The question we dealt with on the first day of Robotics was, ‘What is a robot?’ ‘Define what a robot is?’ ‘To you what makes a robot a robot?’ Though at first these questions seemed trivial, as soon as we got into the actual discussion of a ‘robot’ it proved necessary. We would later have a presentation on ‘robots.’ The results varied from each person, some people thought a pencil was a robot, something that had no mechanical parts, something that couldn’t be coded a robot. Another one of my classmates presented an idea of a robot that used no electricity. While others had a more streamlined/linear answer, ‘Anything that was AI.’ This once trivial question, `What is a robot?’ Proved to be a much more philosophical one at that. In our first project, we had to make our own Hebocon tournament. For this task, we needed to make a robot from parts we scavaged around our house, to create a robot that was able to fight and be extremely ugly at the same time. So when we had this hebcon tournament, people strayed away from the normal race cars and had boxes instead. Boxes would prove to be much more dominant. While boxes may seem to not be robots, we defined a robot in the first lesson as something that had an input and an output. Something that could be programmed. And something that had a purpose. These boxes would fill out these categories. It has an input and an output, putting things in the box, taking those things out. It is programmed to carry things, which is also the purpose of it. To be able to carry multiple things. This unit, I have finally been able to answer a once futile question, that changed to a more philosophical one. A robot is a shaky definition, just like in biology what we perceive as ‘living’ changes depending on the person, that being said, to be a robot is something that has an input and an output. It needs to have a purpose, whether it be important, or futile. And it must follow the asiimovs three robotic law which I will explain later.So this unit we learned about robots, however, I had some underlying questions to be answered. Why people fear robots? Which was answered when we watched a movie about a scape robot that left a facility and was malfunctioning. This robot, highly armed, roamed the streets of America, though he didn’t do anything the fear of a robot uprising is on our conscious lingering in the back of our minds. With the help of miss Mok, I am fully confident in answering the question about what makes a robot a robot? What must it do to be classified as a robot? And with the help of my classmates, I have a much better understanding of the nick and gears of robots. From things like wired (a fantastic tech website that answers a lot of questions) to movies that helped my grasp on robotics, I am pretty confident that I can answer most questions will confidence. Compared to last semesters, intro to programming this is a much more friendly environment. Last semester we had to have people didn’t speak up as much, which can be attributed to the large class we had. While in this class we have a few fewer people, but we have a much friendlier dynamic. People in this classroom aren’t afraid to talk, and we as a class sit as a group instead of individual students. In seminar class, I learned that we become ‘brave’ when people such as us are in a group. While if we are isolated we prefer to sit down and be quiet. To not speak up. However with this new classroom dynamic, I am not afraid to speak up, rather I am ‘braver’ and I am willing to speak up. I feel as if my understanding is much ‘deeper.’ This classrooms environment is very open, just look at the windows outside, they are very tall and people from the outside can look and watch. In humanities, I learned that we adapt to our surrounding, if our school is messy and full of trash then our view of ourselves is trashy and messy. Everywhere you look in this classroom it would shout out ‘open,’ and in turn out approach to this class is much more open. This mindset is key to a better and happier learning. So if i had to change anything it would be to have a more open dynamic in order to feed the stigma of an open mind. These laws were 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Having said all of this, I do believe the robotic laws are a bit more outdated, I wouldn’t change the first law which is, A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Rather I would change the second and third law. I would change it to more acceptable, ‘must have an off switch,’ and it must ‘obey the programmer unless it violates the first two laws.’ Now you might say, “This we already have weapons that we call robots to kill people. And now I say, robots that kill, and robots that help are two different things. Though hard to distinguish, they are inherently not the same. These robots that kill tarnish the good name of other robots. I also would like an off button as having one would make sure that people ‘fear’ of a robot uprising would go down. In humanities, we learned about America’s fear of communism. This lead to a cold war, though no one died to was a heated war. America is built on the illusion of fear, no matter how dire, or how unscary it is. America has to have a say. If America, the strongest power in the world, do fear something like an intelligent robot, then we will have a war on our hands. And this won’t be a war just with America and robots, it will be war including the nations who have signed the doctrine with America to fight with them as allies. In all, it would be paramount to have a robot with an off button. Lastly, it must obey the programmer, if a robot doesn’t do what it is set on to do, then it is a disaster, and that could lead to something atrophic.