I don't want to discuss how much robots are like talents, but I want to know. But I have always wondered how to distinguish robots from Android. Android is a branch of robots, which we all know. However, Android has a relatively broad standard. A human figure belongs to Android, and a relatively narrow standard is a robot that is almost identical to humans except for a few mechanical features, So, what is the boundary between Android and robots? What is the boundary between Android and robots? Please ask for scientific popularization

weibilin said:
I don't want to discuss how much robots are like talents, but I want to know. But I have always wondered how to distinguish robots from Android. Android is a branch of robots, which we all know. However, Android has a relatively broad standard. A human figure belongs to Android, and a relatively narrow standard is a robot that is almost identical to humans except for a few mechanical features, So, what is the boundary between Android and robots? What is the boundary between Android and robots? Please ask for scientific popularization

Robot is a machine able to do a task or set of tasks automatically. Androids are a subset of robots by definition, since (colloquially) androids are machines that resemble humans, and are capable of human behaviours. However, the definition does vary depending on who you talk to, since it's not really a concrete concept and there has been no reason to standardise definition.

snpthecat said:
Robot is a machine able to do a task or set of tasks automatically. Androids are a subset of robots by definition, since (colloquially) androids are machines that resemble humans, and are capable of human behaviours.

However, different people have varying opinions on this standard. Some people define robots as humanoid and capable of humanoid behavior, while others are more narrow-minded and believe that under the premise of the former, their appearance is almost indistinguishable from humans except for a few mechanical features

weibilin said:
However, different people have varying opinions on this standard. Some people define robots as humanoid and capable of humanoid behavior, while others are more narrow-minded and believe that under the premise of the former, their appearance is almost indistinguishable from humans except for a few mechanical features

Eh, I put in my edit a bit too late, so I guess I could restate it here

However, the definition does vary depending on who you talk to, since it's not really a concrete concept and there has been no reason to standardise definition.

One thing everyone agrees on is that an android has two key criteria: "robot" and "mimics humans"
First criterion is has very little wiggle room, second has many lenient and strict interpretations.

Is this a WeiBilin thread isn't?

*read

yep...

But it's what SNP said, Robots don't look like too much like humans, Androids do and can in a way be hard to notice, even in fiction that can be used for plot twist in fiction like in Alien and Detroit: Become Human when it's a big revelation that Ash/Alice are actually androids. but their behavior can be not human or human-like.

notknow said:
Is this a WeiBilin thread isn't?

*read

yep...

We are so in the same wavelenght w

Compared to humans and furry themed characters...
Androids are the human-bodied anthros that wear human clothes and do human things because they're just humans the author put an animal skin over
Non-android Robots are full beast-race
And the boundary between them is just as blurry as with animal anthros.

honestly, I'm still not quite certain where the lines between robot_humanoid and android and animatronic lie.

sipothac said:
honestly, I'm still not quite certain where the lines between robot_humanoid and android and animatronic lie.

According to their wikis, android is for robots that resemble humans or anthros closely. robot_humanoid is for robots that do not resemble a living thing and have more unnatural or mechanical body parts, but still stand on two legs. animatronic is for robots that are closer to the robot_humanoid side of the spectrum, but wear a shell that resembles a human or an anthro.

But of course since nobody is enforcing this and most taggers don't read the wikis, they're all functionally synonyms except for animatronic which may as well be robot_(fnaf)

oozeenthusiast said:
But of course since nobody is enforcing this and most taggers don't read the wikis, they're all functionally synonyms

Took a peek at robot_humanoid and it looks like people are using it in the context of the other *_humanoid tags
Up to and including using it for anthro androids to go with everyone tagging anthros as animal_humanoids

humanoid is a terrible tagging term when anywhere other than the Furry Fandom it means human-functional biped

oozeenthusiast said:
robot_humanoid is for robots that do not resemble a living thing and have more unnatural or mechanical body parts, but still stand on two legs.

the tag name's kinda misleading then, since all the other *_humanoid tags are mostly human with some non human features, maybe humanoid_robot would be better...

but also, the wiki gives an assaultron and like, why are those not considered android? I feel like those should be pretty comfortably within the definition.

sipothac said:
since all the other *_humanoid tags are mostly human with some non human features

It'd be nice if people followed this more closely, since whenever I'm in the mood for something close to human I have to add -anthro or else I get a bunch of stuff that isn't actually humanoid.

Incidentally, if humanoid is a species tag, why isn't anthro? They seem to be basically on the same "level".

vulpes_artifex said:
Incidentally, if humanoid is a species tag, why isn't anthro? They seem to be basically on the same "level".

Eh, probably same reason feral isn't a species tag.