3 ms·
Why couldn't they be implemented in hardware? Through the whole Robot series he describes them as "potentials" summing to force a decision, and even the self-c
by madengr 9y ago
Why couldn't they be implemented in hardware? Through the whole Robot series he describes them as "potentials" summing to force a decision, and even the self-conceived 0th law takes precedence, though not for G.R. It's obvious the positronic brain isn't based on logic, rather an analog brain with trillions of "pathways" that can be "frozen" and never re-started (as you would a program). There isn't even a concept of finite data storage. D.O. doesn't know how long it will take to fill up his brain, though he records everything and can't forget it. SPOILER: Though in the end of the Foundation series, we have some clues.
- mrob 9y agoThe laws don't have any objective interpretation. What exactly is "harm" from a mathematical point of view? This is good for storytelling, because it let Asimov write stories about robots behaving in strange ways, and the protagonists struggling to figure out how it made sense as a possible interpretation of the laws, but it's no good for actually building robots.
- krapp 9y agoYes, people who take Asimov's laws seriously seem to forget that they didn't even work in-universe, which was kind of the point.