this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
1403 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2800 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1403
Laws of Robotics (mander.xyz)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Sounds like something a robot would say.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure death qualifies as "harm".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That works if you ignore the commas after "or" and "through inaction", which does sound like a robot thing to do. Damn synths!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Programmatically, if you want it to do both, use "and"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

"Nor" would be more grammatically correct and clearer in meaning, too, since they're actually telling robots what not to do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

In terms of English and grammar, you're not wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

'Why, mister Anderson' moment from The Matrix