Talk:Robot/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Good article candidacy

I just marked this article "failed" as a good article candidate. There are no footnotes (not counting the single one that doesn't function) and very few references to printed works. The list of references seems to be quite random (Tesla, Man Out of Time??), rather than being a representative collection of the literature on the subject. The inline links to external URLs should be replaced with footnotes, and more of the citations should be to "hard" sources; i.e. books or peer-reviewed articles. The "History" section should come before the "Contemporary uses" section, and the History section should include a picture of something historic, rather than a picture of a contemporary toy. The information in the "Robots and Human-Machine interfaces" section is too short and should be incorporated into some other section. And to name the most obvious flaw last, there's a dead picture link. This isn't an article that any editor or editors have devoted concerted attention to. KarlBunker 16:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I just added a simple timeline to the page. Not many items in there yet, and I'm not sure about the structure. If anyone's got a better idea, feel free to replace it.

There are a lot of other items, mentioned in the pages below, that we can add to the timeline. But we need to get references for each one before they are added.

• Robot History
• BBC Timeline of Real Robots
• Trueforce Robot History
• TheTech Robotics Timeline

Rocketmagnet 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Engleberger is not an inventor and should not be listed in the timeline as such. George Devol is the only patent holder and Engleberger started the first robot company, Unimation, with him. Bangthedash101 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably know more about it than me. However, from looking on the web, Joseph Engleberger does seem to be more than a businessman. He seems to be an engineer. In fact, Devol won the Engleberger Robotics Award in 1982 [1]. Can anyone shed and more light on this? Rocketmagnet 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe Engleberger holds an engineering degree from Columbia and is very intelligent, but did not invent any part of the Unimate and in fact did not even know Devol at the time Devol was applying for the first robotics patents. The only inventor is George C. Devol who held a variety of patents before applying for the ones forming the basis for the Unimate. If you need more confirmation or information on robots, read Isaac Asimov's book "Robots, Machines In Man's Image" Harmony House 1985.

Also, the inclusion of Tesla on the timeline is erroneous, as a radio controlled boat doesn't meet any of the terms set forth as the definition for robotics (e.g. neither autonomous nor programmable). As such, I have deleted all mention of Tesla from this page. If someone wants to make a page about the origins of radio controls, then they should.

The problem is this: there are many devices which are not programmable (from the user's point of view) or autonomous, but are still referred to as robots. For example iRobot's Packbot, or the Foster-Miller Talon. They are basically remotely controlled vehicles with no smarts of their own. If Tesla's robot boat is to be removed, then those other robots should be removed too. Rocketmagnet 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article tries to explain, there is no hard and fast definition of a robot. Rather, there are machines which more or fewer people consider to be robots. I agree that a robot boat is way on the lower end of the spectrum of what I consider to be a robot, but I don't agree that it's solidly non-robot. I really don't want to start an edit war on this subject, and would like to hear from other people to know their opinions. Rocketmagnet 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bangthedash101, I am keen to resolve this issue of Tesla's boat, since that directly affects the article. I believe that the article should take an inclusive attitude towards robots, accepting that there is no hard definition. I respectfully ask you to replace the paragraph about Tesla's boat. Rocketmagnet 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Under any definition, Tesla's boat is not a robot because it is neither programmable nor autonomous nor can it move in three axes. I understand the fascination with Tesla and am a great admirer, as is Mr. Devol, but what Tesla built was a radio controlled boat and in no way can be properly considered a robot, as it fails every criteria. (Tesla's contributions to the production of electricity, particularly alternating current, are fundamental and cannot be overstated) I appreciate your relucatance to limit the definition of a robot, but there must be some minimum criteria. In my opinion, the ISO standard sets forth that minimum criteria when they say that a robot is "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes" Tesla's boat was not automatically controlled, was neither reprogammable nor programmable in the first instance, did not manipulate anything, and only moved in two axes. With all due respect, I must stand by my original position.

When you say "under any definition", you are only referring to the ISO definition. The problem with the ISO definition is that it excludes a great many machines which are widely considered robots, which is why the Wikipedia robots article does not use that as its definition. The use of the ISO definition has already been discussed here (please see the archives). The ISO definition really only applies to industrial robots, and not to the wider world of robots and so is totally inappropriate. So please do not enforce that definition on the robots of this article. I suspect that one reason you are keen to remove Tesla's robot boat is to secure Devol's position as inventor of first "real" robot. If this debate continues much longer, I will have to ask for mediation from other editors. Rocketmagnet 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archives and they don't add anything to this discussion. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide objective facts to the knowledge-seeking public. Not to appease everyone with an opinion. My point is that the definition of "robot" needs a minimum starting point and the ISO defition is exactly that. It is not some science-fiction fanatic's Bladerunner idea of what makes a robot, nor is it some historical relativist's idea of any machine that is controlled by a human at a distance. It is an internationally accepted minimum standard. I understand your sense of "ownership" with this entry, but it is misplaced. While you deserve credit for starting a very important entry and have done a terrific job so far, you do not "own" the definition.

To correct your last posting, Telsa did not invent a "robot boat", he invented a radio-controlled boat. By your definition, the radio itself is a robot because it actuates a mecahnical speaker at a distance. That is nonsense. Why are you so "keen" to have Tesla in the timeline?

To give credit that is not due is just as bad as denying credit that is due.

All references to machines that do not meet the ISO minimum standard should be deleted.

While I am on the subject, the inclusion of the first "deaths by robot" are pandering and inappropriate in the context of the historical timeline. When a robot "intentionally" kills a human, then it deserves an entry. Until that time, the "deaths by robot" should at least be separated from the historical timeline.

Please request mediation from other editors post haste as you have obviously dug in your heels. Bangthedash101 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't you see that the ISO definition is designed to apply to industrial robots only? It does not apply to the vast world of robots out there. If this article were to enforce the ISO definition, we would have to get rid of all robots with only one or two axes, e.g. the Ball bot, some swimming robots, some nanobots, many swarm robots, many balancing robots, 1DOF hopping robots and others. We would have to get rid of all robots which were not manipulators, e.g. robot cars, robot snakes, flying robots, walking robots, kismet, and very very many others. Also, all robots which are not multipurpose, e.g. the great majority of research robots which are made for one purpose only. In fact, we would have to get rid of all robots which are not for industrial automation applications, as the ISO definition states: "...for use in industrial automation applications.". We would be left with only industrial robot arms (which some people argue are not robots either). So, please, think about what you are saying. Rocketmagnet 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the boat is right at the very lowest end of what could be considered a robot. The only reason I didn't delete it myself was because then all telerobots would have to be removed too. A case would have to be made that other telerobots were robots, and this one wasn't. Rocketmagnet 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tesla's radio-controlled boat fails to meet any part of any definition of robot, save for the fact that is it artificially created. As such, his inclusion in the historical timeline is ridiculous. At the very very least, a robot must have autonomous motion, and be either teachable/programmable or responsive to its environment. Can't you at least agree on that?Bangthedash101 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I almost agree with you. Whether it's a robot is very debatable IMHO. I would actually agree with you were it not for the fact that there are many teleoperated robots which are not at all autonomous. For example, the da Vinci surgical robot, the Packbot and the Foster-Miller_TALON. None of these are autonomous, but are widely referred to as robots. Should all of these be removed from the article? Rocketmagnet 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tesla's boat does meet the criteria for the Wikipedia definition of robot: it conveys a sense of agency. Granted, by todays standards it's a weak sense of agency, it barely makes it. But by the standards of the day, I reckon would have been really quite spooky. And, AFAIK Tesla imagined this as the first of many machines which could do things for themselves. Interestingly, there are people who do not consider the PUMA arm to be a true robot, because in their particular definition, a robot must sense and respond to the environment, rather than carrying out a sequence of commands. IMHO, the sense of agency conveyed by a machine is critical to people deciding to call it a robot. As Engleberger supposedly said: "I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one." Rocketmagnet 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How does watching someone move controls for a radio controlled boat "convey a sense of agency"? The fact that he probably disguised his use of the controls does not change the fact that a radio controlled boat, when seen in total, cannot convey a sense of agency.

I have no idea what you mean by IMHO and AFAIK.

IMHO means "In my humble opinion". AFAIK means "As far as I know". Rocketmagnet 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include "teleoperation" in this article, and Tesla's obvious fundamental contribution to that field, then it should be in a separate section with the disclaimer that the term "telerobot" is a misnomer.

Telerobot is not a misnomer according to a great many people.

You claim that "Tesla imagined this as the first of many machines which could do things for themselves." Upon what authority is that statement based? It seems very suspect given the fact that the radio controlled boat could not do anything by itself. The Cult of Tesla wishes to overcompensate for his lack of recognition in his lifetime by expanding his sphere of influence well beyond what is actually was. I laughed out loud when I read an article about his boat last night which claimed:

"When a New York Times writer suggested that Tesla could make the boat submerge and carry dynamite as a weapon of war, the inventor himself exploded. Tesla quickly corrected the reporter: "You do not see there a wireless torpedo, you see there the first of a race of robots, mechanical men which will do the laborious work of the human race."

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_robots.html

The word "robot" was not even coined until at least 22 years after this supposed conversation, and certainly was not well known until much later. It makes a more interesting story but is obviously BS.

Whether a robot "must sense and respond to the environment, rather than carrying out a sequence of commands" really misses the point. There needs to be a minimum standard before a particular machine can even be considered, and Tesla's boat (or any manually operated machine) cannot even meet this threshold burden.

It is worth noting that Devol also obtained patents on visual and tactile sensors for robots. Where these fall in the timeline, I am uncertain but will research when I get some time.

The bottom line is that any automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes is internationally recognized as a robot, regardless of how the Wikipedia contributors feel about it.Bangthedash101 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot claim to be a member of such a cult. I know next to nothing about Tesla and have no feelings about him or his place in history. What I am defending here is the large number of machines which people generally consider to be robots, but do not fall under the ISO definition.

• Is ballbot a robot?
• Is ASIMO a robot?
• Is the Epson micro helecopter a robot? [2]
• Is this mechanical snake a robot? [3]
• Is this skating machine a robot? [4]
• Is Kismet a robot?
• Are these swarming machines robots? [5]
• Is a 2 axis programmable manipulator a robot?
• Are molecubes robots?
• Is Dexter a robot? [6]
• Is the daVinci surgical 'robot' a robot?
• Is the Roomba a robot?
• Is a cruise missile a robot?

Think carefully before you answer. None of these machines are robots according to the ISO definition. But they are all refered to as robots by their inventors, and other people in the robotics community (of which I am an active member). Ballbot and the swarmers are only 2 DOF. ASIMO is not for industrial automation applications, and is a pretty rubbish manipulator. At one point it was even teleoperated, it still might be for some demos. A cruise missile, the snake, the skating machine, Kismet and Roomba are not a manipulators. daVinci is teleoperated. etc. Again, think carefully, because it's your opinion against most of the robot research industry. Why not try telling someone that ASIMO isn't a robot? See if they take you seriously. Rocketmagnet 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The ISO definition is not a 'minimum' standard. It does not sit at some particular place on the spectrum of robots and divide machines into robots and non-robots. What you must ask is why did the ISO choose that definition of robot? It was chosen to keep track of the number of 'robots' are being used in industrial settings [7]. They were not interested in other kinds of robots used for entertainment, domestic chores, research etc.. The ISO definition is only supposed to apply to industrial robots, and it is totally inappropriate for other types of robot. Rocketmagnet 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia articles must take a neutral point of view, which I have taken great pains to do, explaining that there is really no correct definition of robot, and everyone has their own definition. What we can say is that there are machines which everyone calls robots, machines which nobody calls robots, and lots inbetween. I went to the trouble to state three definitions of robots, one from the industrial sector, one from a famous roboticist, and one from a dictionary. If the article takes a hard line on the ISO definition, it totally fails in its duty to be neutral in its point of view. Rocketmagnet 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested mediation on this dispute. The relevant page is here [8]. On that page I have tried to present both arguments very briefly. Please go to that page and edit the summary of the dispute so that you agree with your side of it. Rocketmagnet 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Bang, I agree with you about the boat. I wouldn't call it a robot either. But the Wikipedia is not a place to put my personal opinion, but rather a place to record a neutral point of view. The editors of this article have to accept that, whatever their definition of 'robot', they are probably the only one who uses that definition. The fact that teleoperated machines are widely referred to as robots, by both experts and laymen is something I, we, have to accept. So, if teleoperated bomb disposal mobile manipulator gets called a robot, we have to accept that a teleoperated floating mobile machine without a manipulator gets called one too. Sorry.Rocketmagnet 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you start with providing some authority for your contention that "teleoperated machines are widely referred to as robots, by both experts and laymen" rather than purporting to speak on their behalf. I can't imagine any robotics expert referring to a radio-controlled vehicle as a robot. In fact, I can't imagine calling anyone a "robotics expert" who misses such an obvious distinction!

As far as what "laypeople" consider robots, laypeople are the ones who are likely coming to the robot page seeking information from the experts and it does them a great disservice to supply erroneous information.

I am sorry I sound agitated, but this is getting ridiculous. Someone has to put their foot down, and I am not about to allow the Cult of Tesla usurp credit for the first "truly modern robot" based on a radio-controlled manually-operated non-programmable non-teachable toy boat.

Again, I am a huge admirer of Tesla, and in fact Mr. Devol and I drove to Colorado Springs (near where I grew up) a couple years ago looking for the Tesla museum only to find it had been closed due to lack on interest and the displays were in storage at the local college.

Let's put this thing to rest. You say you agree with me, but obviously are more worried about offending the sensibilities of laypeople. Editors make tough decisions all the time and one needs to be made here. Hopefully the mediators will agree with both of us and remove Tesla and "telerobots" from the page, save for a link and perhaps a disclaimer. ~ Bangthedash101 4.228.21.35 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bangthedash101, are you still here? The mediation is happening at the bottom of the page, under the heading The Issue. Rocketmagnet 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Father of Robotics

It seems that both Devol and Engleberger are the "Father of Robotics". Did robotics have two dads? They must have been liberals. Rocketmagnet 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

George Devol is anything but a liberal and would be profoundly offended by the suggestion. To answer your question, Engleberger promoted himself as the "father of robotics" but never held any patents for robotics. The patents on which the first Unimate was based on were held by Devol who applied for them years before meeting Engleberger.

There is only one "father of robotics" and that is George C. Devol. How do I know? He is my grandfather and is alive and well at age 95. He and Joe Engleberger are still great friends.

I am slightly concerned that you may not be objective here, as you have a strong emotional connection to George Devol. In my opinion, there are several people who contributed significantly to robotics (as to almost any field) and it's tricky to pin down one as being the only one. Any chance of hearing from George and Joe? Rocketmagnet 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have any specific questions for Mr. Devol, I would be happy to ask him, as I talk to him about every week. I am not sure how often he and Joe get together, but I think it is probably a few times a year. If you do not feel I am objective, please refer to the Isaac Asimov book I referenced above. As stated in the History section, no other patents were cited against Mr. Devol's original robotics patent. If you have any experience with patents, you know that is extremely rare. As such, in this unique case, it is appropriate to give credit for the first robotics patents to Mr. Devol.

Joe Engleberger is certainly a visionary and persuasive promoter who convinced others to invest in robotics when Mr. Devol had hit the wall. As stated in the March 21, 1982 New York Times article, "He Brought The Robot To Life" by Barnaby Feder: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E0DC1639F932A15750C0A964948260

"Actually, it was George C. Devol, not Mr. Engelberger, who developed and patented the basic technology on which the industry is founded. But since meeting Mr. Devol in 1956, Mr. Engelberger has preached the gospel that smart machines were the key to getting people out of dangerous or tedious production jobs and a key to improving productivity."

Further, as Mr. Engleberger states: "GEORGE DEVOL was unable to restrain himself from spilling the whole dream out, which scared most businessmen off, said Mr. Engelberger during an interview last week at Unimation's headquarters. I kept myself from talking about some of the things that have happened, which he envisioned."

In other words, Mr. Devol saw the big picture long before anyone else, but as anyone who has talked to him knows, he is very blunt and not particularly patient or forgiving, and if you don't agree with him, you had better know what you are talking about and be able to keep up. This scared off potential investors.

Joe Engleberger deserves tremendous credit as a man who advanced the "cause" of robotics, and preached the "gospel" of robotics while most people considered it science fiction.

Mr. Devol deserves sole credit as the inventor, and the patents provide evidence of this.

I invite anyone who wants to ask questions for Mr. Devol in this forum. I can get them answered in short order, as I will check back periodically. I can try to get answer to questions for Mr. Engleberger as well, but cannot promise anything.

Well, what would be brilliant is to have a picture of George and/or Joe for the article. Rocketmagnet 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediator

I want to establish myself first, so here goes:

Hi, my user name is Sr13 (will likely be Singularity in the next couple of days because I am filling in a usurpation request, so don't get those confused) and I will be the MedCab mediator for this dispute. The discussion will take place on this page, below this message.

I only ask of one thing: During discussion, please do not be uncivil, as it may slow down the discussion and prevent an agreement between the two parties. I will mediate this dispute as best I can. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sr13. Thanks for taking the time to mediate this dispute, which, as you can see, rages on up there. So, how does this work? Do we take it in turns, or do we all join in? Rocketmagnet 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can join in the discussion. Unlike WP:MEDCOM and WP:ARBCOM, this is purely made to be a informal way of resolving dispute. Singularity 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering how you mediate. Do the disputing parties just keep on arguing, and then you jump in at some point and say "easy guys"? How will it be resolved finally? Rocketmagnet 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end, hopefully there will be some sort of compromise between the two parties. Singularity 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)