Poll: The Three (Arguably Four) Laws of Robotics

[Seldon2639]

I was just curious how many people here know old-school sci-fi. I was writing in another thread about my username, which is based on a character in the Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov (father of most sci-fi, and *all* robot-based sci-fi), and it got me thinking (a) about how old those books are, and (b) about the roots of our current science fiction. I mean, the three laws of robotics (though Asimov expanded it to four in both the Elijah Bailey books and in the Foundation Series) have informed basically all robots in television and movies (even if not a direct following of the laws, the underlying premises, and treatment of robots, even the way they function).

By the way, the "I, Robot" movie absolutely violated the sense of the original book, so if you've not read Asimov, please don't judge his works off of that piece of unmitigated garbage

 

[stompy]

Yeh, I've watched I, Robot (2004). Then I read the book. Two completely different things. Still, I liked the book, it appealed to my geekiness and love of AI. Unfortunately, that's all I've read from his work.

- A procrastinator

 

[jim_doki]

i know the three, unsure of the forth

 

[Saskwach]

From memory I know one is roughly, do not harm, or through inaction allow harm to befall a human. Another is follow the orders of a human unless that would violate the first law. Unsure of the third.

 

[stompy]

The Three Laws of Robotics (Asimov's Laws) are:


A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


PS: My googling skills are amazing.

- A procrastinator

Edit: There is the Zeroth Law, which is:

A robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity.

 

[Seldon2639]

Yeh, I've watched I, Robot (2004). Then I read the book. Two completely different things. Still, I liked the book, it appealed to my geekiness and love of AI. Unfortunately, that's all I've read from his work.

- A procrastinator

You should pick up the Elijah Bailey books, and the Foundation Series (and read them in that order). I can't really speak for most of his side works ("I, Robot", and "Robot Visions" being stellar) mainly because I've not read all of them.

 

[stompy]

You should pick up the Elijah Bailey books, and the Foundation Series (and read them in that order). I can't really speak for most of his side works ("I, Robot", and "Robot Visions" being stellar) mainly because I've not read all of them.

Thanks, I'll add them to my reading list... I think I can make an appointment... December 24th.

- A procrastinator

 

[Gavaroc]

Movie: Excellent.
Book: Alright.

It's fair enough if I get beheaded for those comments; I've already been throttled by my family friends for enjoying the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film.

Great story, but the action in the book just pales in comparison to the action in the movie. That and Will Smith, of course.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Movie: Excellent.
Book: Alright.

It's fair enough if I get beheaded for those comments; I've already been throttled by my family friends for enjoying the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film.

Great story, but the action in the book just pales in comparison to the action in the movie. That and Will Smith, of course.

As a Hitchhikers fan of all the version, don't feel bad about liking the movie, love them both, they are different things

No version of the guide is ever the same, i've met people who adore the Radio play and movie, but can't stomach the book.

as for the laws... can we have AI with such restrictions? i personally cherish my free will and the opportunity to stab my fellow man in the face.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

ultrajoe a word...

if we get rid of said laws whats to stop the robots from deciding that we are to difficult to look after and kill us all, they can survive they will just design repair plants and build them

and remember they never sleep

 

[Gavaroc]

I'd much prefer my pet robot to say no when I ask him to kill somebody than to turn around and kill me for no apparant reason.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I'd much prefer my pet robot to say no when I ask him to kill somebody than to turn around and kill me for no apparant reason.

But think of the possibilities that could bring.

 

[Gavaroc]

... No comment.

Anyway, here's a hypothetical situation:

Man orders Robot A to destroy Robot B. If Man orders Robot B to let itself be destroyed,it does nothing. However, if Man gives Robot B no orders, Robot B will defend itself against Robot A. If Man gives no orders to Robot B and attacks Robot B as well, Robot B will fight Robot A but will ignore Man.

Am I right?

 

[Fire Daemon]

... No comment.

Anyway, here's a hypothetical situation:

Man orders Robot A to destroy Robot B. If Man orders Robot B to let itself be destroyed,it does nothing. However, if Man gives Robot B no orders, Robot B will defend itself against Robot A. If Man gives no orders to Robot B and attacks Robot B as well, Robot B will fight Robot A but will ignore Man.

Am I right?

Depends. If the robot B was designed as a body guard to the man then it would always fight Robot A as Robot A is a threat to the man. If its just two robots fighting then the robots will do what they are programmed to do. If a robot is programmed to only fight when given a direct command to fight then it will satnd there getting the crap beaten out of it. If the robot is programmed to defend itself from other robots then it would try and kill the other robot. If this program also dictates that a robot may defend itself from humans then it would fight the human.

It depends on the robot.

 

[Gavaroc]

Ah, this topic is about the Three Laws, so I was referring to it as though both robots were programmed by the Three Laws.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Ah, this topic is about the Three Laws, so I was referring to it as though both robots were programmed by the Three Laws.

Oh well seeing as those laws are not used in robotics I was confused.

The robot would not let itself be destroyed unless resisting destruction will somehow risk harm to the human. Robots must always follow the laws and because of this Robots cannot allow themselves to be destroyed unless avoiding destruction will harm a human. The Robot will ignore the orders of the man to comply to laws.

Similar to if the man asked to robot to kill another man but instead focusing on the Second law.

So your Statement is false.

:EDIT: I had the rules mixed up (damn confusion..I keep hurting myself) you are correct.

 

[propertyofcobra]

I know of the three laws of robotics, and I know the film "I,Robot" completely and utterly ignored the first one. Not harm HUMANS or allow HUMANS to come to harm through inaction.
See, HUMANS. Not mankind? Yeah. Funny thing, that.

 

[Saskwach]

I know of the three laws of robotics, and I know the film "I,Robot" completely and utterly ignored the first one. Not harm HUMANS or allow HUMANS to come to harm through inaction.
See, HUMANS. Not mankind? Yeah. Funny thing, that.

While I don't necessarily disagree I think the reasoning was that the second part "through inaction allow humans to be harmed" forced what'shername to accept some casualties in the takeover phase to achieve her overall directive-keeping everyone from harm. Basically she was damned if she did and if she didn't but if she did sh would eventually achieve her directive.
I might be wrong though.

 

[Tread184]

I don't understand why the third law is necessary, it forces robots to try to survive if they need to be destroyed.