Different word for robots

What is the word for robots that can think and have feeling and can talk?

I knew the word but I forgot it…

Thanks.

Are you thinking about «artificial intelligence»? The part that throws me, though, is the «have feeling» part, which is not usually included in the definition of «artificial intelligence.»

A dissenting voice on the «android» front. To me this does not mean a robot which is sentient, in fact quite the opposite. I think of it as being a remotely controlled robot, perhaps a kind of robotic golem.

The word reference dictionary seems to agree with me — an automaton that resembles a human being.

A dissenting voice on the «android» front. To me this does not mean a robot which is sentient, in fact quite the opposite. I think of it as being a remotely controlled robot, perhaps a kind of robotic golem.

The word reference dictionary seems to agree with me — an automaton that resembles a human being.

I’m not sure it’s necesssarily controlled remotely; it’s merely a robot in the shape of a human being. In Star Wars, C3PO was an android robot and R2D2 was not. It has to do with form, primarily.

A dissenting voice on the «android» front. To me this does not mean a robot which is sentient, in fact quite the opposite. I think of it as being a remotely controlled robot, perhaps a kind of robotic golem.

The word reference dictionary seems to agree with me — an automaton that resembles a human being.

… and Marvin, the paranoid android, is ……. ?

Marvin is the ship’s robot on the starship Heart of Gold. He is a fine example of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation’s ‘Genuine People Personalities’ technology. He is very, very depressed about this.
Brain the size of a planet.
Source

… and Marvin, the paranoid android, is ……. ?

Marvin is the ship’s robot on the starship Heart of Gold. He is a fine example of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation’s ‘Genuine People Personalities’ technology. He is very, very depressed about this.
Brain the size of a planet.
Source

I’ve checked a few different dictionaries and found none that link the nuance of «thinking, feeling» (eg effectively a mechanical person). All list the fact that the form is human, and several mention «automaton» (which to my mind is quite the opposite of what we’re looking for).

I agree that there are instances where clearly «thinking, feeling» robots have been described as «androids», but I don’t think, nevertheless, that that nuance is implicit in the word itself.

In this case, I think between the Hitchiker’s Guide and Star Wars, «android» has been solidly embedded into our vocabulary as a thinking robot, whatever the dictionary says.

Another one — wasn’t Data on StarTrek referred to as an android?

In this case, I think between the Hitchiker’s Guide and Star Wars, «android» has been solidly embedded into our vocabulary as a thinking robot, whatever the dictionary says.

Well, not in mine, since I posted my impression of the word first and checked the dictionaries later.

I’ve checked a few different dictionaries and found none that link the nuance of «thinking, feeling» (eg effectively a mechanical person). All list the fact that the form is human, and several mention «automaton» (which to my mind is quite the opposite of what we’re looking for).

I agree that there are instances where clearly «thinking, feeling» robots have been described as «androids», but I don’t think, nevertheless, that that nuance is implicit in the word itself.

I should declare my personal bias at this point.
As an enthusiastic admirer of all things Hitchhiker’s Guide in general, and Marvin in particular, the word android has a very specific meaning that may not be representative.

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Good point… another instance where android means a human-looking artificial life form with the ability to think and feel. This is a great book by Philip K. Dick, badly adapted (in my opinion) into the movie «Blade Runner».

As for «automaton», I don’t think that it rules out thinking and feeling. As far as I know, it simply means a machine that can operate independently.

As for «automaton», I don’t think that it rules out thinking and feeling. As far as I know, it simply means a machine that can operate independently.

As far as I know it means the opposite — an automaton (linked to the word automatic) requires no further thought — it carries out the action it was designed to do thoughtlessly.

As far as I know it means the opposite — an automaton (linked to the word automatic) requires no further thought — it carries out the action it was designed to do thoughtlessly.

Are you confusing automaton with moderator? It thoughtlessly carries out the action it was designed to do, or efficiently and effectively carries out the action it was designed to do thoughtlessly?

As thinking, feeling, talking robots only exist in Science Fiction and android is routinely used to describe such robots I would vote for android.

.,,

What evidence do you have that the term android is used to describe thinking, feeling robots? All the examples above support the idea that android describes a humanoid robot (which is sometimes thinking and feeling, it’s true)?

I’m sorry to keep pushing this, but can we remember the question —

What is the word for robots that can think and have feeling and can talk?

Now, as Outsider said so well, Hal had feelings and could talk, and so was sentient. He was most certainly not an android. From my own point of view, you could have a humanoid robot who cleaned a room mechanically without any other function and they would be android, as in a robot in human shape, but would not be sentient as in feeling and thinking.

I have seen no evidence yet in this thread that «android» means anything other than «robot in human form». Those robots may or may not be sentient, «android» does not tell us either way.

The question asked was not «what is the best term for a robot in human form» or even «a sentient robot in human form». As such, sentient or otherwise, «android» can not (necessarily) fit.

Arthur C Clarke, Robert A Heinlein, Issac Asimov and Phillip K Dick all wrote of androids with the ability to think and feel emotions.

.,,

They may well have done — but how does that imply that «android» means a robot that has the ability to think and feel? «Android» means «robot in human form». The fact that some (many, often, most???) androids are sentient does not imply that android means «sentient robot»! And, getting back to the question asked, it was for a term for a sentient robot — which is not necessarily in human form and as such cannot summarily be an android (even if you accept (as I quite vocally do not) that all androids are sentient).

HAL was not a robot, even if he/it/she was a potent computer.
HAL is therefore eliminated from this conversation.

Per order of Dave.

What is the word for robots that can think and have feeling and can talk?

How about SNAR
(Sensitive New Age Robot)

A humaniod robot is different to an android

What do you base this comment on?

I have seen no evidence yet in this thread that «android» means anything other than «robot in human form». Those robots may or may not be sentient, «android» does not tell us either way.

Let’s try it from the opposite tact. Several people have provided examples where the word android is specifically used to describe a thinking, feeling robot.

Can you provide an example where android is used to describe a robot that is not thinking or feeling?

Let’s try it from the opposite tact. Several people have provided examples where the word android is specifically used to describe a thinking, feeling robot.

Can you provide an example where android is used to describe a robot that is not thinking or feeling?

Yes.

«Data», from STNG, did not have feelings, at least in the beginning, and he often wondered what feelings would be like. He was clearly labeled as an adroid.

Asimov’s «robots» soon took on human form. Asimov did not use the term «android», at least at that time, but Data was «created» in the image of Asimov’s robots, right down to the «positronic brain».

The fact is that science-fiction, at least in my experience, has not defined such words as «robot», «android», «cyborg» in ways that keep the words from blurring meanings.

I think what we are really talking about is some form of sentience, and even definining that word is tricky.

An «android» is simply defined as a «robot» with human form. But we aren’t talking about form here. We are talking about the ablity to feel, which is a very different matter.

Gaer

Let’s try it from the opposite tact. Several people have provided examples where the word android is specifically used to describe a thinking, feeling robot.

Sorry, but I disagree that any such thing has happened anyway. There have been several examples given of humanoid robots described as «androids». This is what the word means! Yes some or even all of those androids may be sentient but to go on to say that all androids are sentient, ipso facto, is specious. All blackbirds are black but not all black birds are blackbirds…

And I think I should add, again, that androids — whether you consider them sentient or not — are humanoid. A humanoid robot was not a condition of the original question and so, well I think I’ll just copy the end of my last message —

And, getting back to the question asked, it was for a term for a sentient robot — which is not necessarily in human form and as such cannot summarily be an android (even if you accept (as I quite vocally do not) that all androids are sentient).
__________________

Isaac Asimov, who wrote a lot about robots, had a flexible understanding of the term. Some of the stories in his robot anthologies are about computers. I think he would not have minded calling Hal a robot (although it’s also true that Arthur C. Clarke did not use that term in reference to Hal).

We are talking about realities which remain mostly in the future, so there’s no point in being dogmatic. I don’t think that even science fiction writers are always consistent in how they use these terms. Still, my impression is that «sentient» is the term used more often for thinking, feeling machines (also for thinking, feeling aliens).

What a fine example of historical revisionism, retroactively applied from a speculative future perspective to the present.

We have, thanks to a highly sentient Outsider, found new proof that, although HAL’s creator did not call it a robot, another author would not have minded doing so. What would James Murray have thought of that, as a basis for a lexicographical statement? This gets murkier and Fowler as we go.

Respectful Android