Conversation

Replying to
are robots not a subset of automation? I asked a roboticist to "define a robot" and he said "technically anything with a sensor and an actuator" so, like, a washing machine is a robot
1
4
Replying to
Automation is just a major use case. Category error there. A robot is a kind of machine. Automation is a function. The sensor/actuator definition is silly. A thermostat would qualify. Your friend sounds uninterested in the philosophy. It’s like dismissing AI as “any software”
2
3
Replying to and
“Sufficiently complex loosely biomorphic machine with a domain adapted universal computing capability” is a better definition. Feedback loops and computing element are necessary but not sufficient.
1
6
Replying to
Which is fine. It’s a nebulous category. But to brush aside the definition problem is to lose sight of what’s interesting about the design direction and it’s tradeoffs. For eg, how to solve physical problems without shaping or specializing the environment to suit the machine.
1
3
Replying to and
A high-end CNC machine is vastly more complex than a low-end robot and will likely have more powerful compute and richer feedback loops. But needs a factory environment has no autonomy, and a narrow intelligence.
1
2
Replying to and
The biomorphic is a compact way of referencing a particular part of design space where you make minimal assumptions about the environment. But “loosely” since you needn’t imitate a particular organism. Just seek strategies inspired by biology.
1
2
Replying to and
High autonomy in unscripted (but not necessarily natural) environments is another way to get at it. Autonomy is a hard concept to define in its own right, but a useful one adjacent to both “robot” and “intelligence.” Much better core than “automation”