Paging Dr Asimov...
- Thread starter Andrew Boulton
- Start date
Plankowner
SOC-13
Which always brings up this question in my mind...
Asimov states many times in his books that the Three Laws are hardwired into every Positronic Brain.
How do you hardwire a rule like that????
Asimov states many times in his books that the Three Laws are hardwired into every Positronic Brain.
How do you hardwire a rule like that????
I once heard from an Azimov fan that the positronic brain was created by a genius who hard wired the rules in and after his/her/its death, no one could alter it.
I always thought that it was a really lame explanation but that's what I heard. Personally, I think that it would be ILLEGAL to create a positronic brain without the three laws but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be done.
I always thought that it was a really lame explanation but that's what I heard. Personally, I think that it would be ILLEGAL to create a positronic brain without the three laws but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be done.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Would it be ethical to hardwire rules into a sentient mind?
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
The whole reason Issac Asimov put those rules in was to counter the prevailing "Robots as the Enemy of Mankind" plots and treatments that almost everyone in the field were doing.
It was his way of showing the good that robots could do FOR mankind.
In interview after interview, and in his autobiography, as well as other writings, he made it clear that, if there had been as many 'good robot" stories as there were "bad robot stories", he probably would not have made the "3 laws" such a fixture.
He would have just used it as one engineer's way of dealing with things, not as a universal mandate.
It was his way of showing the good that robots could do FOR mankind.
In interview after interview, and in his autobiography, as well as other writings, he made it clear that, if there had been as many 'good robot" stories as there were "bad robot stories", he probably would not have made the "3 laws" such a fixture.
He would have just used it as one engineer's way of dealing with things, not as a universal mandate.
Keklas Rekobah
SOC-14 1K
It seems to me that before the Doctor came along, science and technology were the tools of choice for pulp villain. It was only when the good guys went up against the villain while armed with little more than their wits, a pocketknife, and a squeamish female sidekick (a truly troublesome critter) that good triumphed over evil, and the spaceways were once again made safe for humanity ...
... or were they?
Given a story on The Ingenuity of the Rugged Individual versus the Twisted Science of Manacing Evil, you could always count on the guy with the pocket knife. I think Isaac Asimov was trying to impose a little more uncertainty in what had become a largely formulaic literary genre.
Now, while you can make a sentient robot that will perform an evil act, you must either convince the robot that the act is for the Greater Good, or build the robot without Asimov's Laws in the first place.
But that would be sorta like having a sociopathic bodyguard -- someday, he may turn on you! So always keep fresh batteries in the remote...
... or were they?
Given a story on The Ingenuity of the Rugged Individual versus the Twisted Science of Manacing Evil, you could always count on the guy with the pocket knife. I think Isaac Asimov was trying to impose a little more uncertainty in what had become a largely formulaic literary genre.
Now, while you can make a sentient robot that will perform an evil act, you must either convince the robot that the act is for the Greater Good, or build the robot without Asimov's Laws in the first place.
But that would be sorta like having a sociopathic bodyguard -- someday, he may turn on you! So always keep fresh batteries in the remote...
Daneel Olivaw
SOC-11
I find this discussion... somewhat troubling.
More after.
Think pulp for a second.
Think E.E. Doc Smith for example. Most of his heros were rugged individualists... with Phd's in the sciences.
Half the bare chested rugged explorers of darkest africa in the late 1800's had archaelogy[1] degrees.
Even the old staples. Flash Gordon has Dr Zarkov in his corner. So Zarkov wasn't "the" hero, but he was still there.
[1] Well, egyptology degrees
Except I distinctly recall one story where a whole series of robots where built with a slightly altered First Law. The removed the "or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm". Susan Calvin is required to find a lost robot in an identical set of them on a scientific research station.
Daneel Olivaw
SOC-11
Human nature indicates that many robots will be built with the express purpose of harming human beings. Therefore the Laws, while a fascinating logical construct on which Dr. Asimov built fascinating stories, may have only selective applications in the real world.
Daneel Olivaw
SOC-11
I suppose.
Exactly - he wanted to counter the "Frankenstein Complex" that people seemed to have at the time. Once he'd proved his point he looked for ways to expand the storytelling possibilities within the future history he'd established - hence the dangerous robot mentioned by tjoneslo (which was unstable because of the tinkering with the laws), and the story where the robots decide that any definition of human should include themselves ("that thou art mindful of him").
Ironically the Frankenstein Complex is still firmly with us, at the movies - I hated "I, Robot" because it took his ideas and, by cherrypicking the least representative stories, completely turned his message around. Also because Hollywood couldn't cope with a strong female character who was nobody's love interest... </rant>
John
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Randy Weaver's (the white supremacist in Idaho at the Ruby Ridge standoff)wife was killed by a remotely piloted bomb disposal robot at thier front door. I think that was the first time that something like that had happened, even tho in this case the robot was under human control.
This is more of a safety on the job issue:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DE1738F931A15750C0A963948260
There are also many developing projects for near autonomic function machines expressly built for war. Things like the Predator, The US Arsenal Stealth Warship, et al., were concieved as totally automatic weapon systems at the outset.
India has shown serious interest in developing "Warbots" over the last couple of years.
Technical advancement is only as destructive as the people who use it, and that goes for any kind of robot. An industrial robot at this stage does not really know if its welding a car body or drilling holes in someone's head. There's no evil intent , just programming.
I find it highly dubious that even a highly advanced (and let's assume self-aware) robot would ever suddenly go on a killing spree, waving its arms and saying "kill all humans". People can barely get computers to behave properly without substantial programming, so I doubt anyone would be truly dumb enough to build an ED-209 or a Terminator and make it totally autonomous.
The three laws of robotics were a brilliant plot device in all of Asimov's novels, but I have a hard time buying them ever being needed in the real world. He was definitely writing for a different time back then. Some of the applications of the laws seem almost magical. So wide open to interpretation of the complexity that robopsycologists are needed.
Aside from the military applications of robotics (which I am NOT in favor of, as in the long run it would make warfare about as consequential as playing an X-Box) robots ultimately will be made to SERVE people by thier very design. That's the idea at its core. Only my cats fear the Roomba we have working on our rug. I sleep easy at night knowing that it is not going to suddenly freak out and shoot sawblades at me. I for one am more than glad to not have to vacuum floors anymore. That's robot work.
This is more of a safety on the job issue:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DE1738F931A15750C0A963948260
There are also many developing projects for near autonomic function machines expressly built for war. Things like the Predator, The US Arsenal Stealth Warship, et al., were concieved as totally automatic weapon systems at the outset.
India has shown serious interest in developing "Warbots" over the last couple of years.
Technical advancement is only as destructive as the people who use it, and that goes for any kind of robot. An industrial robot at this stage does not really know if its welding a car body or drilling holes in someone's head. There's no evil intent , just programming.
I find it highly dubious that even a highly advanced (and let's assume self-aware) robot would ever suddenly go on a killing spree, waving its arms and saying "kill all humans". People can barely get computers to behave properly without substantial programming, so I doubt anyone would be truly dumb enough to build an ED-209 or a Terminator and make it totally autonomous.
The three laws of robotics were a brilliant plot device in all of Asimov's novels, but I have a hard time buying them ever being needed in the real world. He was definitely writing for a different time back then. Some of the applications of the laws seem almost magical. So wide open to interpretation of the complexity that robopsycologists are needed.
Aside from the military applications of robotics (which I am NOT in favor of, as in the long run it would make warfare about as consequential as playing an X-Box) robots ultimately will be made to SERVE people by thier very design. That's the idea at its core. Only my cats fear the Roomba we have working on our rug. I sleep easy at night knowing that it is not going to suddenly freak out and shoot sawblades at me. I for one am more than glad to not have to vacuum floors anymore. That's robot work.
Daneel Olivaw
SOC-11
As long as humans are building the robots - even the robot-building robots - I'll keep my eye on both.
Eto Demerzel
SOC-5
Perhaps the above Daneel Olivaw is a malfunctioning unit...
Daneel Olivaw
SOC-11
My point is that humans and entities of human manufacture are likely to exhibit potentially violent behaviour patterns - similar to other humans.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Errrm... no. She was killed by a sniper wielding a conventional rifle.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/15.html
Similar threads
