That's just ad hominem. As I've been saying, I don't even 100% agree with them. I do, however, find some value in the idea that weaponized robotics should have

That's just ad hominem. As I've been saying, I don't even 100% agree with them. I do, however, find some value in the idea that weaponized robotics should have failsafes against human instructions to commit violence. Again, consider the garage door example. You push a button, the garage door closes. If something should trigger a safety sensor, the garage door reverses rather than crushing whatever tripped the sensor. How many times have police been involved in shootings where the body camera was present but not running, or the recording was "lost"? I think it is perfectly reasonable to insist on more safety measures, such as failsafes against the robot firing its weapons if it isn't recording or detects interference in the recording and backup mechanisms. This is something I hadn't fully considered when I reviewed the three laws; if you go back to my first comment on the thread, I had initially been of mind to dismiss it.