3 ms·
Well, we certainly don't do that with animals. Only after a certain threshold of intelligence we don't want to hurt/eat them, or if they are "wild life", which
by nextparadigms 15y ago
Well, we certainly don't do that with animals. Only after a certain threshold of intelligence we don't want to hurt/eat them, or if they are "wild life", which we generally want to preserve, although it's only in recent history that this has happened.
If aliens existed, and came here, I wonder if they would treat us the same depending on whether they are only 2x, 10x or 1000x more intelligent than we are. Of course it's also possible that the more intelligent they get, the more they will want to preserve any kind of life, and will try to get their resources from something else to survive.
It should get interesting if we ever develop human brain-like artificial intelligence, and then we amplify it by 1000x following Moore's law for a couple of decades. Kill switches would become useless. We'd just have to teach them to value life more than anything, before it's too late.
- lukeqsee 15y agoRobotics rule #1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#.22The_Fifth_Law_of_Robotics.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#.22The_...) Also see this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intellige...
- nextparadigms 15y agoI don't remember now, but I think I heard that law is flawed, and could be easily bypassed, even when used together with the other 2. Does anyone know how that law is flawed? Unless I'm remembering it wrong.
- lukeqsee 15y agoHere's the paradox: a human tells a robot to kill another human; at that point, law #2 is in direct opposition to law #1.
- nextparadigms 15y agoBut why would it be? If you give it the first law, then that command should be "disabled" for anyone from outside. You could try to tell a robot that, but it shouldn't work. Your best chance should be if you try to trick the robot into doing a certain action that would indirectly get that person dead. but if he's smart enough to know how to protect a human life, he should be smart enough to deny you the command, knowing it will endanger that other person's life.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- sibsibsib 15y agoLaw #2 makes mention of law #1: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- summerdown 15y agoIn 2003 there were 6 million car accidents, not to mention people falling over, wars, etc. You're mandating the robot to put everyone in a padded cell for their own good.