Uuh… skipping over the fact that this is a pointless article, didn’t Asimov himself write the three laws specifically to show it’s a very stupid idea to think a human could cover all possible contingencies through three smart-sounding phrases?
I genuinely think it’s impossible. I think this would land us into Robocop 2, where they started overloading Murphy’s system with thousands of directives (granted, not with the purpose of generating the perfect set of Laws for him) and he just ends up acting like a generic pull-string action figure, becoming useless as a conscious being.
Most certainly impossible when attempted by humans, because we’re barely even competent enough to guide ourselves, let alone something else.
That was his general topic through many of his stories. The three laws were quite similar to former slavery laws of Usa. With this analogy he worked on the question if robots are nearly like humans, and if they are even indistinguishable from humans: Would/should they still stay our servants then?
Yepyep, agreed! I was referring strictly to the Three Laws as a cautionary element.
Otherwise, I, too, think the point was to show that the only viable way to approach an equivalent or superior consciousness is as at least an equal, not as an inferior.
And it makes a lot of sense. There’s not much stopping a person from doing heinous stuff if a body of laws would be the only thing to stop them. I think socialisation plays a much more relevant role in the development of a conscience, of a moral compass, because empathy is a significantly stronger motivator for avoiding doing harm than “because that’s the law.”
It’s basic child rearing as I see it, if children aren’t socialised, there will be a much higher chance that they won’t understand why doing something would harm another, they won’t see the actual consequences of their actions upon the subject. And if they don’t understand that the subject of their actions is a being just like them, with an internal life and feelings, then they wouldn’t have any reason to not treat the subject as a piece of furniture, or a tool, or any other object one could see around them.
Uuh… skipping over the fact that this is a pointless article, didn’t Asimov himself write the three laws specifically to show it’s a very stupid idea to think a human could cover all possible contingencies through three smart-sounding phrases?
Most of the stories are about how the laws don’t work and how to circumvent them, yes.
Most peope never read Asimov and it shows.
I dont think reading Asimov would help for most people. I think most people will just not get the point of anything unless you spell it out
Critical thinking is indeed dead for much of the population.
exactly. But what if there were more than just three (the infamous “guardrails”)
I genuinely think it’s impossible. I think this would land us into Robocop 2, where they started overloading Murphy’s system with thousands of directives (granted, not with the purpose of generating the perfect set of Laws for him) and he just ends up acting like a generic pull-string action figure, becoming useless as a conscious being.
Most certainly impossible when attempted by humans, because we’re barely even competent enough to guide ourselves, let alone something else.
Asimov had quite a different idea.
What if robots become like humans some day?
That was his general topic through many of his stories. The three laws were quite similar to former slavery laws of Usa. With this analogy he worked on the question if robots are nearly like humans, and if they are even indistinguishable from humans: Would/should they still stay our servants then?
Yepyep, agreed! I was referring strictly to the Three Laws as a cautionary element.
Otherwise, I, too, think the point was to show that the only viable way to approach an equivalent or superior consciousness is as at least an equal, not as an inferior.
And it makes a lot of sense. There’s not much stopping a person from doing heinous stuff if a body of laws would be the only thing to stop them. I think socialisation plays a much more relevant role in the development of a conscience, of a moral compass, because empathy is a significantly stronger motivator for avoiding doing harm than “because that’s the law.”
It’s basic child rearing as I see it, if children aren’t socialised, there will be a much higher chance that they won’t understand why doing something would harm another, they won’t see the actual consequences of their actions upon the subject. And if they don’t understand that the subject of their actions is a being just like them, with an internal life and feelings, then they wouldn’t have any reason to not treat the subject as a piece of furniture, or a tool, or any other object one could see around them.