158 replies to this topic

[Mike Forst]

Your post is correct. I don't admin the forums or website server or its software. Sorry

[Darth Futuza]

RadioKies, on 18 October 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

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. :/

I don't understand...? That's the point of the edit mode.

[James DeGriz]

If a battlemech is a robot, then so is Iron Man.

Mechs are not robots, they walking tanks or perhaps a giant power suit.

Sure, of course you can call them a giant stompy robot if you want, but you'd be wrong.

Gg.

[XphR]

Ironmans suit is weaponized robotized armor.

[kingalbertII]

in the star wars movies R2D2 is a robot

on the set (at least of the originals) it was actually a mech since it had a guy inside controlling it

[Strum Wealh]

James DeGriz, on 23 November 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

If a battlemech is a robot, then so is Iron Man.

Mechs are not robots, they walking tanks or perhaps a giant power suit.

Sure, of course you can call them a giant stompy robot if you want, but you'd be wrong.

Gg.

XphR, on 23 November 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Ironmans suit is weaponized robotized armor.

Some of the IM armors can be remotely operated by Stark (see the alternate-universe Telepresence Armor in the comics, or the teleoperation scene in the film Iron Man 3), or operated by onboard AI systems (see the Sentient Armor from the comics, or the "House Party Protocol" in the film Iron Man 3).

Certainly, examples like the Sentient Armor would be considered true robots, and the armors' AI-driven actions under the House Party Protocol would mark them as robotic.

Aside from the specifically-modified units designed to be controlled by The Broken, BattleMechs have very little capability for autonomous action or external AI control; they can't do much of anything without a pilot at the controls.

In other words, the IM armors are far, far closer to being "robots" than BattleMechs.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 25 November 2014 - 11:27 AM.

[James DeGriz]

Strum Wealh, on 24 November 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

Some of the IM armors can be remotely operated by Stark (see the alternate-universe Telepresence Armor in the comics, or the teleoperation scene in the film Iron Man 3), or operated by onboard AI systems (see the Sentient Armor from the comics, or the "House Party Protocol" in the film Iron Man 3).

Certainly, examples like the Sentient Armor would be considered true robots, and the armors' AI-driven actions under the House Party Protocol would mark them as robotic.

Aside from the specifically-modified units designed to be controlled by The Broken, BattleMechs have very little capability for autonomous action or external AI control; they can's do much of anything without a pilot at the controls.

In other words, the IM armors are far, far closer to being robots than BattleMechs.

Which kinda proves my point. No one has ever referred to Iron Man as a robot, and if he's closer to a robot than a Battlemech is, then there's no reason to refer to a 'mech as a robot either.

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 24 November 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Which kinda proves my point. No one has ever referred to Iron Man as a robot, and if he's closer to a robot than a Battlemech is, then there's no reason to refer to a 'mech as a robot either.

Because Iron Man is not a robot, but his suit it robotic... ..Its mechanized, highly articulate, full "smart" plate armor. It monitors Tony and does its best to fit him as an exoskeleton stuffed to the brim with automation.

The mech, while piloted, has its own levels of automated systems throughout that act with and for the Pilot (not outwardly perceivable actions, but internalized smart self activated activities). Its not held together with leather straps and pinch hinges...

Edited by XphR, 24 November 2014 - 10:20 AM.

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 24 November 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Because Iron Man is not a robot, but his suit it robotic... ..Its mechanized, highly articulate, full "smart" plate armor. It monitors Tony and does its best to fit him as an exoskeleton stuffed to the brim with automation.

The mech, while piloted, has its own levels of automated systems throughout that act with and for the Pilot (not outwardly perceivable actions, but internalized smart self activated activities). Its not held together with leather straps and pinch hinges...

What qualifies as a robot has absolutely nothing to do with how it's constructed, but by its level of autonomy. A robot acts independently, either via a pre programmed set of commands that is repeated over and over again, or by artificial intelligence.

Anything that has any direct human control is nothing more than a vehicle, no matter how technologically advanced or anthropomorphically shaped it is.

I think the problem is that human beings, largely due to popular culture, see anything that has human proportions and made of metal as a robot. Whilst I understand that Battlemechs have "robotic systems", the fact that they require a human pilot automatically disqualifies them from being a robot.

Edited by James DeGriz, 25 November 2014 - 12:45 AM.

[Rushin Roulette]

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

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

Umm.. I beg to differ. Most of them are Mechs... but if you use this criteria for deffinition... then try looking at the robots from the spectator mode while wondering why the started push didnt happen and you were left alone at the front as soon as the enemy blips were seen by the AI

[Tustle]

James DeGriz, on 23 November 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

If a battlemech is a robot, then so is Iron Man.
Mechs are not robots, they walking tanks or perhaps a giant power suit.

If you all are going to argue over such little details, then let the counterarguments continue: one could look at the Iron Man suit itself as a sophisticated independent entity from Stark, as could a BattleMech from it's MechWarrior. Both BattleMech and Iron Man suit have the sensory devices, actuators, and some measure of 'intelligence' in order to be considered robots or at the very least 'robotic.' The key thing is that human element, and said human element can be seen as something for the 'mech and suit itself to 'react from.' To argue that the Iron Man armor is 'just an armored suit' and that a BattleMech is 'just a walking tank' wouldn't do either of them justice.

I've seen the 'warplanes must be robots too' argument here, and all I can think to that is 'planes, once in the air, "merely" have to coordinate their individual control surfaces and thrusters.' A 'mech needs to coordinate it's own limbs in comparison, and while I won't argue the most likely inherent difficulty in getting computers to maintain level flight all I can say is that it's already done and we even have quadrotor drones now, whereas while we do have bipedal bots' now they're still a long ways to go from being commonplace beyond the ongoing competitions. We're still having problems getting these bipeds up stairs for crissakes and you people quibble over 'mechs "just being walking tanks," when there are already counterarguments pointing out how, without much more than balance data from a MechWarrior's Neurohelmet, a 'mech can independently navigate around obstacles in it's path such as trees and rocks and what have you all while keeping itself on it's giant stomping feet! No further input from the MechWarrior beyond directional heading and throttle, and the BattleMech does the work of making sure it doesn't slip and fall on it's heavy metal tuscus.

'Mechs, at the very least, are robotic war vehicles. They have sensors, they have actuators, they have a degree of localized intelligence far more powerful than today's war machines. Scary way to look at it is, though a MechWarrior is a hard requirement for most BattleMechs (Broken not withstanding), all a MechWarrior is to a BattleMech is just another thing to react to and move in response to, if one were to look at the controls and Neurohelmet of a 'mech as just another battery of sensors for said 'mech.

Aaaaand just don't get me started on popular anime 'mechs. (Most've more degrees of intelligence than BattleTech 'mechs! Today's Gundams with their wacky round hand controls anyone?)

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

I think the problem is that human beings, largely due to popular culture, see anything that has human proportions and made of metal as a robot. Whilst I understand that Battlemechs have "robotic systems", the fact that they require a human pilot automatically disqualifies them from being a robot.

You should work on getting over that then, robots shape and form can be purpose built to any needed configuration, adding in any number of controllable or non controllable points of influence does not make it any less robot. You may not see the robot behind the mirror, that does not however stop its being there.. Adding a pilot to a robotic system does not remove the robot from the system. Even in current day applications you have machines were multiple robotic systems act together to accomplish sets of personalized and shared goals with other robotic systems and requested human variables.

[James DeGriz]

Tank Man, on 25 November 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

If you all are going to argue over such little details, then let the counterarguments continue: one could look at the Iron Man suit itself as a sophisticated independent entity from Stark, as could a BattleMech from it's MechWarrior. Both BattleMech and Iron Man suit have the sensory devices, actuators, and some measure of 'intelligence' in order to be considered robots or at the very least 'robotic.' The key thing is that human element, and said human element can be seen as something for the 'mech and suit itself to 'react from.' To argue that the Iron Man armor is 'just an armored suit' and that a BattleMech is 'just a walking tank' wouldn't do either of them justice.

One could indeed look at Iron Man and a Battlemech that way, and one would be wrong. It's about autonomy. Starks suit, just like a Battlemech is not capable of independant action without the pilot, be that Phelan Kell or Tony Stark. Dress it up all you like, but a mech is a walking tank. Granted, a technologically advanced, highly sophisticated tank, yes, but when it comes down to it, that's all it is. Although I think the real point is, it's MORE than "just" a tank, but it's not intelligent enough to be a robot. Which is why, after all, it's called a Battlemech.

Quote

I've seen the 'warplanes must be robots too' argument here, and all I can think to that is 'planes, once in the air, "merely" have to coordinate their individual control surfaces and thrusters.' A 'mech needs to coordinate it's own limbs in comparison, and while I won't argue the most likely inherent difficulty in getting computers to maintain level flight all I can say is that it's already done and we even have quadrotor drones now, whereas while we do have bipedal bots' now they're still a long ways to go from being commonplace beyond the ongoing competitions. We're still having problems getting these bipeds up stairs for crissakes and you people quibble over 'mechs "just being walking tanks," when there are already counterarguments pointing out how, without much more than balance data from a MechWarrior's Neurohelmet, a 'mech can independently navigate around obstacles in it's path such as trees and rocks and what have you all while keeping itself on it's giant stomping feet! No further input from the MechWarrior beyond directional heading and throttle, and the BattleMech does the work of making sure it doesn't slip and fall on it's heavy metal tuscus.

How ever advanced our particular breed of 31st century walking tank is; and lets face it the technical issues of getting a machine to walk like we do without falling on its rump is largely why our 21st century tanks have wheels and tracks, rather than legs doesn't change what a mech IS and what it is NOT. It is not autonomous. It requires advanced systems to help it be what it is, but those systems are as much designed to help the pilot as it is the mech. The mech does not decide what to shoot, how to shoot it, which way to walk, which target is the greater threat, how to link with its lance mates to ensure victory, it just provides the information and the weaponry for the pilot to do that. Ultimately, it's no different than a car with GPS. It tells you how to get somewhere, but it's up to you whether or not you follow that route or take one of your own.

Quote

'Mechs, at the very least, are robotic war vehicles. They have sensors, they have actuators, they have a degree of localized intelligence far more powerful than today's war machines. Scary way to look at it is, though a MechWarrior is a hard requirement for most BattleMechs (Broken not withstanding), all a MechWarrior is to a BattleMech is just another thing to react to and move in response to, if one were to look at the controls and Neurohelmet of a 'mech as just another battery of sensors for said 'mech.

"Robotic war vehicles" is exactly what they are. RobotIC as in "like a robot", doesn't make something a robot. I could probably do a robotic dance. Am I robot? No. Additionally, a battlemech won't override an incompetent mechwarriors actions to prevent its own destruction. A Battlemech is a vehicle. It is not sentient. It is not autonomous.

Quote

Aaaaand just don't get me started on popular anime 'mechs. (Most've more degrees of intelligence than BattleTech 'mechs! Today's Gundams with their wacky round hand controls anyone?)

Honestly, couldn't comment. Never watched mecha. Never likely to.

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Adding a pilot to a robotic system does not remove the robot from the system.

Adding a man to a machine, doesn't suddenly make it a robot either.

Quote

Even in current day applications you have machines were multiple robotic systems act together to accomplish sets of personalized and shared goals with other robotic systems and requested human variables.

Those systems are generally either autonomous because they react independently to received data, or follow a set of commands over and over again. They are robots: in order to function completely, they require no further human interaction, except, of course, in the event of breakdown.

Battlemechs are not autonomous. They are therefore not robots.

It really is as simple as that. All you're doing in proving my point.

Thanks for that.

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

Adding a man to a machine, doesn't suddenly make it a robot either.

Those systems are generally either autonomous because they react independently to received data, or follow a set of commands over and over again. They are robots: in order to function completely, they require no further human interaction, except, of course, in the event of breakdown.

Battlemechs are not autonomous. They are therefore not robots.

Adding a man to a robot does not stop it from being a robot, nor does putting a human in it as the final controller interface or Pilot..

autonomous systems within the machine and working inside the machine does nothing to invalidate their activity. The individual servos themselves are even standalone robots capable of receiving, interpreting, acting upon and passing along data.

Battlemechs are stuffed to the brim with sensors, controllers, actuators and is indeed a machine stuffed to the brim with robots.

Edited by XphR, 25 November 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Adding a man to a robot does not stop it from being a robot, nor does putting a human in it as the final controller interface or Pilot..

You're right it doesn't. KITT from Knight Rider is already a robot, because he's capable of autonomy. Michael Knight can pilot him if he so wishes, and that doesn't stop KITT from still being a robot.

A Battlemech is not capable of autonomy, and is therefore not a robot. It needs a pilot to function. It is therefore not a robot.

You'll get it eventually. Have another go

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

You're right it doesn't. KITT from Knight Rider is already a robot, because he's capable of autonomy. Michael Knight can pilot him if he so wishes, and that doesn't stop KITT from still being a robot.

A Battlemech is not capable of autonomy, and is therefore not a robot. It needs a pilot to function. It is therefore not a robot.

You'll get it eventually. Have another go

A scissor lift is a robot that needs a pilot, the levels of autonomy are not removed by adding a meatbag on top of it.

Edited by XphR, 25 November 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

A scissor lift is a robot that needs a pilot, the levels of autonomy are not removed by adding a meatbag on top of it.

Nope. A scissor lift isn't a robot either.

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Nope. A scissor lift isn't a robot either.

Going to have to take that up with the companies that produce them.

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Going to have to take that up with the companies that produce them.

I think I'll have the OED on my side.

http://www.oxforddic...n/english/robot

Definition of robot in English:

NOUN
[color=#000000]


[color=#F78E1E]1[/color]A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:half of all American robots are making cars or trucks[color=#F78E1E][AS MODIFIER]:[/color] a robot arm
science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicatecertain human movements and functions automatically:the robot closed the door behind us[/color]


Probably trading standards too. Notice use of the word "Automatically".