Comment on Laws of Robotics

then_three_more@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But if you’re starting from zeroth it would be the fourth.

  source

  • olutukko@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    and with robots and computers it just makes sense to start with 0

    source

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s even better because

      Tap for spoiler

      A robot created the zeroth law

      source

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Only in the shitty movie. Not in the books.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  May not injure you say. Can’t be injured if you’re dead. (P.S. I’m not a robot)

  source

  • prex@aussie.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Sounds like something a robot would say.

    source
  • samus12345@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Pretty sure death qualifies as “harm”.

    source

    • yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The sentence says “…or, through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.” If they are dead due to the robots action it is technically within the rules.

      source

      • samus12345@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Oh, I see, you’re saying they can bypass “injure” and go straight to “kill”. Killing someone still qualifies as injuring them - ever heard the term “fatally injured”? So no, it wouldn’t be within the rules.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The concept of death may be hard to explain because robots don’t need to run 24\7 in order to keep functioning. Until instructed otherwise,a machine would think a person with a cardiac arrest is safe to boot later.

    source

    • NABDad@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Who can say that death is the injury? It could be that continued suffering would be an injury worse than death. Life is suffering. Death ends life. Therefore, death ends suffering and stops injury.

      source

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I mean, this logic sounds not unlike mister Smith from The Matrix.

        ‘Why, mister Anderson’ moment from The Matrix

        source
• nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  couldn’t that be inferred from the first law?

  source

  • Mithre@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Actually no! Lower numbered laws have priority over higher numbers, meaning that if they come into conflict the higher number law can be broken. While the first law says they can’t allow humans to come to harm, the zeroth law basically says that if it’s for the good of the species, they absolutely can kill or otherwise hurt individual humans.

    source

    • nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      does that happen in the stories?

      source

      • Shimon@slrpnk.net ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yes! I think it is the second story in the book

        source
    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Law 0 is also a derived law rather than a programmed one. Robots with both the three laws and sufficient intelligence that are in a position where Law 1 becomes a catch 22 will tend to derive Law 0.

      source
    • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Lower numbered laws have priority over higher numbers

      That means this is the negative first law

      source
• LucidBoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I just finished the book today 🥲

  source