Asimov’s Three Laws of Robots Meets Ayn Rand
Here are Asimov’s three laws:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(by the way you can thank Jbrenner for this)
The first question that comes to mine is: Are we violating any of Asimov’s Laws already? The second question is: should my robot save Osama, Stalin, Mao, Charles Manson, etc. when inaction would cause them to die? In law there is no duty to be a good Samaritan (Although some socialist altruists are trying to change this). In other words you cannot be prosecuted for your inaction, when you could have saved someone. I think the inaction part would cause all sorts of problems.
I think Rand would say that Robots are human tools and as a result they should not do anything a human should not do morally; they should follow the orders of their owners as long as they are consistent with Natural Rights. What do you think?
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(by the way you can thank Jbrenner for this)
The first question that comes to mine is: Are we violating any of Asimov’s Laws already? The second question is: should my robot save Osama, Stalin, Mao, Charles Manson, etc. when inaction would cause them to die? In law there is no duty to be a good Samaritan (Although some socialist altruists are trying to change this). In other words you cannot be prosecuted for your inaction, when you could have saved someone. I think the inaction part would cause all sorts of problems.
I think Rand would say that Robots are human tools and as a result they should not do anything a human should not do morally; they should follow the orders of their owners as long as they are consistent with Natural Rights. What do you think?
software program which writes software. after the
tedious process of defining business rules in a
precise way, we would run the thing and find out
that we needed to provide more detail. between
that exercise and the specification of manufacturing
processes in workstream, the successor to "opt",
I got thoroughly seasoned. sophisticated computer
programs are hard to write.
it may be awhile before we learn whether
self-awareness implies free will. -- j
By this law the robot would have not shot Hitler. But by inaction the robot caused the deaths of 50 million humans. Hence the law must be contradictory and contradictions are not allowed in the Gulch. Neither Man nor Robot can comply with it.
abended. AI is an attempt to replicate our brains.
And those ethics can be modified for rational or irrational reasons.
Another commenter explained that the 3 laws weren't programmed into the positronic brains but were in some way a part of their very construction. I'll find out what Asimov intended when I read the novels.
Jan
Jan
Jan
another thing, is it not? -- j
Load more comments...