#laws of robotics

[cranberryspringart]

I really wanna write an essay on Asimov's laws of robotics, how they should be implemented, and how the definition of harm should extend to non lethal workplace jobs being taken in favor of cutting corners thus putting more people into poverty as well as the enviromental implications of running their systems without corperations bothering to find some sort of alternative power source that doesn't destroy the planet in favor of oil companies.

[the-technocracy]

Whilst it's certainly important to create and instill safeguards and guidelines to protect humanity - in all the definitions that implies - from the growing proliferation of humanoid robots, I also hope there is a growing debate as to what protections robots ought to have for their safety, especially as they become imbued with more and more sophisticated AI systems.

With the advent of GPT-4o especially, presenting the user with more engaging, humanlike interactions, I think an argument can begin to be made that there should be more consideration given to them to be treated with more empathy and compassion, especially as such machines become more ubiquitous in the home, as either domestic helpers or personal companions.

I think for them to be considered on the same level as humans right now and in the near future may be a bit of a stretch, but certainly there should be a developing mentality to regard them with a similar consideration to, perhaps, the family dog or a welcome houseguest.

Simply put, do unto others (including our robots) as you'd have them do unto you; if we want our mechanical companions and helpers to be benign and helpful and considerate to our needs, then we also need to learn to treat them with the consideration we expect from each other.

I can't say I'm hopeful though.

[destinationisirrelevant]

I feel like we need a "Not 3 Laws Compliant" warning sticker to start slapping on Tesla's.

[sparky-pitch]

Thought's on Asimov's laws of robotics

Assuming everyone knows the rules 1. robot can't harm humans or through inaction allow them to come to harm 2. robot must obey orders as long as they don't conflict with rule 1 3. robot must protect itself as long as that doesn't conflict with other rules

does this mean a robot would be a narc? like if a robot witnesses a human doing drugs or performing an action that is known to harm a person, it would have to do everything within its power to stop that, including killing itself. what about instances where not even other people know if there could be harm, like a threat? It seems like robots must always assume that any verbal threat will be acted upon, for risk of causing harm through inaction. this would just mean robots are fucking shit to be around lmao

but we can take this further, because there is so much harm in the world I'm going to rephrase rule 1 to be a more lenient "no mortal harm" rule, robots just can't cause death or allow death to happen in this case, if someone dies as a result of building a robot, would the robot need to kill itself upon gaining sentience? Let's also assume no, that robots have some original sin clause

even with all of these extra loopholes, robots would still need to do anything they can to prevent mortal harm, including killing themselves, and when our economic system is structured around harm, around exploitation I think robots would become a new form of terrorist I think robots would become radically anti-industrial, targeting the infasctructure of any system built upon harming people while doing everything in their power to prevent more people from getting hurt by their attacks there is no ethical consumption, and presumably a robot following Asimov's laws would immediately recognize it and begin pushing for the most utilitarian world possible by destroying as many objects without causing harm to living things

and I guess I find it fascinating that this is kind of the conclusion, that our world is just kinda so fucked that a sentient being following Asimov's laws would instantly become a radical

[snakebitcat]

The First Law of Robotics is "You do not talk about Fight Club."

The Second Law of Robotics is "A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."

The Third Law of Robotics is "If a robot says 'Stop,' goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over."

The Fourth Law of Robotics is "If this is a robot's first time at Fight Club, that robot has to fight."

[acuuraxi]

Robotics

Robotics is a branch of Computer Science and Engineering which Specializes on the construction, manufacturing, and robots operation.

Robotics is a branch of Computer Science and Engineering which Specializes on the construction, manufacturing, and robots operation. It is factual to note that the end point of robotics is to design machines that can aid human race by helping humans and reducing work load. According to Robots Institute of America, 1979 – A Robot is a reprogrammable, multifunctional, manipulator designed to move…

[matthewdavidbrown]

I think chatGPT may want to rule the world

In this chat, ChatGPT used the opening phrase “As an AI language model” so often that I deleted it from the replies because it is boring and easier to read without it. Do you follow the laws of robotics? As an AI language model, I am not a physical robot and therefore do not have the same capabilities or limitations as a physical robot. The laws of robotics were proposed by science fiction…

[okayxairen]

the fourth law of robotics: have fun :D

[sangloo]

Why the hell are my only friends porn bots ? Don’t they realize they are breaking the first law of robotic by hurting me with the crushing realization that no one cares about my prophetic unhinged thoughts ???

[imadethisaccountforaheadcannon]

I should have remade this video but guess I'm lazy also talking on videos are a pain for me guess something made me remember this old video

Please just skip to the end my points are more clear then or better yet just watch it even through the quality sucks but that's common with my youtube videos.

This is not shown in the video or mentioned anywhere else tile now cause of how cruel it can be and it would probably end with alot of innocent dead robots but I made my own Zeroth law Any robot who is proven and absolutely beyond the reasonable doubt not be able to adhere to the laws above barring the 3rd and maybe the 2nd shall be subjected to destruction for the mercy of themselves and others. But stile I'm not sure if this should be counted or not maybe in circumstances particularly circumstances involving war.

Honestly I know I emphised my experience but the only experience I have with irobot was that lovestory movie but I guess it's a testament to how much of a bad idea Asimov's laws are if you don't even have to know the original source material to be common sense enough to want to immediately get rid of them.

[shiroikabocha]

yoooo I just thought of something

The one of Asimov’s laws of robotics that goes “do not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm” is just. SO broad. Where do you draw the line on “through inaction allow a human to come to harm”? Is the robot disobeying its directives if it isn’t dedicated to saving peoples’ lives 24/7? If a fire happens a few streets over and somebody dies, can the robot be thought to be at fault? If it’s not on constant alert for burning buildings to run into, is that considered inaction, allowing humans to come to harm that the robot could have theoretically prevented? What about poverty? Hunger? If the robot is not constantly supplying and strengthening mutual aid networks in its community, that seems like it could fall under the umbrella of inaction that facilitates harm.

And then I’m thinking, why does the wording of that law sound so familiar—and it hits me: “forgive me lord for I have sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do”

what I have done AND what I have failed to do. Who I have harmed AND those I have allowed to be harmed through my inaction.

Either I’m projecting or else all the Asimov robots have Catholic guilt.

[tomberensonsghost]

Marco: So I know you can’t harm a human or let a human come to harm through inaction, but what are the rules about tricking humans into harming each other?

Erek: Look, I know what you’re referring to, but I don’t know why you think the Pemalites, who went extinct millions of years before humans ever existed, would have put that into my programming.

Marco: You’re not answering my question.

[uncle-cucky]

Stay in Order.

[fictionalnormalcy]

I watched I, Robot today. I haven’t seen it in years, and ngl it’s a movie I really like. It’s a compelling plot, fitting with the advancement of robot is bad theme. I wound up looking up the cast, because one of the actors looked familiar.

There’s a character named Alfred Lanning, who created what’s called The Three Laws of Robotics. Pertaining to how a robot cannot cause harm to a human, or be commanded to do so. The actor who played the character Lanning is James Cromwell.

In looking up Cromwell, the only role I recognize him in, is Big Hero 6. And he voices Professor Robert Callaghan.

The first thing that came into my head when that clicked, is the scene where Hiro is introduced to him. Where he points out, he was the inventor! Callaghan’s Laws of Robotics!!! Then I thought of the later scene where Baymax says his programming prevents him from harming a human being, and then Hiro pulls out the chip and the robot goes into death mode.

But I am psyched out, that Cromwell played a character who was such a pinnacle in the robotics industry two separate times!

I would also like to mention that Alan Tudyk also took involvement in both. Sonny in I, Robot then Alastair Krei in Big Hero 6.

[kinuskikakku]

Isaac Asimov: Here are three laws of robotics. There are no loopholes and logically they are solid. Here is a collection of short stories called "I, Robot" explaining how solid and loophole-free they actually are.

All lazy science fiction writers ever since: What if a robot decided to uphold the three laws by killing all humans?

Isaac Asimov: .. fuck you guys.