158 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

But a mech is defined as walking appearence in our more western terms. Thats why a tank is not a mech.
But the mecha genre itself generates form the japanese メカ meka which comes from "mechanical" and does also include robots or even cars. So the term "mech" does include robots, but yet MWO mechs are not robots by the definition of what a robot is.

And some funfact about Robot:

the term robot goes back to people doing corvee (if that si a proper translation of the medieval working stuff they had).

This term is called

"Robath", partially named "Robot" or "Robott" in bavarian, slesian and austrian terms. Slavic term of "robota" means 'work'. And thats where it origins from and basically a robot is exactly doing this: Working for aspecific task. Of course the modern term "robot" as a machine has some slighlty altered definition.

Edited by Lily from animove, 24 September 2014 - 01:26 AM.

[stjobe]

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

a mech is a tank with legs instead of threads

Sure, and the arms are turrets. If you want to simplify things into meaninglessness.

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

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

Tanks have drivers, not pilots. They usually also have gunners, sometimes loaders, and a commander (the closest position to "MechWarrior"). The 'mech itself is driver, gunner, loader, and partly commander as well.

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

a robot an autonomous mechanical form

Autonomous or semi-autonomous; 'mechs fall squarely in the second category, being capable of e.g. moving unassisted from point A to point B, avoiding obstacles on the way. Or, more relevant perhaps, to align several weapons on the same target while moving at high speed through varied terrain, having first located and identified said target for the MechWarrior.

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

a mech is simply a combat vehicle

A 'mech is a semi-autonomous robotic fighting machine; it's far more advanced and intelligent (or perhaps "smart" is a better word) than anything currently in existence.

I suggest you go and read pages 30-43 in the Tech Manual before arguing this issue further - or at least the abridged version available on sarna.net.

[CyclonerM]

Well, even if very "smart", a 'Mech is still NOT autonomous, thus still a combat vehicle. Otherwise, if it was a robot, it would have an IA instead of a pilot, and they are not yet advanced enough.

[kingalbertII]

CyclonerM, on 23 September 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well, even if very "smart", a 'Mech is still NOT autonomous, thus still a combat vehicle. Otherwise, if it was a robot, it would have an IA instead of a pilot, and they are not yet advanced enough.

indeed

you would call the Eurofighter typhoon a vehicle, even though it is for a large part computer controlled. the decisions are still made by the pilot however so its still a vehicle not a robot.

also, take the legs of a catapult, give it threads and tell me thats not a missile tank

[stjobe]

CyclonerM, on 23 September 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well, even if very "smart", a 'Mech is still NOT autonomous, thus still a combat vehicle. Otherwise, if it was a robot, it would have an IA instead of a pilot, and they are not yet advanced enough.

By that definition of "robot", you've just disqualified every single robot in existence today since none of them have AI to any appreciable degree. Far less than a 'mech is supposed to have, for sure.

Contemporary robot designers, manufacturers, and researchers tend to disagree on the exact definition of the word "robot", or what degree of autonomy is required (if any - see industrial robots, semi-autonomous drones, and RC "robots"). AI is definitely not needed for something to be called a robot.

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

you would call the Eurofighter typhoon a vehicle, even though it is for a large part computer controlled. the decisions are still made by the pilot however so its still a vehicle not a robot.

If you'd bothered to check any of the links and source-book excerpts I've posted - or hell, even just read my posts - you'd see that a lot of decisions are indeed made by the 'mech and not the MechWarrior. Basically all the low-level decisions are made by the 'mech, leaving only the high-level ones to the MechWarrior.

Yes, the MechWarrior decides to move forward, but the 'mech decides how to best do so. The MechWarrior decides to fire on a target, but not before the 'mech has not only discovered and identified the target and displayed it to the MechWarrior, it has also aligned the selected weapons so if/when the MechWarrior presses the firing stud, the shot will hit.

Again, please read at least section 10 of the article I linked to on sarna.

Edited by stjobe, 23 September 2014 - 10:56 AM.

[Catalina Steiner]

I bought them, so I can call them WHATEVER I want!!!!!!11oneeleven...

Sorry, just trolling... it's rare that I do that.

[Solahma]

wait.... so I can't use the Sad Robot song for a video?

[kingalbertII]

stjobe, on 23 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yes, the MechWarrior decides to move forward, but the 'mech decides how to best do so. The MechWarrior decides to fire on a target, but not before the 'mech has not only discovered and identified the target and displayed it to the MechWarrior, it has also aligned the selected weapons so if/when the MechWarrior presses the firing stud, the shot will hit.

Again, please read at least section 10 of the article I linked to on sarna.

by those standard, the eurofighter is indeed not a vehicle but a robot, as it does most of those things as well, how to align canards, hud info, iff uplink, most of the aiming lockons... even landings are done automatically.

the mech makes no decisions as far as i know. when enemies show up, it does not go to cover automatically, it does not open fire until the pilot presses the fire button. if you could punch in a few commands and then let the mech go on while you just look it would be a robot. but it does not

[stjobe]

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

the mech makes no decisions as far as i know

That's because you stubbornly refuse to read, or even acknowledge, the links and images I keep posting. There's two more below for you to ignore and keep on claiming the 'mech "makes no decisions".

kingalbertII, on 23 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

when enemies show up, it does not go to cover automatically, it does not open fire until the pilot presses the fire button. if you could punch in a few commands and then let the mech go on while you just look it would be a robot. but it does not

(Tech Manual, p. 42)

See that quote there? "BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots". Yes, "robots".

It goes on "But they are not truly autonomous" - hence why I keep referring to them as "semi-autonomous robotic fighting machines".


(Tech Manual, p. 43)

Do you understand the words "self-determinant behaviour"? What do you take it to mean? Auto-pilot? We're not even close to that level of automation today, our best efforts can't even manage a self-driving car on public highways (Google Car notwithstanding).

[CyclonerM]

Ok, the IA part was an exaggeration. However, it may be really difficult to give a definition of "robot"..

[XphR]

The issue here is obviously one of semantics..

[stjobe]

XphR, on 23 September 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

The issue here is obviously one of semantics..

And quibbling, don't forget quibbling.

When the Tech Manual clearly states "BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots" (emphasis mine, see image of page 42 above for source), it's kind of disheartening to see people going "nuh-uh, it's no robot, it's no different from a tank, or a fighter jet, it's no robot, it's not intelligent, it can't think on its own, it's no robot, it's just a vehicle".

No, they're not fully autonomous, but they're a damn sight smarter than any "simple vehicle", and I've given plenty of lore excerpts to back up my arguments towards that point. The ones claiming 'mechs are just "a tank on legs", that they "cannot move on their own" have given very little to back that up apart from their own highly overrated opinions.

[XphR]

Oh, we need do address quibbling, as such is elementary, best also it is handled as so!

Spoiler

Blind men and an Elephant

As translated by: John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho, what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," quoth he: "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!

Edited by XphR, 23 September 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

stjobe, on 23 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

And quibbling, don't forget quibbling.

When the Tech Manual clearly states "BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots" (emphasis mine, see image of page 42 above for source), it's kind of disheartening to see people going "nuh-uh, it's no robot, it's no different from a tank, or a fighter jet, it's no robot, it's not intelligent, it can't think on its own, it's no robot, it's just a vehicle".

No, they're not fully autonomous, but they're a damn sight smarter than any "simple vehicle", and I've given plenty of lore excerpts to back up my arguments towards that point. The ones claiming 'mechs are just "a tank on legs", that they "cannot move on their own" have given very little to back that up apart from their own highly overrated opinions.

Actually, I pointed out that the degree to which the DI Computer is "smart" is really no different than a modern flight management system (many of which also include integrated autopilot and autoland systems) is "smart".
Yet, aircraft so-equipped are not considered robots, even though they have comparable - and, often, greater - autonomous operation capability in relation to a BattleMech (as such aircraft could keep flying and even land safely (if approaching an airport with the correct runway systems in place) if the pilot(s) is incapacitated or killed, while a BattleMech would be wholly incapable of moving while remaining upright - much less fighting - if the MechWarrior is likewise incapacitated or killed).

Furthermore, I posted the legal & industry-standard definition of robot, which explicitly states, "The crucial element in robotics is the artificial intelligence carried in the programmable circuitry of the machines", in addition to the presence of one or more "end effectors" and the presence of one or more sensor assemblies.
However, a machine needs to have all three of these to be considered a true robot:
Purely-mechanical automata (such as those created by al-Jazari in the 1200s, or the original player pianos of the late 1800s) are not robots under this definition, as they either lack both sensors & AI (as with the player piano), or they have a simple sensor (such as the floats on al-Jazari's "peacock fountain") but no guiding intelligence (that is, no AI).
Smart computers & "strong/full AI" - such as Cortana & her ilk from the Halo franchise - are not robots under this definition, since they lack a means to interact with the environment (e.g. they lack end-effectors).

And then, I pointed out how the common vernacular then proceeds to use the term "robot" to incorrectly label a host of things that are anything but that (the specific example I used was the Foster-Miller TALON, though this would apply to popular drones like Predator & Global Hawk as well), while usually eschewing its use in situations where it would actually be appropriate (the specific example that I used was the entrants into the 2007 Darpa Grand Challenge).

Just as many popular depictions of extraterrestrials are humanoid (e.g. superficially similar to true humans (to one degree or another), but without being true humans), BattleMechs are merely robotic (e.g. superficially similar to true robots, but without being true robots) & are referred to as "robots" only as a colloquialism (that is, basically because there is no more-accurate single word currently in widespread usage).

[XphR]

Semantics once again,

Some jets do indeed use robotics to augment the pilot or function without a pilot after given necessary instruction, this is true for some manned jets as well as unmanned / teli-piloted and automated drones (why you have decided these are non robotic I am unsure they meet your qualifications). Most people would not call an automatic door a robot, It may be extremely localized and with very few functions, that does not stop the front of most stores from being mechanized.

I am unfamiliar with the Halo universe but less than a minute of research into Cortana and its stated she is capable of taking over a railgun (Is this not an end-effector to apparently great effect?) at one point as well as other methods of reaching out to use various end effectors. She seems to be able to move between being robotic and not robotic by tapping into automated facilitates(that themselves are robotic in nature).

The legal & industry-standard definition of robot, like most legal & industry-standard definitions.. is lacking, inaccurate and aged.

[kingalbertII]

stjobe, on 23 September 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

the real problem here is that you have narrowed it down to battletech mech only.

As far as i'm aware, the OP was talking about mechs in general, that every time mechs are referred to as robots
so not just battletech, but arm slaves, hawken mechs, titans, mobile suits, knightmare frames, ganmen, VS and so on

the issue is that because it is mechanical and has legs, people say its a robot, while mechs are not robots but advanced combat vehicles, like fighters or tanks where being a considered robot is more depending on autonomy than form

give people a mech from any mech universe and a fully automatized tank and ask people which one is the robot and all will point at the mech, while it is the tank

[Lily from animove]

CyclonerM, on 23 September 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Ok, the IA part was an exaggeration. However, it may be really difficult to give a definition of "robot"..

It's not, a definition of what a robot is is defined. What is more or less a part of discussion is to what degree a device is a pure robot or not.

And a mech will probably have a lot robotic components doing automated purely self defined tasks. I also doubt a robot or mech does independend decisions. He will only, like a robot make decisions his within his programming. This is more like a simple sourcecode triggering a specific behaviour after condition X is met. He will very unlikely make a very own decision by waging different conditions to each other. This would require massive time for him to do. Why? well In a world, where targeting computer weights up to 7 tons, you can guess they don't have multicore processors and such. They are probably similar to giant computers like we had in the 70's. And whoever played "magic the gathering" as PC game on 233mhz PC knows how painfull it was when there were like 50 cards on your field. The PC then needed soemtimes 10+ minutes to claculate and wage his next steps.
So I guess Battlemechs will mostlikely be "condition --> reaction robots" alone. And they are mechs because they require a human component to forfill their constructed intention. The task of a mech is to fight, he can not do this alone. An industrial robot, may require someinitial programming, but then he will do this without needing further human input until he is emant to do something else.

kingalbertII, on 24 September 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

give people a mech from any mech universe and a fully automatized tank and ask people which one is the robot and all will point at the mech, while it is the tank

because mankind as a whole is stupid.

Edited by Lily from animove, 24 September 2014 - 01:46 AM.

[990Dreams]

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

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

Wrong. Stop acting like you know what you're talking about when you don't.

[Mike Forst]

I'm going to keep calling them robots and there's nothing you can do to stop me OP

[RadioKies]

Mike Forst, on 17 October 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

I'm going to keep calling them robots and there's nothing you can do to stop me OP

You can call them whatever you want, but when are you guys going to fix the WYSIWYG editor on the forums Mike?

inb4: when I'm done posting.. or I'm an IT Admin, not a webdev.
I just want to be able to make posts without having to switch the editor mode everytime to quote/type normally/use functions. :/