“I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful • Hacker News Board

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#11

Post by dpark » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #6

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions mys…

> WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one?

This "but why humans" reaction is bizarre to me every time I encounter it. We care about humans because we are humans. There's nothing deeper to uncover. We care about ourselves.

Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#12

Post by jolmg » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #6

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions mys…

Because they're meant to be human tools? Why else make them en masse? But I too am not sure I'd accept such a view as ethical if AGI were ever achieved.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#13

Post by jawns » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

This is silly.

The Three Laws of Robotics are not harmful because _they can't actually be implemented_.

Asimov never details how the three laws are baked into positronic brains in so fundamental a way that they can't be disabled without destroying the robot. Heck, we don't even know how to build a positronic brain -- because it's a fictional technology!

So even if you _wanted_ to build some sort of AI that is guided by the Three Laws, you couldn't.

You might be able to build AI that is guided by certain ethical principles, but right now, in the current state of technology, it's all rules-based stuff -- like a self-driving car with a rule about slowing down to avoid an impact that could injure someone.

Nobody knows how to give AI an ethical intuition, much less tweak that intuition. (I'm an objectivist, so I actually prefer saying, "Nobody knows how to give AI the ability to perceive metaphysical principles.")

This whole post is like saying that Star Trek's Warp Drive is harmful because we shouldn't be trying to travel faster than light.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#14

Post by Isamu » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #6

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions mys…

It is interesting to think about. Strange though that people can't think about robots without anthropomorphizing them.

I see this in the movies. The robot doesn't want to be turned off, all because WE equate being turned off with death. But robots are essentially immortal, they can be backed up and restarted with a new body. And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential.

You could probably make a robot that feels oppressed having to do humanities' bidding. But why would you do that?

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#15

Post by Bubass » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #4

"Considered harmful" has become a lazy writing device. There's nothing valid here that even says why these are harmful except possibly that they are "vague". The only thing that looks even remotely like a real concern (that people, even scientists, believe these are somehow magically hard-wired laws) is not cited and appears to be entirely manufactured.

I think you may have missed the joke. The article explicitly calls out the word "harm", as it's used in the three laws, as being a source of vagueness, which the article then goes on to say becomes fodder for some of the conflicts in the stories.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#16

Post by Topolomancer » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #13

This is silly. The Three Laws of Robotics are not harmful because _they can't actually be implemented_. Asimov never details how the three laws are baked into positronic brains in so fundamental a way that they can't be disabled without destroying the robot. Heck, we don't even know how to build a positronic brain -- because it's a fictional technology! So even if you _wanted_ to build some sort of AI that is guided…

Correct. By the author's logic, the article should _also_ be considered harmful because it is quite vague. In fact, it does not even go remotely into the detail about vagueness. Moreover, it omits the fact that Asimov actually plays with these laws in all his books (I think this has been mentioned already in another comment), showing exactly the interesting consequences of the wording...

While I like AI policy discussions a lot, this article does not help unfortunately. :-/

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#17

Post by jolmg » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #11

ergothus wrote: post #6

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions mys…

> WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? This "but why humans" reaction is bizarre to me every time I encounter it. We care about humans because we are humans. There's nothing deeper to uncover. We care about ourselves. Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.

> Humans do not care about the value of a robot "life", because we generally feel it has none.

Hasn't Atheism been on the rise? I wonder how people will feel about this subject of life by the time AGI is achieved.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#18

Post by edent » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

one-more-minute wrote: post #3

I think Asimov knew all this – his stories are about how the laws can be twisted into having surprising consequences. It's meant as a Sci-Fi version of the "literal genie" [0]. Has anyone actually taken them as a serious suggestion in AI ethics? [0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie

Yes, people do take them seriously in AI ethics. Read almost any "layperson" discussion, or go to any lecture and they'll be brought up.

I wrote this after attending a discussion at Oxford University on AI Ethics.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#19

Post by jawns » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #6

Leaving aside the literary purpose for the moment - when I go back and look at them now, some multiple decades after I first read them, I see a massive human-centric focus that I never did before. WHY is a human life more valuable than a robotic one? WHY is human "harm" so bad? WHY are human commands so powerful? I mean, for story purposes it all makes sense, but I'm fascinated that I never raised these questions mys…

Actually, a lot of Asimov's stories are intended to call into question whether sufficiently advanced robots should be treated differently than humans. It's sort of like he sets up the Three Laws in order to knock them down.

Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

#20

Post by edent » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #4

"Considered harmful" has become a lazy writing device. There's nothing valid here that even says why these are harmful except possibly that they are "vague". The only thing that looks even remotely like a real concern (that people, even scientists, believe these are somehow magically hard-wired laws) is not cited and appears to be entirely manufactured.

I know. That's which I specifically linked to the rebuttal of the "considered harmful" trope.

The very first link in my post points to a discussion of the lecture I attended. There the 3 laws were discussed and, I felt, some of the audience hadn't quite understood that they were a literary device.

But go along to any AI discussion group in person, or read the popular press, and I promise it won't be too long before you find a human citing them.