If you’ve ever actually read any of the books you’d know that using these laws as actual laws is a dumb move. The paradoxes caused by them are a pretty central theme.
Yeah like one of the stories in i Robot, the people were going die because the robot couldn’t break one of the three rules and went haywire. Think that was the issue in most of the stories.
Latter stories had Daneel Olivaw lawyering his way around the laws. Then there was a schism where some robots thought he misinterpreted them, went too far. Then the Zeroeth law came around adding more twists.
It’s been 20-years since I read all that. Tell me if I’m wrong.
Yeah, the actual purpose of the laws was to produce interesting (when involving Susan Calvin) or amusing (when involving Powell and Donovan) stories.
Still some form of protection for humans is needed.
If a robot (or any other corporate product or activity) causes injury everyone in the corporate chain of responsibility (especially board members and stockholders) should be criminally liable.
They are considered a good idea yes. But the entire point is that the notion that they are a good idea IS the flaw. Its literally a case of “just because a smart person thinks its a good idea, doesn’t make it one”.
The story and stories based on it that properly understand it. All look into how 3 simple well meaning laws which on paper sound and look good. Cause horrific unintended side effects, and harm humanity frequently to comical extremes.
As the saying goes, “The best laid plans of mice and men can still go wrong.”.
What ass backwards timeline we’re living in that we got Asimov’s three laws on backwards? That a human being cannot harm a robot? 🤬
If you’ve ever actually read any of the books you’d know that using these laws as actual laws is a dumb move. The paradoxes caused by them are a pretty central theme.
Yeah like one of the stories in i Robot, the people were going die because the robot couldn’t break one of the three rules and went haywire. Think that was the issue in most of the stories.
Latter stories had Daneel Olivaw lawyering his way around the laws. Then there was a schism where some robots thought he misinterpreted them, went too far. Then the Zeroeth law came around adding more twists.
It’s been 20-years since I read all that. Tell me if I’m wrong.
Yeah, the actual purpose of the laws was to produce interesting (when involving Susan Calvin) or amusing (when involving Powell and Donovan) stories.
Still some form of protection for humans is needed.
If a robot (or any other corporate product or activity) causes injury everyone in the corporate chain of responsibility (especially board members and stockholders) should be criminally liable.
The entire damn point of the three laws is that they don’t work and cause more harm then good… The paradox of the laws is the whole point!
What paradox? I thought the rules were considered a good idea in the stories.
They are considered a good idea yes. But the entire point is that the notion that they are a good idea IS the flaw. Its literally a case of “just because a smart person thinks its a good idea, doesn’t make it one”.
The story and stories based on it that properly understand it. All look into how 3 simple well meaning laws which on paper sound and look good. Cause horrific unintended side effects, and harm humanity frequently to comical extremes.
As the saying goes, “The best laid plans of mice and men can still go wrong.”.
Lots of the Robot stories hinge on unexpected outcomes of the Three Laws, or a clever bot like Daneel Olivaw lawyering them. :)
also robots are pratically blameless, thats why they are made, so it obfuscates the true owners.
But the owner isn’t blameless. What, are robot crashes handled as natural disasters? Is this idiocracy?
Time to give every robot a license plate
people get really angry at me when I flip these things.