Isaac Asimov`s Three Rules For Robots

[100%]

LAW ZERO
A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm

LAW ONE
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate a higher-order Law

LAW TWO
(a) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law

(B) A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law

LAW THREE
(a) A robot must protect the existence of a superordinate robot as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law

(B) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law

[Snee]

They aren't supposed to work for real robots though.

Apparently some research team somewhere came to that conclusion.

[uNz[i]]

Glad to see you remembered the zeroth law, Zedaxax. :geek:

[fred devliegher]

Originally posted by SnnY@15 April 2004 - 22:03
They aren't supposed to work for real robots though.

Apparently some research team somewhere came to that conclusion.
:blink:

Scientist 1 :"Here SyBot 041, take this axe and smash my skull."

*SPLAT*

Scientist 2 : "Back to the drawin' board, eh ?"

[uNz[i]]

Wasn't that the research team who developed this guy?

Image Resized
[img]http://www.sighost.us/members/unz/ed209.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://www.sighost.us/members/unz/ed209.jpg')

[100%]

Now that you mention it - i think they where refering to this guy
although - i this one only has one law - hug me

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~mflatt/bumpy/jpegs/robot.jpg

[uNz[i]]

Originally posted by Zedaxax@16 April 2004 - 07:58
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~mflatt/bumpy/jpegs/robot.jpg
I recognise that robot...

Its the Strangle-Bot 5000! :o
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by fred devliegher+15 April 2004 - 21:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fred devliegher &#064; 15 April 2004 - 21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@15 April 2004 - 22:03
They aren&#39;t supposed to work for real robots though.

Apparently some research team somewhere came to that conclusion.
:blink:

Scientist 1 :"Here SyBot 041, take this axe and smash my skull."

*SPLAT*

Scientist 2 : "Back to the drawin&#39; board, eh ?" [/b][/quote]

No, if the robot were governed by Asimov&#39;s laws then the second law (obedience to humans) is superceded by the first law (no harm to humans), so the robot would do nothing.

EDIT: Unless of course the splatting of the scientists head was for the good of humanity, in which case the Zeroeth law takes precedence :P

[fred devliegher]

Originally posted by barbarossa+16 April 2004 - 10:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 16 April 2004 - 10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by fred devliegher@15 April 2004 - 21:35
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@15 April 2004 - 22:03
They aren't supposed to work for real robots though.

Apparently some research team somewhere came to that conclusion.
:blink:

Scientist 1 :"Here SyBot 041, take this axe and smash my skull."

*SPLAT*

Scientist 2 : "Back to the drawin' board, eh ?"

No, if the robot were governed by Asimov's laws then the second law (obedience to humans) is superceded by the first law (no harm to humans), so the robot would do nothing.

EDIT: Unless of course the splatting of the scientists head was for the good of humanity, in which case the Zeroeth law takes precedence :P [/b][/quote]
I know...I've read Asimov. The point was, testing the second/third law is perfectly safe - but I don't want to be the person testing law #1.

[Snee]

I haven&#39;t found a good link about it, maybe i dreamt it? :blink: Nah, &#39;twas someone else that told me about it.

As far as I understand though, it&#39;ll prevent them from doing the things they&#39;d be optimal for or something, according to the opinions of many.

Like this guy (http://www.androidworld.com/prod22.htm).

If that is the whole point to the anti-law research/opinion I&#39;ve been told about before, then screw it, is all I say.

EDit: his last points are interesting though, although i think asimov covered at least a couple in "I, Robot".

Consider the last example for instance, in "lost little robot" I think it was, it&#39;s established that if it&#39;s impossible for a robot to rescue someone because he&#39;ll be destroyed before he gets there, he&#39;ll simply do nothing, as there&#39;s no point to trying.

EDit again: at least in asimov&#39;s world, because of logic and and good programming that takes these things in account or somesuch.

[uNz[i]]

The reason for the robotic laws is purely down to paranoia.
The bots were progressively becoming stronger, faster, smarter and more versatile with each new model.

Mistrusting humans were scared they would eventually be wiped out by the new, more superior &#39;species&#39;, so the 3 laws were introduced as a safeguard.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by uNz[i]@16 April 2004 - 11:48
The reason for the robotic laws is purely down to paranoia.
The bots were progressively becoming stronger, faster, smarter and more versatile with each new model.

Mistrusting humans were scared they would eventually be wiped out by the new, more superior &#39;species&#39;, so the 3 laws were introduced as a safeguard.
Well there&#39;s been plenty of SF written about THAT scenario, so I think Asimov&#39;s laws have some validity... :o

[100%]

I think the Matrix Brothers forgot to read up on the RULES

[Samurai]

Is it me, or do I read 4 Laws?

[Snee]

The zero law was kinda&#39; secret and a later addition :shifty:

But supposed to supersede the other three, whch are numbered in inverted proportion to their importance, ie higher numbers means lesser priority.

EDit: sp