Talk:Robot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Recent changes:

I suggest removing the "robotics" section and making it a seperate article. Robotics is the study of robots and therefore warrants this change. This will require some thought about what to move where, but it will help clarify the general topic of robots and robotics.


Competitions section

Two suggestions for the "Competitions" section:

1. How about a reference to the Usenet Robot Competion FAQ? It's been around for at least 10 years on Usenet and now on the web. It contains references to most known robot competitions. The FAQ currently lives here: http://robots.net/rcfaq.html

2. The last paragraph of the competition section goes on about killer robots and the Green Party fear of them. This sounds like it belongs in the "possible dangers" section instead of the competitions section. The first sentence does contain a reference to competition but the remainder of the paragraph is more about the alleged dangers of robots.

Old comments (unsigned)

  • What is this:

"Certain robots have also been known to grow "rampant", and declare to "kill all humans". Becoming rampant, however, is rare, and only minor incidents have been officially recorded thus far." This seems fake to me.

  • This is generally old information. I suggest a major update to reflect the current state of and interpretation of "robots". If none is forthcoming, I will add some at a later date.
  • The definition of robot could use some work, it seems unnecessarily obessed with mechanical joints used in industrial "robots" rather than getting across the general idea that robots are autonomous, intelligent, machines...


--- New Section Headers, to make them more reader-friendly. Some things have been moved into different sections.

Editorial changes throughout, tightening up sections.

There's plenty more that can be said about the topic! Will someone take on describing robotics in space exploration? (i.e. the Space Shuttle's "robot arm," the Mars Pathfinder, Spirt and Opportunity rovers)

Previously:

I went through and did a major re-edit, including a new first paragraph definition (with TOC header). The previous one sparked of technobabble. I've added the correct inventor of the term, Karl Capek's brother Josef; the list of the Three Laws of Robotics; and the additional definition of South African slang (traffic signals.) There are small typographical corrections throughout.

I've deleted mention of "Maeslantkering" as superfluous (since it isn't actually a robot or called such.)

I've also removed whole sections that used generalizations or opinion without reference or citation

Mention of the Honda and Sony projects was removed, but should be placed back in with a bit more substance. Note that Honda's ASIMO is *not* a commercial robot, but a demonstration technology. Sony's running robot Qrio deserves a mention. (See: [1])

I would suggest a whole section to Robots in Popular Culture, particularly as related to the Japanese facination with them, such as in anime. Additional note should be made of the recent spate of robot-like toys such as the Furby toys, perhaps even going back to World's of Wonder's Teddy Ruxpin doll.

The sections on Humans v. Robots was taken out since it relied on a huge quote from some fanciful UN project, but has very little meat to it. If someone wants to take another stab at the discussion (which deserves better treatment) please do so.

The "Standards" section was removed for being unsubstantiated.

Movies worth noting:

  1. The Wizard of Oz (1939) -- "Tin Man" was a prototypical android
  2. AI (2001) - Spielberg/Kubrick's take on the robotic self-awareness
  3. Bicentennial Man (1999) -- A semi-serious take on Asimov, to be followed by:
  4. I, Robot (2004)
  5. Star Wars (1976) -- How could you forget C3PO and R2D2? (nevermind -- I'm putting that one in myself!)

-- User:Leflyman:Leflyman

Note that "robot" is not exclusively from Czech, but is a Slavic word. In Russian, "robota" means simply "work" in both noun and verb form. The emphasis is on the second syllable, so it sounds more like "row-boat-a."

I suspect that it doesn't mean "drudgery", "servitude", or "forced labor" in Czech either -- but a native speaker would help clarify.

This should probably be pointed out somewhere.

In Czech, robota means corvée, that is "(a day of) unpaid work required of a vassal by a feudal lord".

  • What is with the economics references?
  • I added headings that might give some structure to the article.
  • I think the deffinition needs work still. And the rest of the article could use some editing. I also added new headings, that I will try to work on in the future if i get time. BAxelrod

I always thought Asimov invented the word robot!

  • Nope, Capek did, this is well documented and even Asimov himself pointed out the Capek origin.

-- Asimov is credited with inventing the word "robotics" for the study of the principles involved in robots.

  • A definition of "robot" would be good! --LMS
  • Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but a definition in addition to the article wouldn't hurt and might add context - a definition is a piece of information, anyway. User:Dreamyshade


  • Other than the obvious plugs for your other articles, I do have to say that your contribs for this article are rather good 24. Keep up the good work and please try to play by the community's rules -- they exist for good reasons. Power to the wiki! - 12.246.119.xxx

Removed this from the text, as the site is a charming fantasy, not a factual reference in any way, and no such Victorian robots ever existed:

A unique tribute to Victorian era robots can be found at www.BigRedHair.com/robots (but much of that website is fictional -- including doctored photos that insert an imaginary steam-powered robot "Boilerplate" into various historical events).

Traffic lights

It is specifically traffic lights (as defined by Wikipedia) which is referred to as robots in SA slang. Traffic signal is too imprecise - such is not necessarily automated and is possibly not at the roadside - a traffic signal could be on a vehicle or it could even be given by a real person.

I spent some energy sorting out the spider, bot etc pages some time ago. I had replaced inaccurate text here with A bot on the Internet. Then it gets expanded again, not inaccurately as before but with the problem that we then have the definition of bot in two places. Should the current defn be improved in the correct place then who will remember to fix it here? That is what links are for. Some will see bot and know what is meant immediately, others will look further and see Internet and then remember what a bot is. And the rest must click on bot to find a fairly authoritative definition. Provocatively, perhaps, I have reverted to my version pending further discussion here, if that is required.

Psb777 23:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll give on "light" versus "signal" even if they are synonyms :) Confusion may be created if someone is more used to one versus the other -- perhaps its a regional issue.
Websters notes:
traffic light
A road signal for directing vehicular traffic by means of colored lights, typically red for stop, green for go, and yellow for proceed with caution. Also called stoplight, traffic signal.
As for the question of web-bots -- how about taking the line out entirely? As a software agent, a bot doesn't really fulfill the physical nature of "robots" as described on the page. The term bot may have come from robot but I know of no one who uses the latter for the former.


--LeFlyman 00:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bot: It is appropriate for where it is. And this is typical of Wikipedia, other uses of the article's term appear in such a section. The term software robot is used for agent program. And bot is an oft-used contraction of any of the well known terms software robot or webbot or web robot. I want to keep the dog Robot and the Robot camera here too.

Light synonym for signal? No. What is it when, on my bicycle, I extend my arm? Or a policeman shows me the flat of his hand? Not a light. The correct place to correct confusion on this subject is in the Wikipedia article traffic light, not here.

Psb777 00:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The statement that A Robot is also...a bot on the Internet is self reflexive. To say that has meaning to a reader is to make an assumption that he/she knows a priori that the word bot is a "an oft-used contraction..."; linking it to another article doesn't improve the presented information in the "robot" article. I would suggest a compromise: "a computer program usually called a bot on the Internet."

As for "traffic light" versus "traffic signal", I've taken your suggestion by replicating and moving this to discussion to traffic light discussion.

LeFlyman 21:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the text "a robot is also". It once read "see also". But whatever. Psb777 23:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) Maybe it did not read "see also" but it does not say "a robot is also" (anymore?). Psb777

The section heading did used to say "Robot is also:" but apparentally doesn't now; either it changed after I shuffled the headings or I changed it and forgot. In any case, it now says "Other Usages of Robot." My point above is still valid, tho. LeFlyman 02:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By all means repair / correct / improve / edit boldly. You have made great improvements to this article but on this issue each of us is being a little pedantic. Will we also need to explain that there is nothing robotic about the Robot Camera on this page just in case somebody thinks there is? I do not think so. Let them click through!

My issue was simply with defining something away from its own page. Psb777 06:23, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No links to Robotic Nation?

I've put your link into the article. But please put all such links in! Paul Beardsell 05:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the Lego Mindstorms RCX details and programming example goes into Lego Mindstorms or one of the related articles. Not needed here, we can just link to it. Paul Beardsell 06:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The origin of the word robot is covered in Allan Metcalf's "The World In So Many Words" --Imran 14:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

definition of robot?

Should exoskeleton be considered robot when it is directly controlled by a human operator? The mechanical arm onboard of the Space shuttle is often called the robotic arm. It falls in the same category of device as exoskeleton. What exactly is the definitive characteristic of a robot?

The article mentions a "death by robot" in Michigan but gives no details - did this really happen? It gets repeated on various other websites but nobody gives the name of the person, or the location - a search on snopes adds no further information.

You would have to search in actual commercial indexes (for a fee) or go to a library and look in one of their paper based indexes (or use the digital indexes at your college library if you are a student) because, if memory serves me well, the accident happened as far back as 30 ago or more with a Unimate (Unimation) or Cincinnati Milacron industrial robot or one of the early Hitachi industrial robots in a car factory or one of their parts supplier near Detroit. The general "free" Web is notoriously poor for this kind of old "niche" information. By the way, I did not put in the "death by robot" mention. AlainV 06:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For more about the 1984 Jackson Michigan robot-related death, see this PDF article: Robotics Online UAW Review of Robot Injuries --LeFlyman 04:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://onlineethics.org/cases/robot/article-1.html Theres the site for death by robot. the mentioning in the article could have been a misinterpretation or something.

  • A clarification, for whomever added the above: as noted at the bottom of that page, "The Case of the Killer Robot is a fictional scenario for ethics teaching and discussion purposes." One can find the real incident mentioned in the article at the link I provided further up. --LeFlyman 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

Adding a picture of a robot would be cool. (I don't have any such picture, however.) —Vespristiano 00:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --Dbenbenn 00:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links section

I want to sort the external links into Media, Non-commercial and Commercial subsections. I also would like to prune some blatant advertizing. Any objections? --Gene s

Robots (movie)

Do we really need a disambiguation link at the top of the article for a film that has not yet even appeared? JFW | T@lk 00:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Picture suggestions

The Dallas Personal Robotics Group has an extensive photo gallery. I (Steve Rainwater) took a fair number of the photos and would happy for any of them to be used here. Wikipedia is welcome to use any photo in our gallery that credits me as the photographer. [DPRG Photo Gallery]

this is the junk i removed:

TO APPLY THE LAWS OF ROBOTICS, THERE IS TO BE ISSUED THE HIERARCHY, TO SITUATE THE HUMANITY ON A SCALE AND TO IMPROVE NEXT, UPON THIS HIERARCHY, ROBOT´S ACTIVITIES
THE HIERARCHY: INFINITY – GOD – NATURE - HUMANITY
The Laws have to be redefined for Infinity sake! Please issue your comments. There is so much to do....
Zeroth Law: A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate the Zeroth Law of Robotics.
Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First, or Second Law.

I like where this page is going. I agree that some pictures would be good. Due to the diversity of the word robot, I would suggest a few pics, perhaps an industrial robot arm, a cliche boxy humanoid, and a more modern hexapod. I searched the images for robot and found a few good matches. I will list them here and if other people agree, they can put them up:

Edited out from intro

I edited an odd quote and editorial comment in the preface and removed this excessively convoluted, and unnecessarily detailed section from the beginning. Parts may be salvaged, but it seems to just restate the much simpler descriptions used throughout.

Motion is achieved by motors controlled by digital circuits that incorporate a key power semiconductor switching element called a thyristor or silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR). The robot turns when only one of two parallel motors is actuated: for example, stopping the left motor while running the right motor causes the dummy to turn left. Digital signals fed to the motor control circuitry determine which motors move at which times. The problem can range from very simple (e.g., turning left or right) to very complex (e.g., controlling an elbow and wrist to move an item from a conveyor belt to a shelf). The signals can be sent by an outside element (e.g., a human operator) or by internal circuitry that makes "decisions" based upon observations of the robot's environment and may alter these decisions based upon whether the motion is proceeding satisfactorily. (see feedback).
Combinations of various computer systems and electromechanical subsystems can produce the appearance of profound sophistication. For example, a "chess-playing robot" that really should be viewed as two discrete systems: (1) chess-playing software that has nothing to do with robotics; and (2) a robot that interacts with the chess board. The latter requires the abilities to [a] locate a chessman on the board based upon its expected coordinates, [b] lift the man, [c] remove any captured man from the board, and [d] reposition the first man--all without breaking or knocking down chess pieces or committing other environmental faux pas.

--LeFlyman 21:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments and Questions 2005

I hope that in the future, Robots will evolve into a human race. --Ed Telerionus 20:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain about the wide acceptance of robots in Japan both in reality and fiction (Astroboy, Mazinger,...)? I heard that racism in Japan is an issue. The Japanese would prefer a robot to a foreigner doing the hard works.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobot_Archive_1_1343.html"