[mandor]

My definition: there is no clear limit, but there is a spectrum of ‘roboticity’ that corresponds to the spectrum of ‘versatility’. The more versatile a machine is, the more a robot it is.

For instance, a blender is not versatile. But a cooking robot can do more things (it blends, but also cooks, mixes, etc.). This is why the cooking robot is more a robot than a blender.

This is similar in industry. You have specialized machines, which can do a single thing. Industrial robots are more versatile because we can program them to achieve different task (e.g. when there is a new model of car). The ultimate robot would be as versatile as a human. This kind of humanoid would have the highest level of ‘roboticity’.

[sdrothrock]

> The more versatile a machine is, the more a robot it is. . . . Industrial robots are more versatile because we can program them to achieve different task (e.g. when there is a new model of car).

Agreed. I actually think movies downplay "robot" arms too much, making them look like dumb graspers/movers when in fact they're incredibly versatile not only mechanically, but also programmatically (for example, being able to specify maximum forces, a center of mass, "up", and have it work with all of these parameters as efficiently as possible).

For example, the Kuka:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcl6n4LOJRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck8y1sl97BY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxbjZiKAZP4

[andrew3726]

Why would human versatility define the upper limit?

[pryelluw]

Great question. I think it stems from the origin of robotics itself. The desire to build a machine that is "alive" and get it to obey at all our commands. Sometimes I think that robots are slaves 2.0, and as such, they will have human traits.