3 ms·

To be a little bit fair, another robot did, it just didn't survive the application.

JshWright 9y ago
I used the word "sustainably" intentionally. R. Giskard didn't just use the Zeroth Law, he created it (and passed it on to R. Daneel).
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Wait, Giskard didn't survive?? When did that happen?
  - JshWright 9y ago
    Sorry, should have included a spoiler tag, I guess... At the end of Robots and Empire he allows Mandamus to activate his "nuclear intensifier", which will eventually render the Earth uninhabitable over the course of several decades (thereby driving humanity to colonize more stars). R. Giskard decided it was in the best interest of humanity for them to disperse, but couldn't rule out the possibility that some humans would be harmed in the process, so he permanently shut down.
- stormbrew 9y ago
  Right. I understood that sustainably was intentional, but I kind of feel like if you don't already know the context it was subtle enough that you might not get that an Asimov robot was at least once involved in (very likely) a mass death event. And I think there are at least some implications that Daneel was at least peripherally involved in much larger events than the person-by-person manipulation we see in the prequel books directly (ie. famines), but he saved himself by keeping himself more remote from them than literally pulling the switch. Had the master robot in I, Robot actually suffered for its implementation of the zeroth law I think that would have been at least a little more in keeping with Asimov's vision, so I think it's a bit important to recognize that robots CAN do great harm with the zeroth law, there are just consequences. (and we can probably ignore the fact that the three-Bs extended books resurrected Dors and iirc somewhat even Giskard)
  - le-mark 9y ago
    Thanks for articulating this. I had a lot problems with this person exclusion of the 'frankenstien' complex as an inseparable part of Asimovs robot stories. I couldn't put my finger on it, as you did.
    - stormbrew 9y ago
      Well, to be clear, I agree with them that the I, Robot film is not in the spirit of the asimov stories precisely because it invokes the zeroth law without any of the counterbalances Asimov built into his stories from the very beginning. Daneel and Giskard's interventions are scary, but in the end they do appear to be truly in keeping with a species-wide application of the first law, in that their attempts to 'preserve humanity' were not just a rote idea of "keep humanity alive at any cost" but to preserve the components of humanity that they didn't themselves understand like individuality, creativity, and a drive to learn and explore (very star trekky really). If I want to get too deep into the subject, it seems like a robot that interpreted the first law so narrowly would never be capable of developing a zeroth law to begin with, because its focus would be so intent on a narrow idea of what a human was, ignoring social concepts altogether (as for eg. Solarian robots do). To be fair though it has been a REALLY long time since I've seen the movie.

I used the word "sustainably" intentionally. R. Giskard didn't just use the Zeroth Law, he created it (and passed it on to R. Daneel).

dingo_bat 9y ago
Wait, Giskard didn't survive?? When did that happen?
- JshWright 9y ago
  Sorry, should have included a spoiler tag, I guess... At the end of Robots and Empire he allows Mandamus to activate his "nuclear intensifier", which will eventually render the Earth uninhabitable over the course of several decades (thereby driving humanity to colonize more stars). R. Giskard decided it was in the best interest of humanity for them to disperse, but couldn't rule out the possibility that some humans would be harmed in the process, so he permanently shut down.
stormbrew 9y ago
Right. I understood that sustainably was intentional, but I kind of feel like if you don't already know the context it was subtle enough that you might not get that an Asimov robot was at least once involved in (very likely) a mass death event. And I think there are at least some implications that Daneel was at least peripherally involved in much larger events than the person-by-person manipulation we see in the prequel books directly (ie. famines), but he saved himself by keeping himself more remote from them than literally pulling the switch. Had the master robot in I, Robot actually suffered for its implementation of the zeroth law I think that would have been at least a little more in keeping with Asimov's vision, so I think it's a bit important to recognize that robots CAN do great harm with the zeroth law, there are just consequences. (and we can probably ignore the fact that the three-Bs extended books resurrected Dors and iirc somewhat even Giskard)
- le-mark 9y ago
  Thanks for articulating this. I had a lot problems with this person exclusion of the 'frankenstien' complex as an inseparable part of Asimovs robot stories. I couldn't put my finger on it, as you did.
  - stormbrew 9y ago
    Well, to be clear, I agree with them that the I, Robot film is not in the spirit of the asimov stories precisely because it invokes the zeroth law without any of the counterbalances Asimov built into his stories from the very beginning. Daneel and Giskard's interventions are scary, but in the end they do appear to be truly in keeping with a species-wide application of the first law, in that their attempts to 'preserve humanity' were not just a rote idea of "keep humanity alive at any cost" but to preserve the components of humanity that they didn't themselves understand like individuality, creativity, and a drive to learn and explore (very star trekky really). If I want to get too deep into the subject, it seems like a robot that interpreted the first law so narrowly would never be capable of developing a zeroth law to begin with, because its focus would be so intent on a narrow idea of what a human was, ignoring social concepts altogether (as for eg. Solarian robots do). To be fair though it has been a REALLY long time since I've seen the movie.