158 replies to this topic

[Jody Von Jedi]

AlexEss, on 11 July 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

that word.... I am not sure it means what you think it means.... Also you killed my father.

.....prepare to die. Inigo, is that you?

Stop that rhyming and I mean it!.....Anybody want a peanut?

If only "The Princess Bride" had a big stompy robot scene......

[Bobzilla]

So many different things have developed after the word was invented, it's usefulness has expired.

"Then a robot came through the door."

Is it a Terminator or a Roomba?

[Jody Von Jedi]

Bobzilla, on 11 July 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

So many different things have developed after the word was invented, it's usefulness has expired.

"Then a robot came through the door."

Is it a Terminator or a Roomba?

It all depends on whether Sky Net has taken over the Roomba. So there's an interesting thought. If Sky Net was controlling our Battlemechs, would they be robots, mechs, or terminators? Hmmm.....

[Fut]

Bobzilla, on 11 July 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

So many different things have developed after the word was invented, it's usefulness has expired.

"Then a robot came through the door."

Is it a Terminator or a Roomba?

That's actually a really good point. Things have progressed quite a bit over the years - "Robot" is just too vague these days.

If you're lucky, it'll be DJ Roomba.

Edited by Fut, 11 July 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[Agent of Change]

116th NorskaFresh, on 10 July 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

I take issue with silly minutia.
PLEASE Jettison me!

Not in k-town

Edited by Agent of Change, 11 July 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[Fut]

Just wanted to bump this extremely important topic....

[Joseph Mallan]

116th NorskaFresh, on 10 July 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

I keep on hearing people refer to mechs as robots or giant robots...

robots are automated or controlled by an AI certainly not piloted by a human.

everytime i hear robot i think of dumb plodding 50s style toy robots with no brains what so ever.

A mech on the other hand is piloted like a carrier fighter. It has a cockpit, ejection seat and weapons and other systems under human control.

would anybody term an f14 tomcat a robot?

[Nova Latios Storm]

Mechs are people too!!! xD

[Tank]

Nova Latios Storm, on 15 July 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

Mechs are people too!!! xD

And they have feelings, just like Tanks!

[StompingOnTanks]

Tank, on 15 July 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

And they have feelings, just like Tanks!

Feelings of PURE EVIL. >_>

[Sparks Murphey]

Bhael Fire, on 11 July 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Ok; here's my problem with calling them robots, mecha, gundams, etc.:

BattleTech is an American creation inspired by Japanese mecha culture...but distinctly Western in flavor. It tried to set itself apart from its origins by divorcing the term mecha or robot, and embracing these war machines as just that; Machines of War. Mechanical...but not mecha. Mecha is a Japanese term for anything mechanical...BattleTech is...American.

In other words, these are massive walking tanks...huge mechanized armored combat vehicles piloted by highly trained soldiers. The term robot, a Czech word incidentally, has different connotations. It suggest that these machines are autonomous entities, rather than vehicles. This is not the case.

So, while technically a BattleMech can be referred to as mecha or robot, a more accurate term is simply calling it a 'Mech...because that fits in better with the spirit of the BattleTech franchise.

That said, call these things whatever the hell you want.

From Google:

Teh Googles said:

robot
from Czech, from robota ‘forced labour’. The term was coined in K. Čapek's play R.U.R.‘Rossum's Universal Robots’ (1920).

So, going back to Czech roots: an Egyptian slave building a pyramid is a robot; Big Dog isn't, since it's not capable of choosing to do something else but decides not to because otherwise it would be disassembled.

Maybe, just maybe, the word has evolved into something else.

Personally, I'm going with Saints Row IV.

[Nova Latios Storm]

[Strum Wealh]

AUSSIETROOPER4, on 10 July 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

I keep on hearing people refer to mechs as robots or giant robots...

robots are automated or controlled by an AI certainly not piloted by a human.

everytime i hear robot i think of dumb plodding 50s style toy robots with no brains what so ever.

A mech on the other hand is piloted like a carrier fighter. It has a cockpit, ejection seat and weapons and other systems under human control.

would anybody term an f14 tomcat a robot?

The modern usage of "robot" is specifically attributed to the 1920 play, Rossum's Universal Robots (or R.U.R.) by Karel Čapek.
The play used the specific Czech term "robota", which refers specifically to "forced labor" (as opposed to "employment" or "volunteer labor"; saying that it means simply "work" is incorrect).
Also, it should be noted that Čapek's robota were actually organic (rather than mechanical) beings, grown on looms using a "formula" (which becomes a key plot point), making them more similar to the Neosapiens from ExoSquad or the "Skinjobs" from the newer Battlestar Galactica than to obviously-mechanical constructs like C-3PO or ED-209 or Johnny 5.

As far as answering the question of using one term over another ("mecha" versus "robot" versus (universe/story-specific term)), it becomes a matter of proper classification and communication of specific meaning.

The term "robot", when not used in the layman's sense, carries with it a specific set of connotations and meanings that set the particular thing(s) being designated "robot" apart from the broader set of generally-related things (for which we can use the term "mecha").

Specifically, the modern term "robot" can be defined as "a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks" (from the Robot Institute of America, 1979).
The legal definition of "robot" (ultimately derived from the definition used by the Robotic Industries Association and the robotics industry at large) is a bit more specific:

Quote

Today's robotics systems operate like most machines by way of hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical power. Electric motors have become progressively smaller, with high power-to-weight ratios, enabling them to become the dominant means by which robots are powered. The crucial element in robotics is the artificial intelligence carried in the programmable circuitry of the machines.

Robots are comprised of elements that differ depending on end use. The hand of a robot, for instance, is referred to in the industry as an "end effector." End effectors may be specialized tools, such as spot welders or spray guns, or more general-purpose grippers. Common grippers include fingered and vacuum types. Another central element of robotics control technology is the sensor. It is through sensors that a robotic system receives knowledge of its environment, to which subsequent actions of the robot can be adjusted. Sensors are used to enable a robot to adjust to variations in the position of objects to be picked up, to inspect objects, and to monitor proper operation (although some robots are able to adjust to variations in object placement without the use of sensors, provided they have sufficient end effector flexibility). Important sensor types include visual, force and torque, speed and acceleration, tactile, and distance sensors. The majority of industrial robots use simple binary sensing, analogous to an on/off switch. This does not permit sophisticated feedback to the robot as to how successfully an operation was performed. Lack of adequate feedback also often requires the use of guides and fixtures to constrain the motions of a robot through an operation, which implies substantial inflexibility in changing operations.

As noted above, a "proper/true" robot has three defining charcteristics/capabilities:

• a built-in, programmable driving machine intelligence (e.g. AI)
  
• one or more sensors through which the aforementioned machine intelligence can gather information about the environment in which it is operating
  
• one or more manipulators ("end effectors") through which the machine intelligence can instigate a change in one or more aspects or elements of the environment

BattleMechs and many other piloted, more-or-less humanoid mecha (e.g. HOUNDs, Gears, Mobile Suits, etc) are thus not technically "robots" as they generally lack the crucial "built-in driving machine intelligence"; they rely on (generally) human operators to continuously think for and direct the machine's actions in the stead of the (usually absent or incapable) integrated machine intelligence.

[Bosie]

Simple test. Show a picture of a 'mech to the average person on the street and ask them what it is. I'd put money on robot being top of the list.

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 15 August 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

BattleMechs and many other piloted, more-or-less humanoid mecha (e.g. HOUNDs, Gears, Mobile Suits, etc) are thus not technically "robots" as they generally lack the crucial "built-in driving machine intelligence"; they rely on (generally) human operators to continuously think for and direct the machine's actions in the stead of the (usually absent or incapable) integrated machine intelligence.

According to Tech Manual, pp. 30-44, 'Mechs do indeed possess a (limited) "integrated machine intelligence", the Diagnostic Interpretation computer, which "acts as the ’Mech’s autonomic and higher nervous system" (p. 42).

They are semi-autonomous robots. They will try to avoid damaging themselves while moving around without any input from the MechWarrior (although the MechWarrior can override that behaviour if need be):


(Tech Manual, p. 43)

The MechWarrior tells the 'Mech where to go and what to shoot, and the 'Mech carries out those directions to the best of its abilities, while doing all the micro-management on its own (where to step, how to move, how to distribute power, and so on). The MechWarrior only need concern him- or herself with the higher-level functions; it would be impossible to pilot a 'Mech otherwise.

Edited by stjobe, 15 August 2014 - 07:39 AM.

[RadioKies]

stjobe, on 10 July 2014 - 11:15 PM, said:

'mechs are robots. Very, very smart, semi-autonomous robots.

The second page shows that it can only do what they have learned. i.e. programmed in a way. If you learn the programming that the mech can do a summersault when it has enough speed, it can recreate the action if the setting is correct. If you never did it, the mech won't be able to do it out of itself. But still, it can do something you learn autonomously.

Your phone can learn words and learn to create sentances for you (unless you have autocorrect/help disabled). It learns from what you type and can even correct you when you mispell a word it didn't even know when you first booted the phone. Now.. is your phone a robot?

Spoiler

inb4: hurrr it's an android!

As for the rest (even the stuff you say in later posts) you are telling us that the mech is doing a lot of work like moving the body while avoiding obstacles and not falling over.

-Airplanes have autopilots, these can do the whole freaking flight from takeoff to landing (and I'm talking normal consumer airliners). We have the pilots for when something goes wrong.
-Helicopters can autolevel themselves so they can "hover" and they are able to prepare/stabilize themselves for when you are fireing weapons.
-Tanks (even hummer mounted turrets) have gyro's, computer enhanced stabilizers and whatnot so you can aim at your target while driving over 60kph in rough terrain and hit it everytime when you press fire without having to adjust your barrel because it's xx meters away or you just happen to go over a sandbank bump.
-PredatorDrone, is a drone a robot? The thing can fly whole missions autonomously (indefinately if you keep em fueled), do IFF, paint targets and report things home if it thinks something is reportworthy. To do this it must get a set of instructions though and must be programmed for each mission. For every drone there is a human operator. Is the drone a robot?

###
Something is a robot when it doesn't require an operator to function from the start. You can switch it on, give it an order and goes it way. It doesn't need AI to function or constant input from an operator.

This is why a welding robot is a robot. The predatordrone is a robot drone. The helicopter isn't a robot, because it needs input from an operator. The tank can't do a thing without input. The commercial airliner is imo a robot because it can do whatever the job it must do autonomously.

So all in all, yeah I agree with you, Mechs are Robots. Because they are apparently able to fight even when their operator is gone.

I think that some people might want to rethink what a robot is. Some people think about something that needs to have an AI like 3CPO/R2D2/JetsonsRosie and needs to look humanoid/animalish. Not every robot is an android or cyborg without the organism part but an android is a robot. The whole term 'Robot' is quite large.
It's like 'vehicle'. Whats a vehicle? A car, a truck, a hovercraft, a bicycle?

[Strum Wealh]

Bosie, on 15 August 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Simple test. Show a picture of a 'mech to the average person on the street and ask them what it is. I'd put money on robot being top of the list.

You'd get the same results if you used an image of the Foster-Miller TALON, which has no autonomous operating capability whatsoever but is still (incorrectly) called a "robot" simply because "non-autonomous teleoperated combat-capable reconnaissance platform" is long and cumbersome (though, it could be acronymized to "NATCORP").





By contrast, using an image of Boss (the completely autonomous vehicle that won the 2007 DARPA Grand Challenge) would have those same people saying, "it's a truck" or "it's a SUV"; virtually none of them would guess "robot".
A few of them might even look at the sensor rig on the top (and the Google sponsorship decal on the side), and guess (incorrectly) that it has something to do with Google Maps/Streetview.



----------

stjobe, on 15 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

According to Tech Manual, pp. 30-44, 'Mechs do indeed possess a (limited) "integrated machine intelligence", the Diagnostic Interpretation computer, which "acts as the 'Mech's autonomic and higher nervous system" (p. 42).

They are semi-autonomous robots. They will try to avoid damaging themselves while moving around without any input from the MechWarrior (although the MechWarrior can override that behaviour if need be):


(Tech Manual, p. 43)

The MechWarrior tells the 'Mech where to go and what to shoot, and the 'Mech carries out those directions to the best of its abilities, while doing all the micro-management on its own (where to step, how to move, how to distribute power, and so on). The MechWarrior only need concern him- or herself with the higher-level functions; it would be impossible to pilot a 'Mech otherwise.

The DI Computer, among other things, serves as the 'Mech's proprioception system (managing "the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement"), but it incapable of being a "driving machine intelligence" for a normal 'Mech (the modified drone 'Mechs operated by the AI system known as The Broken notwithstanding) as it cannot actually pilot the BattleMech fully on its own; being an "integrated machine intelligence" is not the same thing as being a "driving machine intelligence".

The DI computer's functionality no more makes a 'Mech a true robot than advanced emergency breaking systems or autonomous cruise control systems - either separately or together - do for the average car, or a flight management system (which is largely the real-world equivalent of the DI Computer) does for most aircraft.

'Mechs are "robotic" (e.g. robot-like), but they are not true robots.

[stjobe]

Strum Wealh, on 15 August 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

'Mechs are "robotic" (e.g. robot-like), but they are not true robots.

The word "robot" is ambiguous as we've seen in this thread, and you yourself pointed out that in the vernacular even souped-up RC cars are called "robots" - but neither you nor I would call those robots.

This is a robot:



And that's way less autonomous than our 'Mechs are supposed to be.

By your definition, the ASEA robot above is not a "true" robot, but it's been the very textbook definition of the word "robot" since it was introduced in 1974 (yes, 40 years ago this year)

Either way, I'm fine with calling 'Mechs "semi-autonomous robotic fighting machines" if the word "robot" offends; I think it's pretty clear from the lore that they're a tad bit more autonomous than a modern airliner, fighter jet, tank, or any of the other examples you listed.

[Gremlich Johns]

stjobe, on 11 July 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

We have perhaps too little of it, but the game cannot be "a BattleTech game" without having actual BattleMechs in it - and those BattleMechs have a very high degree of autonomy.

Then, by your definition, the modern combat tank would be considered a Mech?

The battlemech cannot move in a tactical situation on its own, it requires a pilot - therefore, it is NOT autonomous and ergo, not a robot.

[kingalbertII]

a mech is a tank with legs instead of threads

if a tank would not need a pilot it would be a robot.

a robot an autonomous mechanical form
a mech is simply a combat vehicle