definitely robots.
>
>Another way to approach it is to compare two plants 1) a cactus, and
>2) a venus fly trap.  Both are motile.  But the way the flytrap
>gathers nutrients is undeniably intelligent (or reactive).  The 
>organism performs a task involving dexterity, rather then mobility.
>
>But just because it traps something doesn't make it a robot either
>(right Steve :-).  First of all, a plant is not a device (its an
>organism), and second, you can't get a Venus Flytrap to do much else 
>then close when its sensors are triggered (not programmable).    
>Roger
>rbh@wolverine.utias.utoronto.ca
----------------------------------------
I don't know, Roger. I think that Eric Drexler would call a plant a robot,
but not a human originated robot. The difference is in that old definition
from an early book on robotics: "A robot is any device which senses,
decides, and acts, without the necessary presence or control of a human."
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

