Re: The AI Problem, historical perspective
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 09:37:32 -0400
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It seems clear to me that when Asimov formulated the Three Laws, he
> either failed to account for the possibility of legitimate cases for
> robots injuring or otherwise harming humans (war, law enforcement,
> private security, ...), or - and I think this is the more likely
> scenario - was specifically trying to disallow any of those things
> from ever being considered legitimate to have a robot do, either out
> of philosophical objections or out of concern for the consequences
> which could arise (in a robot-uprising sense, if nothing else) if
> that door were once opened even a crack.
On the other tentacle, the Good Doctor was well aware of, and got a lot
of good stories out of, the problems associated with the Three Laws.
"By the Asimov who made you,
you're a better man than I, Hunk a Tin."
-- Randall Garrett
--
"When we talk of civilization, we are too apt to limit the meaning of
the word to its mere embellishments, such as arts and sciences; but
the true distinction between it and barbarism is, that the one
presents a state of society under the protection of just and
well-administered law, and the other is left to the chance government
of brute force."
- The Rev. James White, Eighteen Christian Centuries, 1889
Key fingerprint = 38DD CE9F 9725 42DD E29A EB11 7514 6D37 A332 10CB
https://charlescurley.com
Reply to: