Do the logicians/mathematicians agree with the picture's claim?
Seems fine, technically inhabited refers to living things but it's not such an unusual use that it doesn't make sense.
So, AFAIK there are nonfunctional robots on Venus, for example.
Furthermore, one may read this as "nothing other than robots inhabits this planet" in which that statement is arguably true for any planet devoid of life and robots, like Saturn, but that's a bit of a stretch in how the statement is interpreted.
One may even be completely smug and say that nothing besides dragons lives on Saturn.
You've lost me. How can it be true for planets that have no robots when the statement is that there are robots present?
Well, it really can't, reasonably.
But I think the existence of nonfunctional robots is a valid critique.
An assertion of non-existence can only be sustained by an examination of the entire universe of discussion. Beware the Black Swan hiding in inductive inference.
Beam me up, Scotty. There's nothing but a bunch of whiny, selfish and greedy primates down here. Let's go to mars and cruise with the cool robots.
Separate names with a comma.