From the day I learned about them, I considered them an unreasonable bar for robots; to implement them requires effectively far-beyond human capabilities. I figure, if you have the tech to implement the 3 laws, you have the tech to go sublime.
“I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#32I 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
Kind of how our laws in real life are written with the intention of projecting that they're for one thing, but when it comes down to it, they're often intentionally perverted for the purpose of malevolence. The consequences aren't all that surprising given the character of those charged with enforcing said laws.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#33From the day I learned about them, I considered them an unreasonable bar for robots; to implement them requires effectively far-beyond human capabilities. I figure, if you have the tech to implement the 3 laws, you have the tech to go sublime.
And they are computationally impossible to any degree of certainty, based on only a cursory examination of quantum physics, chaos, theory of computation, and complexity theory.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#34Leaving 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.
why was a human life more valuable than Harambe?
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#35Leaving 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.
I don't think this is quite right. Suppose someone says "I care about white people because I am a white person" (and doesn't care at all about black people) or says "I care about women because I am a woman" (and doesn't care at all about men) or says "I care about psychologists because I am psychologist" (and doesn't care at all about people in any other line of work). Would any of those seem obviously reasonable? They wouldn't to me.
So, if caring only about Indians because you're Indian isn't reasonable but caring only about humans because you're human isn't reasonable, what's the relevant difference? That seems to me a question it's perfectly fair to ask. And some possible answers to the question don't make it obvious that the distinction between humans and hypothetical robots with minds that resemble ours enough (e.g.) for us to talk with them is one that justifies caring about humans and not caring about those robots.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#36The article specifically calls out the word "harm" in the three laws as a source of ambiguity. This, as the author also points out, becomes a source of conflict in the I, Robot stories.
The author is making a joke using the "considered harmful" trope/meme in conjunction with the assertion that the word "harm" is ambiguous, thereby rendering the phrase "considered harmful" relatively meaningless.
Unfortunately, this joke seems to be lost on many of the commenters here. Technically minded folks seem to see the phrase "considered harmful" and proceed to lose their minds. Never mind that the phrase, in my experience, is almost exclusively used in jest. But based on people's reactions to it, "considered harmful" in a title might as well be flame bait. In fact, I seem to remember a serious article a while back called "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful" that should have put this whole thing to bed.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>> which have no answer
> There is no meaningful answer to your question
Didn't I say that? Didn't I point out that the ATTEMPT to answer was valuable?
>> Is this how I want things to be?
> because all of existence is without meaning
Atheists don't have be nihilists.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>> which have no answer > There is no meaningful answer to your question Didn't I say that? Didn't I point out that the ATTEMPT to answer was valuable? >> Is this how I want things to be? > because all of existence is without meaning Atheists don't have be nihilists.
I’d love to see a meaningful argument to the contrary. Near as I can tell atheism implies nihilism and the extent an atheist disagrees is decided entirely by how convincingly they can lie to themselves.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#39Earlier 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.
why was a human life more valuable than Harambe?
If Harambe's life was valued he would never have been in that situation in the first place.
Re: “I, Robot” – the 3 laws considered harmful
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.