The words used to describe robotic performances include a degree of ambiguity that the human brain should solve without difficulty. However, the language used in-and about-robotics seems to escape from the ordinary processing of lexical ambiguity resolution. In this paper, we argue that there is no lack of an adequate language for robotics but that the lexicon at hand is forced by our representations. We investigate the main representational issues of the notions that express robotic actions and dispositions (i.e. behaviors). I.
Globally, robots can be described as some sets of moving parts that are dedicated to a task while using their own energy. Yet, humans commonly qualify those machines as being intelligent, autonomous or being able to learn, know, feel, make decisions, etc. Is it merely a way of talking or does it mean that robots could eventually be more than a complex set of moving parts? On the one hand, the language of robotics allows multiple interpretations (leading sometimes to misreading or confusion in various contexts). On the other hand, the status of robots is challenged more and more by technical achievements and humans’ own empirical beliefs. In this paper, we follow a linguistic approach in order to explore the relevance of these words when talking about robots. Since we note that the words impose themselves (even if opposed), we discuss the efficiency of a rhetorical strategy in order to work with such a lexicon in robotics. More precisely, we explore the argumentative technique of the dissociation of notions through the study of a practical case: the case of robot lawn mowers versus hedgehogs.
François Musia has a master degree in Physics and followed a cursus in Philosophy at university. He is 32 years old and combines his two passions as a freelance journalist. He runs the blog of investigation philobotic.fr.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.