[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’FAITH, HOPE & CHARITY | Between drones and robots’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY IKE SEÑERES
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=”]
Thursday, April 20, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
IN THE ABSENCE of a better term or in the absence of an agreement over what a term really means, I would just use the term in my articles and then publish it. If no one objects to or if no one challenges what I write, I would say that the term is already acceptable, until someone would come up with a better definition that would be more acceptable.
That is precisely what I am going to do now in this article. I will now define robots, androids and drones as I see it, and then I will wait for reactions from my readers.
As I see it, a robot is really just any machine with artificial intelligence that enables it to perform certain actions based on certain commands and sets of instructions.
A robot need not take the likeness of a human form, but when it does, I think it would be more proper to call it an android. I think that latter term is clearly good as any, but perhaps some confusion started when Samsung used it as a brand for its mobile operating system.
Good as it is, there is more confusion now because “humanoid” robots are now being defined as robots with body shapes that resemble the human body. As far as I am concerned, I am not really in agreement with that definition.
For my part, I would stick to my definition that a robot that takes on the likeness of a human form is an android, but is not yet a “humanoid.” It may be too early to predict it now, but perhaps in the near or far future, mankind would be able to make machines that would walk like a human, talk like a human, look like a human, but is still not human.
When that time comes, I think that would be the time when we could call that futuristic creature a “humanoid.” As the name might imply, that future creature might even have human tissues or human organs, either artificial or natural.
To give some “real” examples, I consider R2D2 and C-3PO of Star Wars as robots, even if the latter already has the gait of a human. Conversely, I consider Commander Data of Star Trek as an android, even if it or he already has humanlike form.
Following my own definition, future versions of Commander Data could be considered as “humanoid”, as soon as they are infused with human tissues or human organs. Still following my own definition, Iron Man is not a robot, even if his armor makes him look like a robot. Iron Man’s army of flying machines could however be considered as robots, because they are just machines with no human inside.
Speaking of flying machines, “drone” is now the popular term for Aerial Unmanned Vehicles (AUVs) but these are technically just flying robots based on my own definition.
However, the term “drone” is actually also applicable to Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs), the “crawling” machines that are now called “land drones”. Therefore, if we have to differentiate between the two, we should just call the flying ones “sky drones” and the crawling ones “land drones.” Not that I would want to add to the confusion, there are also underwater drones that could swim, and some of these could actually fly out of the water.
Still sticking to my own definition, I would say that “driverless cars” or “self-driving” cars are also robots. That being the case, I would say that there are actually two types of these machines.
The first type is controlled from a remote server, much like a drone. The other type would fall into the category of an “autonomous” car, meaning that it has a “mind” of its own; therefore it could probably not be called a drone anymore.
I have not examined any of these machines, but I would venture to guess that it has artificial intelligence, sensors, detectors and fuzzy logic built into it. On the other hand, it is obvious that the remotely controlled version would be using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and the Internet of Things (IOT).
In theory, the combination of sky drones, land drones and underwater drones could be used to perform any task that is programmable and addressable. The combination of programmability and addressability somehow got out of style sometime ago, but I predict that it will come back in a big way.
Among its many functions, drones could be used for agriculture, surveying, mapping, weather forecasting, fire fighting, surveillance and videography, as well as some other functions that would be useful for many industries such as mining, fishing, forestry, construction and fire fighting. Never mind the police and military uses, because our cops and soldiers would surely know what to do with drone technology. (iseneres@yahoo.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
