Bots are not "robots"!

In many of Nick Sibicky’s videos he refers to AlphaGo, Leela, and Elf as “robots”. This drives me crazy as robots and bots are NOT the same thing!!!

So in a recent video I made a comment and asked him to stop calling them “robots”. I guess his other fans didn’t care for that, judging by the number of nasty private messages I got.

Is it so wrong to point out an error?


I think it’s fine, and actually prefer when people correct me… but people can be touchy online and Sibicky is probably second only to Batts when it comes to English Go creators so I’m not surprised…

Edit: OTOH it is a bit of a nit-picky detail not too far removed from correctly spelling mistakes… which is itself a polarised topic online.

Maybe it is a bit nitpicky, but it REALLY bugs me. :sweat_smile:

Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to the topic because I have a deep interest in both both boys and robots. However, no matter what Sibicky says, AlphaGo is not a robot.

Feels like anyone under the age of 45 should be able to instinctively know the difference between the two

Didn’t realise we were on that part of the internet :open_mouth:



Excuse me! (Freudian slip? :sweat_smile:) Both bots and robots**


What was that I said earlier? :thinking:



STAHP you’re killing me :rofl:



But I always got the impression that Sibicky uses the term robot somewhat jokily knowing full well the difference between the two.
And I might suggest that instead of “anyone under 45” maybe it’s “anyone who knows about computing”. Google tells me:

  1. (chiefly in science fiction) a robot.
    “we have maintenance bots in there”
    1960s: shortening of robot.

The meaning of “code” is given as a computing term, implying a certain specialism to that use.

Anyway I’m not trying to be a pedantic arse but hoping to show that there could be other valid interpretations.


Hopefully you don’t really believe the 1960’s use of the term is still valid… Think of all the words that have changed since the 60’s

Edit: also robots arent exactly science fiction these days :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Edit #2: My point being that while bot might have originally been used as a shortened form of robot, the two are distinctly different now. I didnt really get the sense that he was joking. and fair point on anyone who knows about computing rather than <45


Sorry, I didn’t explain that inclusion clearly. That is a dictionary entry of the origin of the word and shows that it is a very recent one (most words are hundreds of years old). And also that the origin of bot is robot.

I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m a fellow pedant. I’m just hoping that when you see or hear someone use “robot” instead of “bot” you might think about these things, about their possible understand (joke, old sci-fi term, old contraction) and maybe feel slightly less pain! It’s how I manage my pedantic nature!


I may feel less pain, but I’ll cringe all the same :wink:


These are not the bots you are looking for…


I like big bots and I cannot lie…


For some reason calling a robot a bot feels less cringy than calling a bot a robot… :man_shrugging:t2:

1 Like

In given article there is a mistake.
It says “androids and cyborgs are types of robots”, but cyborgs are not robots!
This bugs my pedantic nature so much!

1 Like

Cyborgs can be robots. Not necessarily so though.

Article says this which I find to be accurate:

A cyborg could be a human augmented with robotics (e.g. Darth Vader) or a robot augmented with living-tissue (e.g. the Terminator), so long as it’s a cybernetic organism, it’s a cyborg.

Given that it could be either I agree that it belongs in the article, especially since they put them in a separate category than robots. Cylons arent originally human but I doubt most people would argue that they don’t belong to some sort of robot category.


No it isn’t, and you are not alone. Then again, in everyday life I constantly correct the vocabulary, grammar, and improper use of words spoken around me. So… be sure to consider where this opinion is coming from :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


When yous said it originally I found it refreshing. Most people aren’t that honest. I read it as "Yeah, Nick is a boy and I like boys, but he needs to correct his wording or shut the @$%# up :smirk:. I personally think teachers are hot as hell :hugs:


Not gonna deny it, in some of the vids sure :wink:

Edit: but boys in general, yes. hence freudian slip ha

1 Like

And they keep changing. Therefor I’m not a big fan of the “you’re using it wrong”. It’s ok to say this word isn’t used in this way (today). Insiting on “wrong” implies the people who changed the meaning of the word were “wrong” when they used it in a new way, and so the new meaning would have to be “wrong” as well.

Languages change and it’s good that they change. Don’t be too pedantic, please.


Never insisted it was exactly “wrong”. My original post on Sibicky’s video just said please stop calling them that. However with that being said , like it or not, that usage of the word is no longer valid and I don’t think educating someone on that fact is in poor taste. (Which I realize you are not against as per your post)

Technically “octopi” as a plural for octopus is wrong not completely correct, but I’d never call someone out on it, because it’s in popular use and doesn’t have another distinct meaning.

1 Like