3 ms·
For certain definitions of 'awesome'; we'd be inviting murder and deception and all manner of crime via robot. I think the lesson from Asimov is that we can't b
by cryptoz 11y ago
For certain definitions of 'awesome'; we'd be inviting murder and deception and all manner of crime via robot. I think the lesson from Asimov is that we can't bank on a simple set of laws to protect us from killer robots.
The zeroth law is most important, as well. If we try this route we'd have to be sure to implement that law first.
> A robot may not harm humanity; or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
- malka 11y agothe problem being definining what "harming humanity" means.
- ultramancool 11y agoDo botnets qualify as "robots" and does "harming humanity" include DDoS attacks?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- libria 11y agoIndeed, in the novels the "inventor" of the 0th law is fatally conflicted upon acting on it.
- dragonwriter 11y agoThe robot killing itself is both a direct action, and results in future inaction, through which humanity may come to harm which the robot could have prevented, had it not killed itself. So that's not a magic-bullet solution.
- MichaelGG 11y agoIf it kills itself, it might cause depression in the inventors. So that's definitely not a solution, let alone the only possible one. A closer solution is to properly simulate humanity and determine which actions work. (There's the ethical question about how good a sim before you've caused consciousness. But I don't think we know enough about consciousness to fully conclude anything there.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]