Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Isaac Asimov`s Three Rules For Robots

  1. #1
    100%'s Avatar ╚════╩═╬════╝
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,671
    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

  2. Lounge   -   #2
    Snee's Avatar Error xɐʇuʎs BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    on something.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    22,677
    They aren't supposed to work for real robots though.

    Apparently some research team somewhere came to that conclusion.

  3. Lounge   -   #3
    uNz[i]'s Avatar Out of order
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,259
    Glad to see you remembered the zeroth law, Zedaxax.

  4. Lounge   -   #4
    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.


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

    *SPLAT*

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

  5. Lounge   -   #5
    uNz[i]'s Avatar Out of order
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,259

  6. Lounge   -   #6
    100%'s Avatar ╚════╩═╬════╝
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,671
    Now that you mention it - i think they where refering to this guy
    although - i this one only has one law - hug me


  7. Lounge   -   #7
    uNz[i]'s Avatar Out of order
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,259
    Originally posted by Zedaxax@16 April 2004 - 07:58
    I recognise that robot...

    Its the Strangle-Bot 5000!

  8. Lounge   -   #8
    Barbarossa's Avatar mostly harmless
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    19,631
    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.


    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

  9. Lounge   -   #9
    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.



    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 [/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.
    Last edited by Barbarossa; 04-03-2007 at 10:22 AM.

  10. Lounge   -   #10
    Snee's Avatar Error xɐʇuʎs BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    on something.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    22,677
    I haven&#39;t found a good link about it, maybe i dreamt it? 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.

    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •