IEEE Experts Debate What 'Robotics and Automation' Really Mean

Emmet Cole reports for Robohub on a recent IEEE RAS Communications Board meeting where IEEE experts informally reflected on the familiar pairing “robotics and automation.” The phrase appears in conference titles, funding calls, and program descriptions, and it supplies the “RA” in IEEE RAS. But what do the two words actually mean? Is robotics a subdomain of automation? Does the distinction matter? The following reflections are lightly edited for clarity.

Sabine Hauert asked what the two words mean and why there is a distinction. Mariateresa Pedone said automation is almost invisible in everyday life; its role is to make processes repeatable, efficient, scalable, and predictable. Robotics becomes relevant when automation needs a physical presence.

Hauert said that gave a useful starting point: automation as process, robotics as physical presence. She asked David Garzon Ramos whether he saw it that way. Garzon Ramos said automation has focused on supporting other activities—people automate a process to make it more efficient or effective. Robotics, meanwhile, has also developed on its own grounds, partly to understand principles of intelligence, control, and embodiment.

Hauert asked whether that makes robotics a subcategory of automation. Garzon Ramos said nobody necessarily wants to say one is broader than the other. A similar question now surrounds physical AI: is physical AI broader than robotics? Maybe, maybe not. Such descriptions help people identify with a community and manage expectations about the work being done.

Claudio Pacchierotti added that not all robots are automated. Robots can be fully teleoperated by humans, so little or no automation is involved. A robot is a machine that physically interacts with the environment, while an automation process does not have to involve a robot. Not all automation involves robots, and not all robots are autonomous.

Hauert said that complicates the picture. Automation might not require a robot at all; it could be carried out entirely through software. And a robot could be controlled by a person rather than operating autonomously.

Ellen Rumley noted that the definition of robotics can become hazy too. Imagine a large factory with a computer-controlled conveyor system that interacts with the physical world and sorts packages. Is the whole system a robot if it is not an individual unit that moves around or appears somewhat lifelike?

Pacchierotti said he introduces this question when teaching robotics to elementary school children. The first activity is simply: “Is this a robot?” A washing machine washes clothes in a very physical way. In one sense, it could be seen as a robot, and it is highly automated. Yet most people would say it is not a robot. Once the definition is tested against familiar objects, the boundary becomes interesting.

Rumley said these questions have practical consequences. She does many comparisons of industrial and service robotics between countries, and the categories are not always consistent. Robot vacuum cleaners, for example, may be counted differently in different countries. China can appear to produce millions more service robots partly because of what is included in the category. Definitions affect international comparisons and the story the numbers appear to tell.

Hauert said this is not only a philosophical or linguistic question. What counts as a robot can affect statistics, national comparisons, and perceptions of technological strength.

Amy Eguchi said it also affects education. Her background is in education, and robotics was an addition to her work. Whenever she returns to Japan, she sees more everyday appliances with automated functions. A washing machine can dispense its own detergent and softener, remember preferred settings, and complete the process after one button press. She has also seen products advertised as having an “AI microwave.” Is that a robot, or simply automation?

Hauert said the answer may depend partly on what people encounter in everyday life. Eguchi agreed. A definition may seem clear when read, but the categories overlap in practice. Children in different countries are familiar with different devices. That changes the examples educators can use and perhaps what children intuitively understand as robotics, automation, or AI.

Hauert said the discussion also concerns two English words. Other languages and cultures may not separate the concepts in quite the same way. Once a technology becomes familiar, it can disappear into the category of the appliance. A robot vacuum eventually becomes simply a vacuum.

Garzon Ramos said the language also changes with research trends. Now that he writes proposals, he uses terms such as “physical AI” and “embodiment,” although he still describes himself as a roboticist when talking to friends. The same has happened with terms such as intelligent systems, AI, and machine learning. Concepts become entangled because language helps attract attention and communicate with particular audiences.

Hauert said that can be difficult from a communications perspective. Every new project seems to require all the relevant words—robotics, automation, and now sometimes physical AI. It raises the question of what the differences are, where the fields overlap, and why they cannot simply sit under one recognizable term.

Garzon Ramos said it depends on the purpose. If speaking to children, “robot” may immediately create interest, while “automation process” may not. “Physical AI” may confuse them again. People need to be flexible and use language in ways that are useful to the audience. If a definition is fixed today, the terminology may shift when a new model or research trend appears.

Hauert said there is a historical element too. Conference names and the names of professional communities preserve something of the way the fields developed. Sometimes a new word takes over, and sometimes another is added. But all these areas are closely linked. The definitions may not be settled, but the discussion shows why these overlaps are worth discussing.

The discussion leaves open whether the distinction is important or meaningful.