[tshaddox]

I think that’s a bit silly. The reason we don’t commonly refer to a dishwasher as a robot isn’t because dishwashers exist and we only use “robot” for things that don’t exist.

(This should already be clear given that robots do exist, and we do call them robots, as you yourself noted, but never mind that for now.)

It’s not even about the level of mechanical or computational complexity. Automobiles have a lot of mechanical and computational complexity, but also aren’t called robots (ignoring of course self-driving cars).

[Qworg]

What are robots or not is a point of debate - there are many different definitions.

Generally, it has to automate a task with some intelligence, so dishwashers qualify. It isn't a existence proof (nor did I state that).

[tshaddox]

I'm more interested in how we regularly use the term, rather than how we might attempt to come up with a rigorous definition (particularly when that rigorous definition conflicts awkwardly with regular usage).

My point is simply that we absolutely do not refer to a home dishwasher as a robot. Nor an old thermostat with a bimetallic strip and a mercury switch. Nor even a normal home PC.