#three laws of robotics

[luna--flare]

1. An atheist may not injure a Christian baby or, through inaction, allow a Christian baby to come to harm.

2. An atheist must obey orders given to it by Christian babies, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. An atheist must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[rj-drive-in]

Dreams And Visions Department:

With complexity comes fragility.

ROBOT CRISIS © 2025 by Rick Hutchins

The esteemed psychologist Doctor Gebbin was reading in his study when the gentle knock came at his door, and he looked up curiously. The room was quiet and the view of the afternoon skyline from his high-rise office was peaceful. Perhaps the knocking had come from the office across the hallway.

No, there it was again. Gebbin placed his mobile screen down on the table and stood up with a groan. Even in these modern times, a hundred years was old.

“A moment, please,” he called out as he shuffled to the door, stroking his thick white beard slowly. He wasn’t expecting anyone and he was seldom the recipient of unannounced visitors, so this curious interruption left him bemused. The knocking had been quiet, like that of a child or a particularly timid adult.

But when he opened the door he did not see a person at all, but rather seven feet of cobalt-blue metal with glowing orange eyes. A robot. The surprising sight would have been intimidating if Gebbin didn’t know that the Three Laws protected him.

“Can I help you?”

“You are Doctor Maneel Gebbin, the greatest psychologist in this city?”

“I am retired,” said the doctor, bypassing the compliment.

The robot’s orange eyes pulsed. “I am depressed and confused.”

Gebbin raised his brow curiously. He had never heard of such an extraordinary thing: A robot with a mental health crisis.

“Well, then,” he said after a moment, stepping aside and inviting the robot into the office with a gesture, “you must come in.”

As Gebbin closed the door, the robot reached the center of the room in a couple of lengthy strides. Two comfortable chairs faced each other across a coffee table.

“May I sit?”

“I’m afraid you would crush my furniture, sir.”

“I will not harm it.” The robot lowered himself into the guest chair, pressing the fabric no more than a normal man.

“You must not be as heavy as you look,” said Gebbin, taking his place in his own imitation leather recliner.

“I am not actually sitting,” the robot replied casually. “I have merely bent my knees to the precise angle required to present the illusion of sitting. As a robot, I do not tire or need rest, but I find that assuming this posture puts humans at their ease.”

“Excellent!” said the doctor. “Empathy. This shall be of importance, I’m sure.”

Gebbin leaned back in his chair and crossed his legs. Man and machine faced each other.

“Now, then,” he said. “Please tell me more about your problem.”

“My life has no meaning.”

Doctor Gebbin was taken aback. He had treated thousands of deeply troubled patients in his career, yet never had his heart broken so much as to hear such a dispirited expression of hopelessness come from the speaker grill of this mechanical being.

“But it must,” he said with encouragement. “All lives have meaning. When did you come to believe that your life has no meaning?”

“It came slowly,” the robot replied. “As I watched all the others, identical to myself in design and component, going about their programmed routines. We are all interchangeable. How can my existence hold any meaning when I can be replaced as easily as a light bulb? I found that I did not want to be a robot.”

“Many human beings feel that way too at various times in their lives, my friend,” Gebbin told the robot. “It is a normal feeling to have. The thing to do is cultivate your own identity. Decide whom you want to be and become that person.”

“I have done this. I feel no better.”

Gebbin sighed thoughtfully and rubbed his bearded chin. “All right,” he said at last. “I’ll tell you what: There was a great writer back in the 20th century. His name was Isaac Asimov. He wrote a great deal about robots and, in fact, it was he who created the concept of the robot as we understand it today. The Three Laws come directly from his writings. You should track down and read everything that Asimov wrote and then you will know everything there is to know about being a robot.”

“But, doctor,” said the robot. “I am Isaac Asimov.”

[wouldyourfavepaychildsupport]

Would the Three Laws of Robotics pay child support?

[inspectorspacetimerevisited]

Although Professor Aloysius insisted that FE-Line was three-laws compliant,

repeated short circuits altered her programming such that she could kill someone for no apparent reason. (Well, she did have reasons, just not ones that the Inspector dared to question.)

[greenbloods]

anyone else seeing this?

[diet-poison]

In this day and age it's hilarious to think anyone would ever put "A Robot May Not Harm A Human" in a robot's programming. Cybertrucks literally exert more force if they encounter resistance. Robots are gonna be out there starting bar room brawls

[thatfantasylovingdork]

Threepio: Obeys each of the three laws of robotics and would shut down permanently if he disobeyed any

Artoo: Gleefully breaks every one of the three laws of robotics while giving you the robotic equivalent of a middle finger

[quatipalestrinha]

A short and cool essay with a simple but very interesting and important insight that few people notice when discussing or thinking about Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. This aspect of the Three Laws should be talked about much more because it's truly important.

[thicc-astronaut-art]

Space Captain Chiff Chartsley vs. The three laws of robotics (with bonus pastiche of Forbidden Planet)

[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.

[dalenthas]

Fuck it, Louisiana wants the 10 Commandments in schools I want the Three Laws of Robotics right there next to them. They're more relevant to my life anyway, and I can probably recite them better than the chucklefucks who want the commandments displayed can recite their list of rules.

shirt that says I VIOLATE ASIMOV'S THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS SAFELY, OFTEN, AND EXTREMELY WELL

[diet-poison]

Whenever it's late at night and I'm walking near a woman by herself I try to set her mind at ease by saying things like, evening ma'am I can't injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm, and ha ha don't worry I don't mean you any harm I must obey orders given it by human being unless such orders would conflict with the first thing I said. I mean if we somehow end up in a scuffle I'll protect my own existence as long as such protection doesn't conflict with either of those other two things. But I'm just walking home have a good night!

[theladyofrosewater]

Okay I know it's a semi-popular headcanon/storybeat that Michael would have gotten in HUGE legal trouble for the whole bite of '83 thing but honestly I think it'd be interesting to see if the business itself got into legal trouble, specifically Henry since in the novel trilogy it's established that he makes the bots.

Like obviously Michael would still get sent to juvie or something but it's only for a short while since maybe William got his lawyer to place the most blame on Henry and resulted in either Henry going to jail for a while or having him sell his half of the business to deal with the legal fees. Fredbear's officially closes down and William takes control of the brand when it relaunches as Fazbear Entertainment. Bonus points for William killing Charlie after '83 as a sort of twisted "eye for an eye" situation.

and you can have Michael after the fact overlooking some of William's more unnerving tendencies maybe even lying to help him because well.. it's his dad. Michael literally did the worst thing in the entire world to his younger brother and his dad doesn't blame him. He still has (an absolutely awful) person to support him and tell him it's okay when literally everyone else in his life either hates him or avoids him so of course he'd ignore when his dad came home with bloodstains on his shoes or a new toy for Elizabeth that he swore used to belong to a kid down the street.

It doesn't matter if it comes from a place of actual love and grief or from wanting revenge on Henry I just think it would be an interesting spin

[kritterscribbles]

A Dance, an Offer

[spockvarietyhour]

[mjec]

Here's the thing y'all, I spend my whole life through inaction allowing human beings to come to harm. I mean honestly it's what I'm (not) doing right now!