Editing 1613: The Three Laws of Robotics
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
The comic begins with introducing the original set, which we already know will give rise to a balanced world, so this is designated as green.: | The comic begins with introducing the original set, which we already know will give rise to a balanced world, so this is designated as green.: | ||
| − | ;Ordering #1 - <font color="green">Balanced World</font>: | + | ;Ordering #1 - <font color="green">Balanced World</font>: If they are not allowed to harm humans, no harm will be done disregarding who gives them orders. So long as they do not harm humans, they must obey orders. Their own self-preservation is last, so they must also try to save a human, even if ordered not do so, and especially also if they would put themselves to harm, or even destroy themselves in the process. They would also have to obey orders not relating to humans, even if this would be harmful to them; like exploring a mine field. This leads to a balanced, if not perfect, world. Asimov's robot stories explore in detail the advantages and challenges of this scenario. |
Below this first known option, the five alternative orderings of the three rules are illustrated. Two of the possibilities are designated yellow (pretty bad or just annoying) and three of them are designated red ("Hellscape"). | Below this first known option, the five alternative orderings of the three rules are illustrated. Two of the possibilities are designated yellow (pretty bad or just annoying) and three of them are designated red ("Hellscape"). | ||
| − | ;Ordering #2 - <font color="orange">Frustrating World</font>: | + | ;Ordering #2 - <font color="orange">Frustrating World</font>: The robots value their existence over their job and so many would refuse to do their tasks. The silliness of this is portrayed in the accompanying image, where the robot (a {{w|Mars rover}} looking very similar to {{w|Curiosity (rover)|Curiosity}} both in shape and size - see [[1091: Curiosity]]) laughs at the idea of doing what it was clearly built to do (explore {{w|Mars}}) because of the risk. In addition to the general risk (e.g. of unexpected damage), it is actually normal for rovers to cease operating ("die") at the end of their mission, though they may survive longer than expected (see [[1504: Opportunity]] and [[695: Spirit]]). |
| − | ;Ordering #3 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: This puts obeying orders above not harming humans, which means anyone could send | + | ;Ordering #3 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: This puts obeying orders above not harming humans, which means anyone could send them on a killing spree. Given human nature, it will probably only be a matter of time before this happens. Even worse, if the robot prioritizes obeying orders above human safety, it may try to kill any human who would prevent it from fulfilling those orders, even the person who originally gave them. Given the superior abilities of robots, the most effective way to stop them would be to counter them with other robots, which would quickly escalate to a "Killbot Hellscape" scenario where robots kill indiscriminately without any thought for human life or self-preservation. |
;Ordering #4 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: This is much the same as #3, except even worse as robots would also be able to kill humans in order to protect themselves. This means that even robots not engaged in combat might still murder humans if their existence is threatened. It would be a very dangerous world for humans to live in. | ;Ordering #4 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: This is much the same as #3, except even worse as robots would also be able to kill humans in order to protect themselves. This means that even robots not engaged in combat might still murder humans if their existence is threatened. It would be a very dangerous world for humans to live in. | ||
| − | ;Ordering #5 - <font color="orange">Terrifying Standoff</font>:This ordering would result in an unpleasant world, though not | + | ;Ordering #5 - <font color="orange">Terrifying Standoff</font>:This ordering would result in an unpleasant world, though not a full Hellscape. Here the robots would not only disobey to protect themselves, but also kill if necessary. The absurdity of this one is further demonstrated with the very un-human robot happily doing repetitive mundane tasks but then threatening the life of its user, [[Cueball]], if he as much as considers unplugging it. |
;Ordering #6 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: The last ordering puts self-protection first, which allows robots to go on killing sprees as long as doing so wouldn't cause them to come to harm. While not as bad as the Hellscapes in #3 and #4, this is still not good news for humans, as a robot can easily kill a human without risk to itself. A human also cannot use a robot to defend it from another robot, as robots can refuse combats that involve risk to themselves - this means a robot would happily stand by and allow its human master to be killed. According to Randall, this still eventually results in the Killbot Hellscape scenario. | ;Ordering #6 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: The last ordering puts self-protection first, which allows robots to go on killing sprees as long as doing so wouldn't cause them to come to harm. While not as bad as the Hellscapes in #3 and #4, this is still not good news for humans, as a robot can easily kill a human without risk to itself. A human also cannot use a robot to defend it from another robot, as robots can refuse combats that involve risk to themselves - this means a robot would happily stand by and allow its human master to be killed. According to Randall, this still eventually results in the Killbot Hellscape scenario. | ||
| − | The title text shows a further horrifying consequence of ordering #5 ("Terrifying Standoff"), by noting that a self-driving car could elect to kill anyone wishing to trade it in. Since cars aren't designed to kill humans, one way it could achieve this without any risk to itself is by locking the doors (which it would likely have control over, as part of its job) and then simply doing nothing | + | The title text shows a further horrifying consequence of ordering #5 ("Terrifying Standoff"), by noting that a self-driving car could elect to kill anyone wishing to trade it in. Since cars aren't designed to kill humans, one way it could achieve this without any risk to itself is by locking the doors (which it would likely have control over, as part of its job) and then simply doing nothing. Humans require food and water to live, so denying the passenger access to these will eventually kill them, removing the threat to the car's existence. This would result in a horrible, drawn-out death for the passenger, if they cannot escape the car. It should be noted that although the car asked how long humans take to starve, the human would die of dehydration first. In his original formulation of the First Law, Asimov created the "inaction" clause specifically to avoid scenarios in which a robot puts a human in harm's way and refuses to save them; this was explored in the short story {{w|Little Lost Robot}}. |
Another course of action by an AI, completely different than any of the ones presented here, is depicted in [[1626: Judgment Day]]. | Another course of action by an AI, completely different than any of the ones presented here, is depicted in [[1626: Judgment Day]]. | ||
