3 ms·

This is silly. The Three Laws of Robotics are not harmful because _they can't actually be implemented_. Asimov never details how the three laws are baked into

by jawns 8y ago

This is silly. The Three Laws of Robotics are not harmful because _they can't actually be implemented_. Asimov never details how the three laws are baked into positronic brains in so fundamental a way that they can't be disabled without destroying the robot. Heck, we don't even know how to build a positronic brain -- because it's a fictional technology! So even if you _wanted_ to build some sort of AI that is guided by the Three Laws, you couldn't. You might be able to build AI that is guided by certain ethical principles, but right now, in the current state of technology, it's all rules-based stuff -- like a self-driving car with a rule about slowing down to avoid an impact that could injure someone. Nobody knows how to give AI an ethical intuition, much less tweak that intuition. (I'm an objectivist, so I actually prefer saying, "Nobody knows how to give AI the ability to perceive metaphysical principles.") This whole post is like saying that Star Trek's Warp Drive is harmful because we shouldn't be trying to travel faster than light.

Topolomancer 8y ago
Correct. By the author's logic, the article should _also_ be considered harmful because it is quite vague. In fact, it does not even go remotely into the detail about vagueness. Moreover, it omits the fact that Asimov actually plays with these laws in all his books (I think this has been mentioned already in another comment), showing exactly the interesting consequences of the wording... While I like AI policy discussions a lot, this article does not help unfortunately. :-/
edent 8y ago
Correct! As I say in my post, it is the meme of the 3 Laws which is harmful to discussion on Robot Ethics.
Veedrac 8y ago
Your entire argument seems to be "it's impossible to do this because we don't know how to do it." I don't get how people argue about the plausibility of future par-human AIs and say things like "we don't even know how to build a positronic brain" or "right now, in the current state of technology". It's the same kind of incomprehensible confusion that leads one to tell the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible; just as birds exist to conclusively disprove that, so do HUMANS disprove the impossibility of human-level intelligence. Maybe the three laws really are as physically illegal as a Warp Drive, though I would be remarkably surprised to hear it, but you cannot reasonably argue that position by claiming brains are impossible. None of this should be taken as an endorsement of the three laws, which are clearly silly.

by jawns 8y ago

Topolomancer 8y ago

Correct. By the author's logic, the article should _also_ be considered harmful because it is quite vague. In fact, it does not even go remotely into the detail about vagueness. Moreover, it omits the fact that Asimov actually plays with these laws in all his books (I think this has been mentioned already in another comment), showing exactly the interesting consequences of the wording... While I like AI policy discussions a lot, this article does not help unfortunately. :-/

edent 8y ago

Correct! As I say in my post, it is the meme of the 3 Laws which is harmful to discussion on Robot Ethics.

Veedrac 8y ago

Your entire argument seems to be "it's impossible to do this because we don't know how to do it." I don't get how people argue about the plausibility of future par-human AIs and say things like "we don't even know how to build a positronic brain" or "right now, in the current state of technology". It's the same kind of incomprehensible confusion that leads one to tell the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible; just as birds exist to conclusively disprove that, so do HUMANS disprove the impossibility of human-level intelligence. Maybe the three laws really are as physically illegal as a Warp Drive, though I would be remarkably surprised to hear it, but you cannot reasonably argue that position by claiming brains are impossible. None of this should be taken as an endorsement of the three laws, which are clearly silly.