560
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2026
560 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
89787 readers
3427 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What ass backwards timeline we're living in that we got Asimov's three laws on backwards? That a human being cannot harm a robot? 🤬
If you've ever actually read any of the books you'd know that using these laws as actual laws is a dumb move. The paradoxes caused by them are a pretty central theme.
Yeah like one of the stories in i Robot, the people were going die because the robot couldn't break one of the three rules and went haywire. Think that was the issue in most of the stories.
Latter stories had Daneel Olivaw lawyering his way around the laws. Then there was a schism where some robots thought he misinterpreted them, went too far. Then the Zeroeth law came around adding more twists.
It's been 20-years since I read all that. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, the actual purpose of the laws was to produce interesting (when involving Susan Calvin) or amusing (when involving Powell and Donovan) stories.
Still some form of protection for humans is needed.
If a robot (or any other corporate product or activity) causes injury everyone in the corporate chain of responsibility (especially board members and stockholders) should be criminally liable.
also robots are pratically blameless, thats why they are made, so it obfuscates the true owners.
But the owner isn't blameless. What, are robot crashes handled as natural disasters? Is this idiocracy?
Time to give every robot a license plate
The entire damn point of the three laws is that they don't work and cause more harm then good... The paradox of the laws is the whole point!
What paradox? I thought the rules were considered a good idea in the stories.
Lots of the Robot stories hinge on unexpected outcomes of the Three Laws, or a clever bot like Daneel Olivaw lawyering them. :)
They are considered a good idea yes. But the entire point is that the notion that they are a good idea IS the flaw. Its literally a case of "just because a smart person thinks its a good idea, doesn't make it one".
The story and stories based on it that properly understand it. All look into how 3 simple well meaning laws which on paper sound and look good. Cause horrific unintended side effects, and harm humanity frequently to comical extremes.
As the saying goes, “The best laid plans of mice and men can still go wrong.”.
The stories are si-fi murder mysteries, so there has to be a conflict that gets resolved.
people get really angry at me when I flip these things.