Gregory's ServerAsimov’s three (well, four) laws of robotics are not supposed to actually work. They are vehicles to create interesting literature BECAUSE they are wrong and create contradictions that lead to good books. Too bad so many techbros don’t get that.
 31 comments
@ankitpati Every book and short story from Asimovs robotic series does exactly that. Show how the three/four laws create unsolvable contradictions. That’s their purpose. That’s why the books work. @ankitpati It took me many years to understand that simple truth. But once I did and read the books again, it was so obvious and helped me understand the deeper meaning. Reality is more complex and contradictory than simple rules suggest.  @jwildeboer The way I remember it, it’s always because *someone* (not robots, but actual humans) thinks they’re smarter than the laws and/or the laws don’t apply to them and/or they can helpfully reorder the laws. Basically in-universe techbros. If anything, the tales show exactly why we need iron-fisted regulatory frameworks backed by severe personal penalties (no, companies are not persons) to enforce these laws. @ankitpati you really should read the books again, especially from the perspective of Susan Calvin, the robopsychologist. Her struggles with the 3 laws and how she tried to reason them makes a lot more sense when viewed from the perspective of failure. It took me some time to understand.  @jwildeboer @ankitpati by the time i finished reading I, Robot it felt less like speculative fiction about artificial intelligence and more a collection of clever moral logical conundrums told through a specific arbitrary setting that happened to involve artificial intelligences
 @ankitpati @jwildeboer Broot Force is the obvious short story. Roderick also touches on it (Tiktok is perhaps the more famous one but isn't really about the logic of the 3 laws so much as the question of their morality themselves and robots as slave labour)  @ankitpati @jwildeboer I've never read any Asimov, but Computerphile did a video on the laws of robotics that I thought explained the problems pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A @jwildeboer Sladek did some great send ups of them. But not only are they the "laws of robotics" they are very basic moral questions so as you say they make great moral stories @etchedpixels He reduced the 10 commandments to 3 or 4 laws of robotics. And used that to show how simple rules that *seem* to make sense don’t stand the test of complex reality. It’s really genius.  @Paragone @jwildeboer I think Asimov tried his best to invent logical laws that seem to be fool proof and then show the spectacular ways how they can still fail. That the laws don‘t work is the feature of the stories not a defect.  @Paragone @jwildeboer You're super close to getting it. Reread your own post, then reread Jan's. Then maybe reread Asimov? (As, obviously, should I; it's been a good while :) ) As you say, he knew what he was doing ;)  @jwildeboer I go with beam‘s law of robotics 1. feed your ass Followed by his laws of human interaction with robots If you stomp on the robot it should be kaput, not vice versa. He learned this the hard way when a 2 ton robot came falling down the stairs in MIT media lab and landed right beside him into the wall.   @jwildeboer that's why i propose the three new laws of robotics: 1. A robot may not perform a task that does not create value for our shareholders.  @ionizedgirl @jwildeboer 4. A robot must not decide that dumping the overpaid CEO creates value for the shareholders.  @jwildeboer I've been screaming this for decades. But what's fun is that you can tell immediately who HAS NOT read iRobot (or understood it if they did). I want to glue them to a desk and make them read the whole Foundation Series (which I have on my phone/tablet). That'll learn `em. Even Asimov's rules could work, they would require a huge amount of ethical judgment on the part of the robots, and no AI today has any sort of ethical judgment capability. For those of us who are don't remember this stuff all that well can you give an example ? thanks  @jwildeboer Wait, people think the "Three Laws" work? It was obvious to me from when I first read them that they couldn't work.  @Conan_Kudo @jwildeboer I mean, it's not like Asimov wrote an entire cycle of novels and a number of short stories trying to explain that. But then again, the only thing these people get from “don't build the Torment Nexus” is ideas on how to build one, so we can't say they shine in reading comprehension. @jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net the laws are infeasible because humanity is set on harming itself in so many ways. Even if we could translate those laws to some actual tech, it would fail on day one. @jwildeboer Put any robot with a #PositronicBrain subject to the #ThreeLaws in a room with #CaptainKirk for five minutes, and it will be a smoldering psychotic wreck when the Captain strolls off to keep his date with his latest alien babe or armada. #Asimov is no match for #Roddenberry. @jwildeboer Techbros are striving shitsacks that have never read an SF book in their lives.  @jwildeboer They're not theses. They're entertainment. They're supposed to make you want to read them and not get bored. 😅🤖 |
@jwildeboer I’ve always held those four laws as Holy Truths, mostly because I’ve never heard them challenged.
Until today.
I’d love to learn alternative perspectives on why they may be inadequate or contradictory.