Talk:Robotics: Difference between revisions
imported>Benjamin McCandless (The term "Robotics") |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
The article says: "It is theorized by some futurists (such as Ray Kurzweil) that individual computers will surprass the computational capabilities of a single human brain by 2020 or 2025. Robotics as a science is thus likely to become more popular in the coming years." Surely it doesn't follow from the first sentence that ''robotics'' will become more popular, but that ''artificial intelligence'' will. And AI isn't a branch of robotics. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:07, 13 March 2007 (CDT) | The article says: "It is theorized by some futurists (such as Ray Kurzweil) that individual computers will surprass the computational capabilities of a single human brain by 2020 or 2025. Robotics as a science is thus likely to become more popular in the coming years." Surely it doesn't follow from the first sentence that ''robotics'' will become more popular, but that ''artificial intelligence'' will. And AI isn't a branch of robotics. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:07, 13 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
Line 16: | Line 6: | ||
Good point. I suppose I was getting at the fact that it would be feasible to cram the processing power necessary for a life-like robot into a form factor that is feasible for mass production (like the [[NS-5]] in I, Robot). All in all the last bit isn't very balanced and reeks of opinion. Anyone have any suggestions other than just removing it? --[[User:William H. Bickford|Will Bickford]] 13:17, 13 March 2007 | Good point. I suppose I was getting at the fact that it would be feasible to cram the processing power necessary for a life-like robot into a form factor that is feasible for mass production (like the [[NS-5]] in I, Robot). All in all the last bit isn't very balanced and reeks of opinion. Anyone have any suggestions other than just removing it? --[[User:William H. Bickford|Will Bickford]] 13:17, 13 March 2007 | ||
:I'm not entirely sure I agree. Current thinking is that traditional approaches to AI have been hobbled by the assumption that cocmputer intelligence can or should be treated in a vacuum. In fact, some go so far as to say either that it makes no sense to talk about unembodied intelligence, that intelligence can only be studied and developed ''in situ''. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 14:55, 19 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Article Focus == | == Article Focus == |
Latest revision as of 11:34, 14 November 2007
The article says: "It is theorized by some futurists (such as Ray Kurzweil) that individual computers will surprass the computational capabilities of a single human brain by 2020 or 2025. Robotics as a science is thus likely to become more popular in the coming years." Surely it doesn't follow from the first sentence that robotics will become more popular, but that artificial intelligence will. And AI isn't a branch of robotics. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
Robotics / AI Differences
Good point. I suppose I was getting at the fact that it would be feasible to cram the processing power necessary for a life-like robot into a form factor that is feasible for mass production (like the NS-5 in I, Robot). All in all the last bit isn't very balanced and reeks of opinion. Anyone have any suggestions other than just removing it? --Will Bickford 13:17, 13 March 2007
- I'm not entirely sure I agree. Current thinking is that traditional approaches to AI have been hobbled by the assumption that cocmputer intelligence can or should be treated in a vacuum. In fact, some go so far as to say either that it makes no sense to talk about unembodied intelligence, that intelligence can only be studied and developed in situ. Greg Woodhouse 14:55, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Article Focus
Thanks for the article! If you are interested in robotics, please check out our Workgroup page There are an assortment other articles there that need inspired authors.
I think that only the first sentance really pertains to robotics. Rather than deleting the rest, why don't we use them as a starting point for more suitable articles, such as The future of Robotics, Ficticious robots, Industrial robots and Consumer robots.
The term "Robotics"...
I thought Robot was from the Czeck playwright Karel Capek (sp?), who coined robot to mean (rougly) slave or laborer...
--Nick Johnson 12:58, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
The term "Robotics"
Nick,
I would offer that the term Robot and the term Robotics are different. The term "robot" was indeed popularized in Karel Capek's play R.U.R., However Karel credited his brother Josef, who was also a writer, with inventing the word. (This is actually mentioned in the first of the 4 references that you list.) "Robotics" was first used (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) by Asimov, in the short story "Liar!" published in 1941.
Hmmmm. The error has been noted. I have updated the article.
Thanks for pointing this out! I would have never fixed this otherwise. Please feel free to add to this (and other) articles. I simply don't have time at the moment to give Robot or Robotics the time that they deserve.
Benjamin McCandless 12:00, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Engineering Developing Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Computers Developing Articles
- Computers Nonstub Articles
- Computers Internal Articles