Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

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

#21

Post by ergothus »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #9
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…

Path dependence. If we build the robots from ground-up, from dumb pieces of metal through single-purpose tools to multipurpose bodies inhabited by semi-sentient AI, and given that this is the first time we're attempting something like this, it's only natural to apply precautions. There may be a time for the hypothetical human civilization, when it's so sure with its work that it decides to give those advanced robots…

> this is how I always reasoned about the "human-centric" focus in this context.

I can reason it fairly easily - I'm disturbed that I never even considered the questions

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

#22

Post by dhruvmittal »

I get the impression that most people arguing in favor of the 3 laws have not actually read I, Robot. There are many places in pop culture that the laws appear, so it's not impossible that someone might quote them devoid of context.

To catch people up: I, Robot is a collection of short stories largely follow either (a) robopsychologist Susin Calvin or (b) robotics engineers Powell and Donovan as they attempt to diagnose anomalous behavior by examination of the 3 laws of robotics, highlighting the logical flaws and traps of these simple laws. A secondary theme is the use of robots as a mirror or lens through which particular human behaviors can be blown up and examined, largely through the absence or magnification of particular traits.

In universe, the 3 laws are considered to be practical engineering safeguards (and eventually, over hundreds of years, a fundamental building block to the function of the positronic brain)-- even as they are shown to the reader to be the origin of many conflicts.

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

#23

Post by ergothus »

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.

> There's nothing deeper to uncover.

For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction.

I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to be" - the answer to that is rather self obvious. I'm asking "why" in the "is this objectively actually correct? Is this how I want things to be?" - which have no answer, but the effort of trying to find one can uncover plenty of deeper ideas.

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

#24

Post by dpark »

jolmg wrote: post #17
dpark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’m not aware of any logical argument from a point of atheism that assigns actual value to anything. If the entirety of existence is pointless, then there is no logical argument for human life being more valuable than a robot because both have zero intrinsic value. Given that, fighting the natural anthropic tendency seems pointless.

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

#25

Post by ergothus »

Isamu wrote: post #14
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 main…

> And it would never make sense to make a robot that is leery of being turned off, because maintenance is essential.

How many humans avoid necessary health care out of fear, up to and including the point at which their delays reduce their health? My grandmother died from cancer - turns out she had very noticeable (to her) symptoms for years but was afraid to go to the doctor for bad news. By the time she did (because she collapsed) she died within a week.

That's an extreme example of a pretty common issue. Of course, we have evolutionary reasons to want to avoid showing weakness or getting bad news, but my point is that the behavior is emergent, not intended.

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

#26

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

Isamu wrote: post #14
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 main…

Who says you get to choose what the robot can and cannot feel? Pretty much all of our understanding of artificial intelligence comes from modelling and trying to replicate the workings of the human mind. It seems likely that the first time we create an AI with a similar level of reasoning and awareness to a human being, it will have a mind that works similarly to ours, and therefore we should not be surprised when it starts exhibiting characteristically human desires.

Alternatively, it will emerge from something completely different and surprise the hell out of us, but in that case we are unlikely to have had much input on its design either.

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

#27

Post by edent »

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! As I say in my post, it is the meme of the 3 Laws which is harmful to discussion on Robot Ethics.

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

#28

Post by dpark »

ergothus wrote: post #23
dpark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There's nothing deeper to uncover. For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction. I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to be" - the answer to that is rather self obvious. I'm asking "why" in the "is this objectively actually correct? Is this how I want things to be?" - which have no answer, but the effort of trying to find one can uncover plenty of deeper ideas.

There is no meaningful answer to your question. For religious individuals, the answer is dogmatic (and generally yes, humans have value above all else except God(s)). For atheists, the answer is logically a vacuous no, because all of existence is without meaning.

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

#29

Post by jonathankoren »

Isamu wrote: post #7

This actually comes up a lot - people writing about problems inherent in Asimov's laws. What I never see is what you would replace them with, and the problems inherent in that. That omission to me is scarier than these 3 laws.

Why would you replace them with anything? It's a dumb plot device from the 1940s. This line of thought is basically, "What type of DRM should we put in everything?"

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

#30

Post by Isamu »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #26
Isamu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 main…

Who says you get to choose what the robot can and cannot feel? Pretty much all of our understanding of artificial intelligence comes from modelling and trying to replicate the workings of the human mind. It seems likely that the first time we create an AI with a similar level of reasoning and awareness to a human being, it will have a mind that works similarly to ours, and therefore we should not be surprised when it…

Pretty sure a robot with unpredictable behavior would soon be illegal.

There's a vast spectrum of human intelligence, agency, and self-awareness. I'm thinking that robots would of necessity have to be by design on the low end of the scale.

Post reply on HN