Re:The first autonomous, entirely soft robot
by jayjay71 on Monday August 29, 2016 @05:54PM
(#12385711)
"A robot is a device that doesn't work (yet); as soon as it works, it is renamed"
I love this definition.
Re:The first autonomous, entirely soft robot
by Namrog84 on Monday August 29, 2016 @03:31PM
(#12384574)
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
Re:The first autonomous, entirely soft robot
by speleding on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:34AM
(#12388539)
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.
Re:The first autonomous, entirely soft robot
by sndean on Monday August 29, 2016 @05:17PM
(#12385422)
> 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?
Re:The first autonomous, entirely soft robot
by beambot on Monday August 29, 2016 @07:19PM
(#12386212)
Nope. It already works.
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.)