@jwildeboer It's been decades since I read any Asimov, but he went out of his way to make things work technically-right.

Their sequencing was specifically to make them work properly ( and I seem to remember a story about what happens when you screw-up the sequence, or leave one out, or something ).

I believe he wrote to show people what he found to be the right way.

Including those laws.

And he was waaay more intelligent than most people.

---

The problem with the 3 laws isn't inherent in the laws.

Rather, the problem with the 3 laws is that it isn't possible to impliment them in manageable logic, completely-enough.

It's like using a .. what's that called, KXCD? comic stick-figure to identify a person...

The problem is that, same as with self-driving-vehicles, you're trying to get a few symbols to represent an absurd amount of junky meanings, that we process in analog-computers ( neuralnets ), and our programming-languages are for digital-computers...

Once you switch to analog neuralnets, aka fuzzy-logic, then you've got a completely different way of programming, through imprinting, and a whole different set of failure-modes, like those weird squiggle-images that cause neuralnets to hallucinate things that we can't understand...

( I remember seeing some vid on a chaotic squiggle that apparently caused a neuralnet to hallucinate a turtle on the street-sign it was stuck on ).

Neuralnets are *not* deterministic the way people believe computers are...

Anyways, perhaps just classify me as a "techbro" who can't/doesn't get it:

He knew what he was doing, & the problem's not in the laws, it's in making actual-programming, of either digital-sequential or neuralnet kind, to understand, and that *isn't* tractable.

_ /\ _