Difference between revisions of "Talk:1613: The Three Laws of Robotics"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Closest analogy to our world might be scenario 3 or 4, depending on the programming and choices made by the people controlling/ordering the robots around. One could argue that this means this comic is meant to criticize our current state, but that doesn't seem likely given how robots are typically discussed by Randall. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
: A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. [[User:Erickhagstrom|Erickhagstrom]] ([[User talk:Erickhagstrom|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | : A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. [[User:Erickhagstrom|Erickhagstrom]] ([[User talk:Erickhagstrom|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
: This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down. | : This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down. | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 7 December 2015
Relevant Computerphile 141.101.84.114 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I think the second one would also create the "best" robots i.e. ones that have the same level of "free will" as humans do, but won't end up with the robot uprising. X3International Space Station (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The second ordering was actually covered in a story by Asimov, where a strengthed third law caused a robot to run around a hazard at a distance which maintained an equilibrium between not getting destroyed and obeying orders. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story) Gearóid (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The explanation itself seems pretty close to complete. I'll leave others to judge if the tag is ready to be removed though. Halfhat (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Closest analogy to our world might be scenario 3 or 4, depending on the programming and choices made by the people controlling/ordering the robots around. One could argue that this means this comic is meant to criticize our current state, but that doesn't seem likely given how robots are typically discussed by Randall. Djbrasier (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. Erickhagstrom (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down.
