41–50 of 67 posts
The fact that it is still discussed in regards to Robotics means the 3 laws are not harmful, in actuality they gave sparked discussion and thought. That is powerful, not harmful.
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…
I don't get how people argue about the plausibility of future par-human AIs and say things like "we don't even know how to build a positronic brain" or "right now, in the current state of technology".
It's the same kind of incomprehensible confusion that leads one to tell the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible; just as birds exist to conclusively disprove that, so do HUMANS disprove the impossibility of human-level intelligence.
Maybe the three laws really are as physically illegal as a Warp Drive, though I would be remarkably surprised to hear it, but you cannot reasonably argue that position by claiming brains are impossible.
None of this should be taken as an endorsement of the three laws, which are clearly silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.
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
Seconded. Somehow, the fact that the Three Laws are broken and Asimov's works are all about showing how and why they're broken is something that most people missed. The popular culture ran off with the Laws, forgetting the context.
Thus, we need more Asimov in TV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Atheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
How does an atheist hold subjective morals and values without those morals and values essentially being arbitrary?
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
Seconded. Somehow, the fact that the Three Laws are broken and Asimov's works are all about showing how and why they're broken is something that most people missed. The popular culture ran off with the Laws, forgetting the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
So you assert that an atheist can find meaning by following their subjective values and morality, correct? This seems entirely circular and equivalent to saying that atheists can find meaning by valuing the things that they value. How does an atheist hold subjective morals and values without those morals and values essentially being arbitrary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you assert that an atheist can find meaning by following their subjective values and morality, correct? This seems entirely circular and equivalent to saying that atheists can find meaning by valuing the things that they value. How does an atheist hold subjective morals and values without those morals and values essentially being arbitrary?
What's wrong with them being arbitrary?
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
Seconded. Somehow, the fact that the Three Laws are broken and Asimov's works are all about showing how and why they're broken is something that most people missed. The popular culture ran off with the Laws, forgetting the context.
Quick edit: Yikes, that was 15 years ago... I have co-workers who probably haven't heard of the movie...