Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #isaacasimov more →
Asimov's Laws of Robotics Are Total BS
| posts about #isaacasimov more → |
Asimov's Laws of Robotics Are Total BS |
05/19/09
+ Watch video
The AI in this story controls the entire city's infrastructure, and is programmed to always act in the best interest of humanity... which apparently involves killing lots of homeless people.
Of course, everybody is scratching their heads about how a computer programmed to protect it's citizens could possibly want to harm them, but brilliant scientist Austin James finally figures it out... The computer has found religion!!
While monitoring tv and radio signals, it has been listening to the local televangelist, and now knows that people go to "a better place" when they die. The city is overcrowded, and it's population stand in the way of progress, so why not kill two birds with one stone? Anyone you kill goes to heaven, leaving our good old AI to get on with it's secondary function of keeping the city running smoothly and eliminating waste.
05/19/09
Uh..... Isn't a reaper drone a DRONE and not a robot? Robots are defined as pilotless automatons, and drones are merely piloted by remote control, right?
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/18/09
John Goodman = Sexy Hot
Robots + John Goodman = Awesome sexy hot metallic goodness!
05/18/09
If you seriously need every tiny detail spelled out in your books about a "concept" that could be real but take a LOT of details to work out, maybe you shouldn't be reading?
05/18/09
05/18/09
Third, the writer is far too stupid to catch on to the first two. Too bad a lot of others can't figure it out, either. So one more time, there were FICTION! Science Fiction at that, so find something real to bitch about.
05/19/09
05/18/09
Darwinism > Asimov's laws.
05/18/09
Either way, it only takes one bad egg before the robot revolution is upon is, and by then Fanta will be the least of our troubles.
05/18/09
"Mr. Robot, you have to help my friend! He's been having kidney problems and unless you surgically remove it, he will die!"
05/18/09
Oh, in your robot on robot war. Don't forget Aimee from Mission to Mars.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
if object has 2 arms, 2 legs, heartbeat, moving
then: do not kill it.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
Negligence is an act of harm towards humans and that idea alone can lead to big problems.
What robots need is common sense and that is something you cannot simply put into words.
05/18/09
So we have a robot that must evaluate a set of concepts given to it by its creator. In evaluation of any of those laws, the robot must define for itself the definition of the words "robot" and "human", and in such cases the above mentioned requirements most likely won't be good keystones of judgment: robots also might be anthropomorphic and have arms and legs, movement is extremely transient, and what does define a heart? And if the AI can handle this, then does it begin to consider the overarching principles of the morals: humans are entities with self-aware conscious. Which means robots are humans.
As soon as we have artificial intelligence capable of adhering to a code of ethics, we have created consciousness, at which point all the rules are up for reassessment.
But mostly I think people are just picking on your second post, which seems to attempt to simplify/gloss over a huge problem with a set of arbitrary factors that most likely wouldn't work out.
05/18/09
05/19/09
It's impossible to call anything intelligent which does not share this sort of faculty, as communication on any level would be impossible. So to be frank, anything with a GENUINE a.i. and not simply a preprogrammed list of scenarios would probably be something that might actually understand the laws of robotics as simply stated in english.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09