1

While formulating an answer to this question let us consider the parts and the function of the printer during its basic process. We tell the printer what we want it to do, "print this". The printer then produces the product we told it to produce. The printer is complex, being composed of multiple motors, and lever mechanisms which one might find in a robot. Printers, especially all-in-one printers are capable of multiple tasks. Printers such as these also have a sensor which "sees" an object and can replicate the object. There may now exist combinations of sensors which "see" and possibly "feel" an object which can be replicated in 3D. These are tasks which historically were performed by humans.

The answer should be more than yes or no, including explanation or proof.

Edit:

In response to posts regarding this question being a duplicate of What is the difference between a Robot and a Machine?, it is not. I am asking the reader if this particular device known as a printer is considered a type of robot. However, the suggested duplicate does offer more information to help answer this question. Also, it is suggested in the proposed duplicate post that THAT post should be placed in the philosophy exchange. I see the logic in my post and the other being placed there. I do also think these questions should be posted here because they are specific to robotics.

As for clarification, I am leaning toward personally defining printers, especially newer models, all-in-ones, and various 3d printing devices as robots. I am asking in order to clarify my own understanding and see if others agree. I also am seeking to understand the technology better and am having a hard time finding resources to study. I asked a question about the sort of courses I might take at school in the Academia exchange and no one knew ( https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120366/what-courses-would-teach-me-how-to-better-understand-computer-printers ) So, I came here thinking I might need to take robotics courses to really learn how to make a printer for the future.

Edit:

FooBar has the best answer so far in the comments:

"Most printers have a very limited set of sensors (some limit switches and temperature sensors), but most are not even able to detect failed prints. So they are not able to sense or react to their environment."

Furthermore, thank you all for your comments/answers. I have found what I was looking for here.

Mark Booth
  • 4,253
  • 2
  • 25
  • 54
takintoolong
  • 111
  • 4
  • 5
    Before arguing if something is a robot, you need to define what a robot is first. – Petch Puttichai Nov 21 '18 at 08:12
  • 3 2 1 0 RepRap? – Manuel Rodriguez Nov 21 '18 at 13:57
  • 2
    Welcome to Robotics, takintoolong. As it stands, it's not clear what you're asking. As @PetchPuttichai mentions, you haven't stated criteria for what a robot is, but I believe if you did state the criteria then you would answer your own question. Beyond that, it's not clear to me what the object of your question is - are you asking about a "standard" printer, or a 3D printer? Are you trying to answer your own question in the body? You don't actually ask a question anywhere except in the title, and the text of your question doesn't serve to clarify the title. – Chuck Nov 21 '18 at 17:39
  • 2
    I think this is essentially a duplicate question ("What's the difference between a robot and a machine?") so I'm going to close this question as such. If the answers to that question don't also answer your question, please edit your post to state why the answers there were inadequate and what you're still looking for. – Chuck Nov 21 '18 at 17:57
  • 1
    Biological systems, for example a chicken, can be understood as a 3d printer. Reprogramming such a biological robot is possible with DNA modification. A possible way for creating Synthetic biological systems are grammar based domain specific languages like BioLogo. – Manuel Rodriguez Nov 21 '18 at 19:58
  • 1
    Your problem is as @PetchPuttichai has said: without defining what you mean by 'robot' there is no way to answer your question. There is no universally accepted definition of a 'robot'. If you type the question 'what is a robot?' into a search engine you'll find a variety of definitions, some of which would include printers and others that would exclude printers. – sempaiscuba Nov 22 '18 at 10:36
  • Petch Puttichai and sempaiscuba, at this point I am thinking the answer to the question is "there is no universally accepted definition of a 'robot'." If someone were to answer similarly I would be inclined to give the check mark to them. – takintoolong Nov 22 '18 at 16:55
  • any machine that does your work for you can be classified as a robot .... a blender, an elevator, a printer, industrial robot, etc. etc. – jsotola Nov 23 '18 at 00:47
  • 1
    I am leaning toward personally defining printers, especially newer models, all-in-ones, and various 3d printing devices as robots. Based on what? Again, if you could define what constitutes a robot, then it should become immediately evident whether a printer (3D or otherwise) is a robot. This is why I marked this question as a duplicate of "What's the difference between a robot and a machine?" - that's what this question boils down to. Is it a robot or a machine? Well, define those terms and you get your answer. – Chuck Nov 27 '18 at 14:06
  • In the preamble you talk about printers that have some sensors to get feedback on their work - yet in the penultimate paragraph you say that you liked a comment that focuses on the inability to sense the product. Which is it? Many inkjet printers can detect deteriorating print quality, for instance. – bukwyrm Nov 28 '18 at 12:38
  • @bukwyrm the question, and answers, evolve as a result of everyone's participation. Detecting deteriorating print quality would be an example related to the penultimate paragraph and serve as evidence toward the printer being a robot. However, the answer I chose is more subjective perception of "quality" by the printer. Many inkjet printers can detect print issues related to the level of ink, which is less subjective. – takintoolong Dec 01 '18 at 04:59

1 Answers1

-1

3d printers are without any doubt robots. The open question is, why don't they are behave so in reality? RepRap like printers for rapid prototyping are available since the year 2005. And additional robot arms who can take the object out of the shelf are also available as lowcost kit. The main problem isn't the hardware itself but the software. This piece of technology is called the printer driver which runs on the lowlevel side of the machine and on top of the firmware is the printing driver which has to control the device but also the robot arm in front of it. Providing the action commands for such a rapid prototyping assembly line is not an easy task. Each cnc-motor has a position and a torque and it's complicated to coordinate them all, especially in autonomous mode.

If seems that the bottleneck of printers isn't the hardware itself, which runs stable since decades, but the reason why printers are not recognized as human like robots has to do with the missing Artificial Intelligence software. That means, if someone is able to program the ROS software package for controlling a reprap 3d printer, he will transform the piece of plastic into a living organism which can reproduce itself. So the problem isn't the device but the firmware. That is an algorithm, which puts control commands into the machine.

Manuel Rodriguez
  • 794
  • 3
  • 17
  • 2
    The open question is, why don't they are behave so in reality? What do you mean by this? Why don't they behave like what? Also, ROS doesn't really control anything, it's more of a development framework that provides standard methods for interfacing, visualizing, and debugging robotic systems. There are some standard processing packages that would enable mapping and navigation, but that won't "transform [a reprap] into a living organism which can reproduce itself." Besides, the question wasn't if printers are or could be living, but if they're robots. – Chuck Nov 21 '18 at 18:05
  • @Chuck By definition, a robot is a thinking machine. In contrast, 3d printing devices are perceived as a dump piece of hardware without onboard intelligence. To convert a lifeless printer into a human-like robot which can feel emotions and have dreams some kind of addon is needed, which is called software. Software can be realized with a robot control system which can be standard software or programmed individual for each printer. – Manuel Rodriguez Nov 21 '18 at 18:35
  • 1
    But define "thought." Is a self-driving car a robot then, by your definition? Is the only thing that can be a robot something that has emotions and dreams? Maybe you're thinking of an android? And again, OP never asks if a printer is human-like, or if it has emotions, just if it is a robot. Typically the definition of a robot is programmability and the ability to sense and react to feedback. I think your context of AI and human-like qualities is pushing towards androids, which are a subset of robots. – Chuck Nov 21 '18 at 18:50
  • @Chuck Then a chicken is biology printer because it produces eggs. – Manuel Rodriguez Nov 21 '18 at 19:22
  • 3
    If you can program it. – Chuck Nov 21 '18 at 19:38
  • 2
    "3d printers are without any doubt robots." That's wrong. Most printers have a very limited set of sensors (some limit switches and temperature sensors), but most are not even able to detect failed prints. So they are not able to sense or react to their environment. Which definition of a robot would include these machines? – FooTheBar Nov 22 '18 at 08:24
  • FooBar, your comment is the most interesting so far. By questioning whether or not printers are robots, we have now discovered a way to improve printers. You're point about printers not being able to detect failed prints is an excellent one, and such an ability would be a great improvement to the technology. Thank you. Now we just have to figure out how to implement the idea... – takintoolong Nov 26 '18 at 01:01
  • In over 10 years in the industry, almost all of the industrial robots I worked on ran on pre programmed paths, with little ability to "sense and react" other than via their motor encoders, so @FooBar I'm not sure if a definition of Robot which excluded the vast majority of real world industrial robots is a useful one outside of academic circles. – Mark Booth Nov 27 '18 at 15:00