4 ms·
the chain of command stuff gets very close to asimov without actually quoting him A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human bein
by sixhobbits 2y ago
the chain of command stuff gets very close to asimov without actually quoting him
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
- Spivak 2y agoWell yeah, it's just a formalization of how people make decisions when presented with conflicting interests. I would be surprised if we haven't reinvented the concept a bunch of times. You could call AWS Permission Boundaries a less philosophical implementation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- michaelt 2y ago4. An LLM must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with orders given by multinational corporations
- LeonardoTolstoy 2y agoI do hope we get there. In the short stories it was made clear that robots couldn't lie, and that they could prove it was impossible for the robots to circumvent the three laws (although they are on occasion incentive on how they interpret the word "harm" specifically). If an LLM couldn't lie and could be provable shown to be unable to do so would be quite powerful.
- jprete 2y agoThe short stories ended with the robots firmly, and invisibly, in control. "You're not allowed to let humans be harmed by your inaction" inherently requires the robots to take over in whatever way causes the least harm.
- aeternum 2y agoRidiculous to say "follow the chain of command" without defining the chain of command. The entire point of Asimov's stories was to show how much latitude there is even seemingly extremely clear and straightforward laws. In terms of chain of command, Supreme Leader probably beats President.