1351
Laws of Robotics (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 14 points 3 months ago

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

[-] prex@aussie.zone 16 points 3 months ago

Sounds like something a robot would say.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Pretty sure death qualifies as "harm".

[-] yamapikariya@lemmyfi.com 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 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 2 points 3 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 1 points 3 months ago

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

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

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

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

'Why, mister Anderson' moment from The Matrix

this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
1351 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

10207 readers
2857 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.


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