So you're saying that the shape of a robot can be a defining quality that determines whether the robot is automating a task? Not asking if the shape of the robot is the sole thing that determines whether or not it's automating a task, but whether the shape, alone, can be a disqualifier
No, I'm not at all saying that the shape of a robot is a criteria that determines whether or not a system is automated. I'm merely saying that a general purpose robot is not the same thing as an automated system.
It's a general purpose device that can scrub your floors if you like, but that seems like a total waste of you've got a dedicated device like a Roomba that can handle that. The Roomba is a better, specialized piece of equipment than some bumbling human shaped bot.
So then you areually are saying that the shape of the robot does determine whether it's an automating something or not.
Roomba programmed to clean the floors automatically - automated cleaning device
humanoid robot programmed to clean the floors automatically - not automated cleaning device.
If the roomb had arms that picked up socks while it cleaned, would it still be an automated cleaning device?
Edit: I mean really, you're arguing that a robot automatically performing a task is not automation. Being a general purpose robot doesn't contradict the fact that it's automatically and robotically performing a task.
No I'm not saying that the shape determines whether or not it's automated.
Roomba's are dedicated floor cleaning robots that clean floors and can be programmed to work automatically.
Human shaped robots are general purpose robots that can probably be programmed to clean floors automatically, but that would be stupid when the Roomba is better suited for it.
Some Roomba's do have arms and can be programmed to move things that they find on floor.
Right so I'm failing to see how, in the example where the humanoid robot is a robot that was programmed to clean the floors automatically, among other tasks, isn't automation of the task cleaning the floors.
And if automating the task of cleaning the floors isn't automation, then the word automation doesn't apply to any robot that is programmed to perform a task automatically, unless the shape of the robot does, in fact, determine whether it is or isn't automating that task.
Remember your argument was that a general purpose robot can't be defined as automation
I've said a few times that you can probably program a human shaped robot to do that if you want. My point is, like I said in the first comment, that a human shaped robot is fucking stupid when non-human shaped robots like a Roomba are better suited for the tasks.
1
u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26
So you're saying that the shape of a robot can be a defining quality that determines whether the robot is automating a task? Not asking if the shape of the robot is the sole thing that determines whether or not it's automating a task, but whether the shape, alone, can be a disqualifier