I recently was having a discussion with someone and we both agreed that if something is driven around with a remote control, it isn't a robot. The consensus was that it has to be autonomous, but after thing about the matter further, I'm not so sure.
Usually in this type of situation I consult Wikipedia, like a good little nerd, however their entry isn't much help... it just confirms that this is an area of controversy.
Wikipedia lists the following as potential properties for defining a robot:
- Is not 'natural' i.e. artificially created
- Can sense its environment, and manipulate or interact with things in it
- Has some degree of intelligence or ability to make choices based on the environment, often using automatic control or a preprogrammed sequence
- Is programmable (see: arduino)
- Moves with one or more axes of rotation or translation
- Makes dexterous coordinated movements
- Appears to have intent or agency (See anthropomorphism for examples of ascribing intent to inanimate objects.)
1 comments:
A great question related to this is whether a robot is considered life. The scientific community looks for six characteristics of life which are explained here:
http://mimi.essortment.com/characteristics_rbrc.htm
Robots actually have shown to present all but #1. How long before nanomachines fill that role? However, the other five, in one way or another have been performed by autonomous robots. When do we draw the line between life and machine?
Post a Comment