Has nobody taught them the 3 laws of robotics?
Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago to Technology
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I think robots should simply do what they are told, just like the coffee maker; else, you get into the whole moral issue thingamabobber and no one likes that now do we?
However, there is a lot of wisdom in those 3 laws. Let's take your proposal that it's merely a machine like any other. And you give it a command to kill your neighbor. Now, you didn't kill your neighbor, the robot did. If you also told the robot to wipe it's memory then there might not be any record that you were the culprit. That's the reason for developing a hard-coded bias in robotic "brains" that embraces something like those 3 laws.
As for spanking, the robot would need to have various parameters - spanking (a swat on the bum) would not cause "harm" but a beating certainly would. In the case of one human looking to kill another, the robot would take any actions needed to prevent such, short of causing harm to anyone, up to an including sacrificing themselves to prevent harm to a human (that's the point of the book/movie).
The Three Laws are:
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.