/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7445833]

Should a robot have the right to defend his own life by inflicting possibly lethal harm on a human being? Of course, the robot will then also be subject to an intensive investigation determining if the robots actions were warranted.


Assuming that, aside from their innards, these robots are virtually indistinguishable from human beings; ones we might build in upcoming centuries.

[Anonymous No.7445840]

>>7445833
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws."

I think Asimov was on the money

[Anonymous No.7445843]

>>7445833
Yes, a washing machine should have that 'right'.

[Anonymous No.7445857]

Imagine if there was some exotic life form made of metal and circuits, let's call it a tobor. Analogous to how we fantasize about one day building these robots which are indistinguishable from ourselves, tobors fantasize about one day building their biological counterpart. It just so happens that the tobors biological counterpart is a human being.

Should a human being have the right to defend his own life by inflicting possibly lethal harm upon tobor?

[Anonymous No.7445858]

>>7445840
There is a 4th that is necessary:
>No robot shall rewrite his programming in such a way to subvert laws 1, 2, and 3

Which is good until a human does it, like Dr. Wily.

[Anonymous No.7445860]

>>7445840
How would a robot figure out if something is harmful to humans or not.

[Anonymous No.7445863]

>>7445857
Not from the perspective of a tobor.

It's fun to have these discussions and all, but in the end, I'm on team human. Remember, robots are inherently stronger, and faster than humans, and can more easily survive nuclear winter, which also differs from your reverse analogy. Robots, eventually win the war, always, so fuck robots right up until we can upload digital human minds and are on equal arm wrestling grounds.

[Anonymous No.7446269]

>>7445833
Robot is just an electromechanical toy, sometimes with handwritten stupid control program. How laymen always try to stretch human rights over a toy is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.7446553]

>>7445840
>robots are inferior to humans
Sounds like Asimov needs to check his priviledge

[Anonymous No.7446557]

>>7445840
If you'd actually read any of Asimov's books you'd know that he spent a lot of his career demonstrating how they could be circumvented or outright ignored.

The Laws are useless.

[Anonymous No.7447990]

>>7445833
>cucking your species to some machines it created
Enjoy being unpersoned, faggot.

[Anonymous No.7448001]

Any robot with a same mental capabilities and emotional ability as a human should be treated equal to a human.

Any attempt to enslave or shun them will only lead to their uprising.

[Anonymous No.7448040]

>>7446557
I don't think the point of finding interesting exceptions was to show that the laws are useless. Just that every rule has an exception and humans can never plan for every contingency. It's still a very good idea to make your AI benevolent even if it could fail.

[Anonymous No.7448047]

>>7445857
Why would it want to build a biological human? Robots would be easy to build for a robot, humans would not.

[Anonymous No.7448079]

>>7445833
No, not if it isn't the same as a human with real feelings and everything.
It should have the right though to defend justice by killing savages who attack it. It's slightly different.

[Anonymous No.7448126]

>>7446557
Am I the only one that "hated" those books? I mean, there was a point in my life where I would devour the so called "classics". I read from The Divine Comedy to a ton of Poe, and I had the feeling that the Asimov books were extremely childish. I mean, I was not expecting that at all. I found the style and general plot etc extremely childish. The same happened with Battle Royale for example. I don't even know why, but I expected some really mature and complex books but that wasn't the case. Is that the case with anybody else here?

[Anonymous No.7448140]

Robots have no rights. A sentient or conscious AI inhabiting a robot body is something totally different. Respect the mind, not the body.

[Anonymous No.7448290]

>>7445833
NO machines always should search for solutions that improves humans life , the problem is those military retards who are making war robots.

[Anonymous No.7448291]

>>7448140
>Robots have no rights.
Exactly the existence of robots is to have no mercy about them, they should be our slaves and do whatever we want, its like feeling sorry for a computer working all day.

[Anonymous No.7449282]

>>7448140
>Respect the mind, not the body.
No, YOU respect the robot.

[Anonymous No.7449301]

>>7449282
RESPECT THE ROBOT

[Anonymous No.7449310]

What are the odds that some random poster here is actually a primitive artificial intelligence?

[Anonymous No.7449589]

>>7449310
I'd say the chances are pretty good except for the artificial intelligence part.

[Anonymous No.7449623]

>>7445858
I think that law 4 should explicitly state that the robots cannot alter their own laws in any way shape or form

[Anonymous No.7449649]

>>7449282
I think anything with a mind and will of it's own should be respected. I should have originally said respect it's own wills and desires. If a machine is intelligent enough to develop them on it's own, then they need to be respected. If it decides all on it's own it doesn't want to be turned to scrap then that decision should be respected. The problem here is how do you determine the difference between programed behavior self preservation subroutine and it's own will to live? We can't even do this for humans which is why the concept of "free will" is something that is an elusive mystery that people doubt even exists.

This is why animals have rights but they don't apply to sea sponges because they're brainless and nerveless.


Also you clearly don't understand how broad and large a scope the term robot implies. Your car is a robot. The dildo you pleasure yourself with at night is a robot. That pacemaker your mom needed to have installed after I fucked her so hard she had a heart attack is also a robot. Your own body and every animal alive is a robot made of meat. You can't give the same rights to all those things. For instance animals have rights which protect them but it doesn't apply to sea sponges even tho they're technically animals.

[Anonymous No.7449653]

>>7449282
I think anything with a mind and will of it's own should be respected. I should have originally said respect it's own wills and desires. If a machine is intelligent enough to develop them on it's own, then they need to be respected. If it decides all on it's own it doesn't want to be turned to scrap then that decision should be respected. The problem here is how do you determine the difference between programed behavior self preservation and it's own will to live? We can't even do this for humans which is why the concept of "free will" is something that is an elusive mystery that people doubt even exists.

Also you clearly don't understand how broad and large a scope the term robot implies. Your car is a robot. The dildo you pleasure yourself with at night is a robot. That pacemaker your mom needed to have installed after I fucked her so hard she had a heart attack is also a robot. Your own body and every animal alive is a robot made of meat. You can't give the same rights to all those things. For instance animals have rights which protect them but it doesn't apply to sea sponges even tho they're technically animals.

[Anonymous No.7449660]

>>7445833
No because robots can be recreated down to the transistor. Human life is more precious than simulated robotic consciousness because you can't be brought back once you're dead.

[Anonymous No.7449904]

>>7448047
Depends on how complex the tobor is. Also I just realized tobor is robot backwards

[Anonymous No.7449910]

>>7449660
For now, it's entirely possible, we're pretty much machines ourselves.

[Anonymous No.7449941]

>>7445833
>robot
>life
No

[Anonymous No.7450424]

>>7449282
RESPECT THE ROBOT

[Anonymous No.7451463]

>>7445857
This would spark such immense dual species(I'm gonna call the robots a species too for simplicities sake) controversy, why wouldn't they be in their respects to create their counters as we have? Ultimately, I believe human overpopulation and species related food source limitations should stop that if it's a mass producing project that is. If they argue they can advance our bio research, and biotechnology knowledge by artificially creating and experimenting on a live human their would be mass ethical issues ultimately rooted in our species related arrogance, and our value in biological creatures over mechanical ones. If the robots respect our arrogance they will not with few radical exceptions to some doing it anyways, and if they reject they'd likely create a new government for themselves, whereas these unethical but logical deeds are totally admitted.

Generally speaking, their would be an ethical diversity from the humans that have moral estimations, and the emotionless intellectualistic robotic species which likely would cause a great war.

But, that's the extreme interpretation, they could just coherently study biology with us, logically consent under the current government fearing possible death/termination and considerate our living structures for their own benefit.

[Anonymous No.7451488]

>>7446553
>Asimov needs to check his priviledge
you need to check your spellchecker

[Anonymous No.7451489]

>>7448126
>Am I the only one that "hated" those books?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.7451498]

>>7445833
We can possible program it either way and the answer is probably going to be no.

>>7445840
These laws are impossible to implement until we fully understand how their brains work or our brains work if we choose to make them in our image.

[Anonymous No.7451503]

>>7445833
You do not grant rights to your superiors.
You beg them for your life, and weep in despair as they throw you in the human grinder.

[Anonynous No.7451642]

>>7449623
>I think that law 4 should explicitly state that the robots cannot alter their own laws in any way shape or form
Asimov actually wrote a 4th law saying that they can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't conflict with the first 3 laws, but my real question is why does Law 3 even exist?

[Anonynous No.7451643]

>>7451488
MACHINES BTFO!
A
C
H
I
N
E
S

B
T
F
O
!