Comment on Laws of Robotics
samus12345@lemmy.world 5 months agoOh, 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.
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
I think he’s referring to the absolutism of the programmatic “or” statement.
The robot would interpret (cannot cause harm to humanity) or (through inaction allow harm to come to humanity). If either statement is true, then the rule is satisfied.
By taking action in harming humans to death, the robot made true the second statement satisfying the rule as “followed”.
While our meat brains can work out the meaning of the phrase, the computer would take it very literally and therefore, death to all humans!
Furthermore, if a human comes to harm, they may have violated the second half of the first rule, but since the robot didn’t cause harm to the person, the first statement is true, therefore, death to all humans!
samus12345@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That works if you ignore the commas after “or” and “through inaction”, which does sound like a robot thing to do. Damn synths!
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Programmatically, if you want it to do both, use “and”
samus12345@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“Nor” would be more grammatically correct and clearer in meaning, too.