Talk:Robotics: Difference between revisions
imported>Benjamin McCandless (Article Focus) |
imported>Benjamin McCandless (Things I should have said earlier) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Thanks for the article! If you are interested in robotics, please check out our [[CZ:Robotics_Workgroup|Workgroup page]] There are an assortment other articles there that need inspired authors. | Thanks for the article! If you are interested in robotics, please check out our [[CZ:Robotics_Workgroup|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]]. | |||
[[User:Benjamin McCandless|Benjamin McCandless]] | [[User:Benjamin McCandless|Benjamin McCandless]] | ||
Revision as of 16:38, 17 March 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
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.