Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaredraby | Hacker News Reader

I love project and it's a great implementation of novel ideas all slapped into one package, but I do take some issues with how they describe it.

It might make it under a liberal definition of 'robot', but it certainly doesn't fit under what people think of as robots in a modern society. Also, it's just an oscillator in a novel implementation, not 'autonomous'. It's like saying my oscillating fan is autonomous.

Awesome progress, look forward to future development, but a little to hyped up for my tastes.

View on HN

Even among experts, there is no consistent, widely-accepted definition of "robot"...

The term is actually very well defined:

>> a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

The Mars rovers... robots. Squishybot here is a technology platform demonstrator. It shows that you could build one with these techniques.

So... your dishwasher, printer, washing machine, oven, and thermostat? All carry out "complex actions automatically" and are controlled by computers. No one would consider these "robots".

With all due respect, there is no agreed-upon definition. (As someone with a PhD in robotics, CEO of a robotics company, & robotics journalist for 10+ years. Even my old academic advisor and I had contention around 3D printers.) If that's not enough, here's a proper source: http://robohub.org/robohub-roundtable-why-is-it-so-difficult...

The best definition I've ever heard: A robot is a device that doesn't work (yet); as soon as it works, it is renamed (Vacuum robot => Roomba; clothes cleaning robot => washing machine; etc.)

"A robot is a device that doesn't work (yet); as soon as it works, it is renamed"

I love this definition.

I might be in minority but I always considered most them robots.

(depending of course the model and complexity)

But then again, I am no one

By that definition a card board mock up would be a robot too. I agree with the grandparent that a squishy thing that just flails its arms is not what most people would consider a "robot", experts included.

> washing machine, oven, and thermostat? ... No one would consider these "robots".

> clothes cleaning robot => washing machine; etc.

So do you think a washing machine is a robot?

Nope. It already works.

But that would mean that washing machines were at one time considered robots, but now they aren't ... Ohh, okay, I like that definition too.

So, same definition as AI?

I think 'autonomous' is the more problematic term in the article because implies some kind of `intelligence`. AFAIU this `robot` doesn't do much to be considered intelligent in any way.

Perhaps it is easier to agree on what is not a robot.

I am not a robot.

Wait, am I?

What makes any robot not "just an oscillator"? Aren't CPUs just oscillators in a novel implementation? Does it have to be made of semiconductor? Metal?

While it might not be perfectly encompassing, I would generally consider a "robot" to necessarily use some form of Turing Machine executing software to control its movement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com