3 ms·
> b) issues with ethics On a tangent, I've found it an interesting marker if a commentator speaks of the Three Laws of Robotics as if they are part of a soluti
by vacri 9y ago
> b) issues with ethics
On a tangent, I've found it an interesting marker if a commentator speaks of the Three Laws of Robotics as if they are part of a solution. We can't even explicitly codify how those laws (ethics) should function for ourselves, let alone put them in as a restriction into a computer system. Whenever I see those mentioned as part of a solution, then I know the commentator really is only thinking of surface issues and 'sci-fi magic' answers.
- ollin 9y agoYup! To cite some sources: > Periodic reminder that most of Isaac Asimov's stories were about how the three laws of robotics DON'T ACTUALLY WORK. (https://twitter.com/grok_/status/904675286230470656 https://twitter.com/grok_/status/904675286230470656 - MIT Research Specialist in Robot Ethics, in the superintelligence-is-in-no-way-a-serious-concern camp) > It must be emphasized that Asimov wrote fiction...The general consensus seems to be that no set of rules can ever capture every possible situation and that interaction of rules may lead to unforeseen circumstances and undetectable loopholes leading to devastating consequences for humanity (https://intelligence.org/files/SafetyEngineering.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/SafetyEngineering.pdf - MIRI, home of Bostrom, Yudkowsky, and other the-superintelligence-control-problem-is-super-important folks) To the extent that there are sides here, both of them seem strongly in agreement that the Three Laws are a narrative device and not a solution to anything.