Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics: Any real-life relevance?

[Politruk]

In 1942 -- decades before anything we could call a "robot" existed -- SF writer Isaac Asimov introduced the Three Laws of Robotics:

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 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.

This was his response to SF about rebellious robots -- Asimov figured robots, when invented, would be safe by design.

And it does make a certain sense:


[TR]
[TD]The Three Laws of Robotics[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Only, the Three Laws are like laws of human psychology -- they only make sense at all if the robot is a strong AI. Which has not been invented -- but robots that kill humans have been invented. You could not even program one not to kill humans -- no AI yet developed could distinguish a human from a dog.

So far, there is only one law of robotics: A robot must obey its master, defined as whoever sends it command signals it recognizes as such.

Will that ever change?[/TD][/TR]

 

[Bray123]

Is [3] why Teslas are self-combusting?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The tech bros have seriously overhyped AI. Mostly they just don’t want the VC spigot to be turned off, but there’s a darker agenda at work as well. If the oligarchs can convince enough rubes that machines can think and create, they can justify exploiting the human workers who do those jobs now.

 

[Politruk]

The tech bros have seriously overhyped AI. Mostly they just don’t want the VC spigot to be turned off, but there’s a darker agenda at work as well. If the oligarchs can convince enough rubes that machines can think and create, they can justify exploiting the human workers who do those jobs now.

Asimov never did address the problem of technological unemployment. His robots operate on a narrow definition of "harm."

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Asimov never did address the problem of technological unemployment. His robots operate on a narrow definition of "harm."

Would it have made riveting reading? We can only speculate.

AI isn't there yet. I don't even like calling it AI. There are currently "guardrails" in place to prevent, for example, ChatGPT from talking about certain things. There are also uncensored versions of AI apps available. And there are people doing their damndest to jailbreak AI whenever they can.

I do believe AI can be incredibly beneficial, even in it's current form. It has definitely cost some people their jobs. So, probably not as beneficial for them. I think once robots can do mundane chores reliably and for less than it would cost to hire someone, a lot of people are going to need a new career.

Skynet isn't happening in my lifetime. And if it does, we only have ourselves to blame.

 

[Politruk]

Skynet isn't happening in my lifetime. And if it does, we only have ourselves to blame.

[TR]
[TD]Skynet[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]

 

[Typo Fu Master]

[TR]
[TD]Skynet[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]

I want to believe Skynet would get high if it could. I'd totally fire up a fat one if it would save humans' jobs.

 

[Politruk]

No one seems to have invented a positronic brain, either!

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Would it have made riveting reading? We can only speculate.

AI isn't there yet. I don't even like calling it AI. There are currently "guardrails" in place to prevent, for example, ChatGPT from talking about certain things. There are also uncensored versions of AI apps available. And there are people doing their damndest to jailbreak AI whenever they can.

I do believe AI can be incredibly beneficial, even in it's current form. It has definitely cost some people their jobs. So, probably not as beneficial for them. I think once robots can do mundane chores reliably and for less than it would cost to hire someone, a lot of people are going to need a new career.

Skynet isn't happening in my lifetime. And if it does, we only have ourselves to blame.

There’s a lot of wishful thinking in AI circles. Because AI can generate output that superficially resembles what human experts can produce, people naively assume it’s smarter than it is. The only thing it’s good for is confidently regurgitating crap.

 

[Politruk]

There’s a lot of wishful thinking in AI circles. Because AI can generate output that superficially resembles what human experts can produce, people naively assume it’s smarter than it is. The only thing it’s good for is confidently regurgitating crap.

[TR]
[TD]AI[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]