Are the three laws of robotics out of date?

>>14660350
I've never read a Robot-era Asimov book (only End of Eternity, Pebble in the Sky, and the Foundation trilogy), but Rule No. 1 seems way too vague. For example, there are countless ways in which I am allowing human beings to come to harm through inaction at this very moment. I could commit suicide in order to donate all my usable organs, I could train myself in modern combat and defend various ethnic groups from genocidal movements like ISIS, or pursue further education in order to develop cures and lifesaving technologies, or some combination of the three.

I mean, the common sense interpretation of the rule is fairly obvious, but I wouldn't be surprised if a one of the stories played around with the vagueness.

>>14660350
They were deliberately designed to be heavily and obviously flawed so that Asimov could make stories about them being exploited, bypassed, and generally going wrong.

>>14660369
>I could commit suicide in order to donate all my usable organs,

YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT!

>>14660375
That goes without saying, I passed the Captcha.

>>14660374
I think he was actually sincere in his intention of his laws to be applied for real robots(which he actually expected).
Like from a sci-fi writer perspective he was just afraid that they would be turned into weapons.

Is just an ideal version of a robot which we know is completely unrealistic.

>>14660369
He probably meant that robots are not supposed to stay idle while a human being could get hurt right away.

Like staying still while a car is gonna run over some dude or something...

>>14660380

A Robots organs wouldn't be useful to a human

File: 465481654357654.jpg (42KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x495px

>>14660350
They were never actually accepted as authoritative laws. They were literally made up by Asimov as plot elements in a lot of the stories he wrote. Other sci-fi genre writers just adopted them (or some version of them) into their own works to the point it became a meme of sorts.

>>14660369
>I wouldn't be surprised if a one of the stories played around with the vagueness
That's pretty much the catalyst for every conflict in I, Robot.

>>14660436
That's mostly because that the three laws are sort of the most bulletproof way of preventing robot apocalypse that people have come up with. They're highly flawed as Asimov himself explored but nobody's seemed to have come up with another, more simple, less exploitable way to come up with parts of a machine's programming as a safety net to ensure it doesn't screw humanity over.

>>14660510
Has anyone actually tried? Most sci-fi that involves robots or AI is fear-mongering luddite bullshit about the "inevitable" robot uprising.

File: calvinherbie.jpg (149KB, 522x799px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 522x799px

The biggest problem with the Three Laws is, how do you define "harm", and how do you teach the concept of "harm" to a robot? Asimov's robots also seemed to be able to rewrite their own definitions of harm on the fly -- for instance, in "Liar", a robot accidentally develops the ability to read human minds, so he starts to regard emotional distress as a form of harm. This is a major pitfall that Asimov didn't seem to put enough emphasis on.

>>14660424
But I've seen someone with a pacemaker and I knew a marine with a robot leg. A robot had to donate those right?

>>14660374

Came to post this

>>14660510

You could always just not make the robots too smart.

>>14660577
That's the rub, yeah. Once you can perfectly communicate to a robot, all you really need to do is order it "Be a good person" and you're set. But actually getting to that point is nearly fucking impossible.

But can it understand love?

>>14660538
>Most US sci-fi that involves worker slaves is sensible political fiction about the inevitable negro uprising.
Fixed.

>>14661036
Nonsense anon. The robots in those stories are intelligent.

File: krSJF.jpg (163KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1920x1080px

>>14660350
It's still a nice plot device.

>>14660937

Understand, Understand
Understand, Understand
Understand, Understand
The concept, the concept of love.

>>14660350
This shit stems from the irrational belief that robots will suddenly gain sentience and go on murder rampages.

It's stupid.

>>14661136
Well now that we know the human brain is using quantum effects it could be feasible to have a sudden sentience.

>>14661142
What are you referring to? I listened to some lectures on this general subject some months ago and the consensus seemed to be that that sort of stuff was proposed in the Nineties and has been considered debunked ever since shortly after.

>>14661201
>>14661142
>>14661136
Asimov's robots are already sentient, to a degree.
His "robotics," we'd call A.I. these days.
The laws work because they are essentially extremely autistic children with potentially dangerous metal bodied.

>>14661232
Well, yeah. In his own words, he was trying to end the "Frankenstein syndrome", the cliché about building a thing that looks like a human and it rebelling against us.

Now that I think about it, was was Seldon's waifu the only female robot in all of his stories? I feel making them look female would make them more acceptable to the general population.

So sex with a robutt is fine right.

File: 1431960093474.png (32KB, 802x618px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 802x618px

>>14661266
Of course, but do be careful.

>>14661266
You are on /m/ ...so thats pretty obviously fine

>>14661271
>Android
>Girls
I guess it's like calling Éowyn a Man even though she's no man, but I can't get over not calling a feminine robot a gynoid. Maybe if androids had been called anthroids, it could've been gender-neutral.

>>14661250
That was later, when he smooshed the Robot/Foundation world together.

I recall an older story with a male sexbot, written within the stadards of 50's, so there must've been females too.

File: sorayama_sexy_robot_014.jpg (106KB, 568x768px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 568x768px

>>14661277
only creepy fetishists call them gynoids, just call them fuckdolls or fembots.

>>14660350
Yes. We need another law that would supercede the others. One about not harming humanity.

>>14661393
You mean zeroth law?

>>14661678
yes.

How can it be out of date when there aren't any advanced robots to actually make use of them.

>>14661889
Because mainstream media haven't evolved beyond 1930's pulp Frankenstein's monster phase, and Op is just another Terminator babby/

File: 1469596405059.jpg (16KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x400px

>>14661266

I want to have sex with a fat android. Hyper-strong and reinforced metal endo-skeleton, fat suit exterior, and a mix of water and some HDX for "the fat inside the suit" (it's apparently quite convincing as fat).

>>14661100
My sweet soul brother from another mother.

>>14660369
A lot of Asimov's robot short stories play around with the vagueness of the three laws.