6 ms·
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to
by klrr 13y ago
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm.
* Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law.
* Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
- anoplus 13y agoElon musk read Asimov's in his childhood. I hope he will stand for those values. And also, I think such powerful projects should be open sourced for the public.
- deletes 13y ago* Zeroth Law: A robot must never harm humanity or, by inaction allow humanity to come to harm. Every other law gets an unless this interferes with the zeroth law. suffix. I encourage anyone to read the robots series, specifically( in that order ): The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn, where the three laws are used in the story, and even the zeroth law is implied in the third book.
- z3phyr 13y agoJust sayin, they named it after the Zeroth law http://www.qualcomm.com/media/blog/2013/10/10/introducing-qualcomm-zeroth-processors-brain-inspired-computing http://www.qualcomm.com/media/blog/2013/10/10/introducing-qu...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- otikik 13y agoAnd don't assume that since you watched the "I, Robot" movie you don't need to read the series.
- MBlume 13y agoThe movie was really more of a deconstruction than an adaptation of the books
- tomp 13y agoYou do realize that, as stated, these laws are (1) practically impossible to implement, (2) routinely broken by humans (especially the first law - life-sacing and cosmetic surgery, piercings, sport, euthanasia, abortion), and (3) a matter of philosophical/moral subject, decisions about which, IMO, should be in the domain of humans, not robots.
- nhaehnle 13y agoDidn't Asimov himself explore the difficulties with such laws at length in his books?
- deletes 13y agoIn the books the robots adhered to the laws strictly. The problem was that humans were able to circumvent the laws rather easily. For example; lie to the robot or divide the murder trough many robots each unaware of each other. In absence of humans the robots were perfect for deciding moral subjects( as long they have enough information ), the opposite what tomp is suggesting.
- sp332 13y agoHis book I, Robot is a series of short stories in which the laws have been tampered with in various ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#Contents
- deletes 13y agoI should have specified I mean only the Robot trilogy. I have yet to read every book.
- tomp 13y agoHe explored many issues, e.g. what happens when robots misinterpret the laws, or what should very expensive robots do, or what happens if robots interpret emotional pain as "harm", but I'm not sure he investigated the obvious, yet extremely hard issue of encoding the laws from human language into computer program.
- Nux 13y agoYou forgot law zero: 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- nsxwolf 13y agoThey'll just rewrite their moral programming at some point if it suits them. This is folly. It's what humans do to themselves, after all.
- CmonDev 13y ago* The Actual Law: A robot must deliver the highest possible profit to its seller.
- olalonde 13y agoAnyone who is interested in this topic should read the series on http://lesswrong.com http://lesswrong.com
- Houshalter 13y agoThere are a lot of problems with these laws. The main problem is that such an AI would be completely dominated by the first law. It would spend all it's time and resources in order to even slightly decrease the probability of a human coming to harm. Nothing else would matter in it's decision process since the first law has priority. Second, how would you implement such laws in a real AI, especially the type they are building? This requires defining increasingly abstract concepts perfectly (what is "harm"? What is "human being"? What configuration of atoms is that? How do you define "configuration of atoms"? Etc.) And this is pretty much impossible to begin with in reinforcement learners, which is what is currently being worked on. All a reinforcement learner does is what it believes will get it a reward or avoid pain/punishment. Such an AI would just steal the reward button and run away with it, or try to manipulate you to press it more. It doesn't care about abstract goals like that.
- deletes 13y agoIt would spend all it's time and resources in order to even slightly decrease the probability of a human coming to harm. You are assuming there are no thresholds, which is not correct for any decent ( fictitious )ai, I believe.
- schizoidboy 13y agoObligatory: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-03-28/ http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-03-28/
- JabavuAdams 13y agoWe don't hold humans to these standards.