In the 1990’s, Robotics began to design a new robot aimed at industries (primarily automotive) that worked and interacted with humans outside the cage, thereby replacing traditional robots for some specific duties. This robot is therefore called co-bot (collaborative and robot). Also in the 1990’s, Robotics designed the social robot (for which we propose the neologism so-bot), aimed at assisting humans and keeping them company. The sociality of the sobots lies in their ability to follow the rules of human social life, make decisions independently, and respect the roles assigned to them. Scientific literature usually keeps the terms collaborative and social robot distinct as if they indicated different and separate concepts. We question this separation and affirm that to collaborate (from the Latin cum-laboro) means to interact with someone while respecting their nature. Collaboration is that particular form of sociality that relates to work activity. From this it follows that the cobot is essentially social and that cobots and sobots belong to the same category that we call co-s-bots (collaborative social robots). In other words, cobots and sobots are two types of cosbots, as the flea and the elephant are two types of animals. The difference between cobot and sobot is given by the development of AI. Both are potentially social, that is, potentially capable of interacting and making decisions independently; but while the cobot is social in potency, the sobot is social ‘in act’. With Aristotelian terminology we can therefore say that the cobot is a sobot in power, while the sobot is a cobot in act. We call this new concept ‘cobot ontology’. Such an ontology makes it possible to classify cobots according to the degree of development of AI, just as living beings are classified according to the level of intelligence developed.To teach the cosbot to interact with humans, engineers use some results of neuroscientific research such as mirror neurons and the embodied Mind. The use of these models should encourage machine self-learning. Self-learning means autonomy, and autonomy needs strong AI development. It is becoming increasingly clear that autonomy is the condition of the sociality of the sobot. The article thus concludes that the relationship between cobot and sobot is the identification of a more general robot-automaton (rabota-automatos) relationship which, in the writer’s opinion, is the essential basis and driving force behind the entire history of Robotics.

在 1990 年代，Robotics 开始设计一种针对工业（主要是汽车）的新型机器人，该机器人在笼子外与人类工作和互动，从而取代传统机器人执行某些特定任务。因此，该机器人被称为co-bot（协作机器人）。同样在 1990 年代，Robotics 设计了社交机器人（我们为此提出了新词so-bot），旨在帮助人类并与他们保持联系。sobots的社会性在于他们有能力遵守人类社会生活的规则，独立做出决定，尊重分配给他们的角色。科学文献通常会区分协作和社交机器人这两个术语，就好像它们表示不同且独立的概念一样。我们质疑这种分离，并确认合作（来自拉丁语cum-laboro）意味着在尊重他人本性的同时与他人互动。协作是与工作活动相关的特殊社交形式。由此可见，协作机器人本质上是社交的，协作机器人和智能机器人属于我们称为协作机器人的同一类别（协作社交机器人）。换句话说，cobots和sobots是 cosbots 的两种类型，因为跳蚤和大象是两种动物。cobot和sobot之间的区别是由AI的发展给出的。两者都具有潜在的社会性，即具有潜在的互动能力和独立决策能力；但是，虽然协作机器人具有社交能力，但sobot具有社交能力。因此，使用亚里士多德的术语，我们可以说cobot是掌权的sobot，而sobot是协作机器人在行动。我们将这个新概念称为“协作机器人本体”。这样的本体使得可以根据人工智能的发展程度对协作机器人进行分类，就像根据开发的智能水平对生物进行分类一样。为了教cosbot与人类互动，工程师使用了一些神经科学研究的成果，例如镜像神经元和体现的心灵。这些模型的使用应该鼓励机器自学习。自主学习意味着自主，自主需要强大的人工智能发展。越来越清楚的是，自治是索博特社会性的条件。文章由此得出结论，cobot之间的关系而sobot是对更一般的机器人-自动机（rabota - automatos）关系的识别，在作者看来，这是整个机器人学历史背后的本质基础和驱动力。