how programmable does it have to be for the robotic classification to stick? A cruise missile also cannot be programmed to be general - you can only program it to follow a trajectory. Just like you can only program a dishwasher to do dishes in a particular way.
It took realtime input from gyroscopes and starmaps and calculated output for the thrusters.
No? You’re thinking of a rocket-motored missile. Cruise missiles are little planes. They can often autonomously navigate terrain. A cruise missile is more a robot than a dishwasher, even a smart one, particularly modern ones which do target identification onboard.
Therefore, i am just arguing that classifying cruise missiles as robots, but failing to make the same judgement on a dishwasher is biased thinking.
'Cruise missile' and 'diswasher' are about as broad categories as robot versus not robot. (If you're calling out 'biased thinking,' say why it is. Otherwise it sound slick you don't know what bias means.)
there's no way cruise missiles and dishwashers as categories are similar in broadness to the categories of "robot" vs "not robot".
The point i was trying to make is an attempt to tease out the bias in the original post i am replying to - that of having the robot moniker assigned to things they fear more, instead of a more objective classification.
…why?
> that of having the robot moniker assigned to things they fear more, instead of a more objective classification
Sure. I’m rejecting that oversimplification.
Solving a Sinner circle is fundamentally simpler than even a basic flight-control system. The examples you chose refuse your comparison. That suggests your model is wrong.
They absolutely do for research and target practice.