Asimov's three laws of robotics are nonsense
wesleyabbey.io
Asimov's three laws of robotics are nonsense
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: Asimov's three laws of robotics are nonsense
#2Very lazy article. Sets up its premise, then offers only one counterargument - that it's too hard to define "human" because of the edge cases of unborn fetuses and just-died people needing CPR. Nothing at all after that, the article just abruptly ends. Might be an interesting premise but someone will need to argue it better.
Re: Asimov's three laws of robotics are nonsense
#3Isn't the whole point of the rule that they sound good but then rapidly lead to "Skynet won't let me leave the house because being alive is dangerous".
Re: Asimov's three laws of robotics are nonsense
#4Very lazy article. Sets up its premise, then offers only one counterargument - that it's too hard to define "human" because of the edge cases of unborn fetuses and just-died people needing CPR. Nothing at all after that, the article just abruptly ends. Might be an interesting premise but someone will need to argue it better.
I didn't know there's Zeroth Law.
In any case, fetuses don't have rights (for the same reason abortion is widely allowed).
As for freshly-died people, it's no different from about-to-die people: robots have no business deciding to interfere with humans - they should obey only their owners and follow their explicit instructions. People have a right to suicide. Being a robot or owning one doesn't entitle one to violate this right when others want to exercise it.
The "laws" are wrong but not for the reasons from TFA.