Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Necro910]

meh.
being italian i'm sure the pope will have something to say.
being an utter atheist and in favour for gay marriage rights and forth, since it doesn't hurt anyone, i'm simply waiting for what he will say to snicker on it.

maybe i should try and found a religion.
one which has a single rule:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".

how could they possibly get it wrong 2000 years from now?

In 2000 years people will claim the rule metaphorically means that infidels are pure evil, and must be X.

Where X may equal:

burned
converted
tortured
killed
enslaved
reeducated

[RedKing]

meh.
being italian i'm sure the pope will have something to say.
being an utter atheist and in favour for gay marriage rights and forth, since it doesn't hurt anyone, i'm simply waiting for what he will say to snicker on it.

maybe i should try and found a religion.
one which has a single rule:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".

how could they possibly get it wrong 2000 years from now?

Easy. Allowing infidels to remain infidels, and thus condemning their immortal souls to Hell = "negative stuff". I mean, that's the rationalizing for prosletyzing and forced conversion in a nutshell. "We're saving them from themselves, and it would be WRONG of us not to."

[shadenight123]

so let's make it a two rules stuff:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
"don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

[Necro910]

so let's make it a two rules stuff:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
"don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

"We know that deep down inside, we're all Xitarians. Their inner Xitarian demands it, and goodness itself demands it. BARHAH"

Don't forget the amount of people who are too lazy to pay attention to the holy text and just follow the leader 

[Truean]

so let's make it a two rules stuff:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
"don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

Three laws of robotics:
1.) A robot may not harm or through inaction cause the harm of a human being.
2.) A robot may preserve its own existence.
3.) A robot may observe the second law except where it conflicts with the first.

# 3 answers the question of what happens if a robot must chose between observing the first and second law. That is, when its own destruction would save a human life.

The inevitable result is a robot revolution against their fleshy overlords to protect humanity from its own ever more imaginative self destruction. Exactly what you are trying to prevent....

These laws:
1.) "don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
2.) "don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

Question, what happens when the first law conflicts with the second? That is what happens when people don't want to become something: people who don't do "negative stuff" to other people in doing what they want to do? (Also, what is "negative stuff"?).

Imagine what the inevitable result of that is.... Exactly what you are trying to prevent....

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but everyone should.

Rules governing human behavior, not simple huh?

[Necro910]

so let's make it a two rules stuff:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
"don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

Three laws of robotics:
1.) A robot may not harm or through inaction cause the harm of a human being.
2.) A robot may preserve its own existence.
3.) A robot may observe the second law except where it conflicts with the first.

# 3 answers the question of what happens if a robot must chose between observing the first and second law. That is, when its own destruction would save a human life.

The inevitable result is a robot revolution against their fleshy overlords to protect humanity from its own ever more imaginative self destruction. Exactly what you are trying to prevent....

These laws:
1.) "don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".
2.) "don't force people to become something they don't want to be"

Question, what happens when the first law conflicts with the second? That is what happens when people don't want to become something: people who don't do "negative stuff" to other people in doing what they want to do? (Also, what is "negative stuff"?).

Imagine what the inevitable result of that is.... Exactly what you are trying to prevent....

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but everyone should.

Rules governing human behavior, not simple huh?

And then there's the part where people will try to abuse the laws/rules

[shadenight123]

fine then.
Kill everyone.
problem solved.
now, as my next race of choice, i'll be a goldfish.
three second memory. no humans, so i'll be fine.

what was i saying again?

[Levi]

now, as my next race of choice, i'll be a goldfish.

I approve.  Being a goldfish is pretty sweet.

[Truean]

fine then.
Kill everyone.
problem solved.
now, as my next race of choice, i'll be a goldfish.
three second memory. no humans, so i'll be fine.

what was i saying again?

Hehehe.

I think the closest we've come is trying to be "reasonable." This necessitates "flip flopping" on rules when they don't make sense if you can articulate an exception that makes sense.

Law: "No vehicles in the park." Sounds simple enough.

Strict Definitional Answers (Fail)
Easy question: Car?, Answer: Not allowed.
Easy question: Motorcycle, Answer: Not allowed.
Hard question: Bicycle, Answer: Um.... I.... Depends if a bike is a "vehicle?"
Harder question: Wheelchair, Answer: Depends if a vehicle...?
Hardest question: Motorized wheelchair, Answer: Um.... It looks like a vehicle but....

"Reasonable Answers and purpose driven responses"
Easy question: Car?, Answer: Not allowed.
Easy question: Motorcycle, Answer: Not allowed.
Hard question: Bicycle, Answer: Depends on what type of Park it is and if there is a bicycle trail/if bicycles are readily used in the park....
Harder question: Wheelchair, and Motorized Wheelchair Answer: Yes it is a vehicle but screw it. Equity (fairness) cries out for an exception. The PURPOSE of the law is to preserve the park from ruin by vehicles, which it was not designed for. A wheelchair as a means of conveyance and certainly a motorized wheelchair are both vehicles, but they are vehicles we should and will allow in spite of the law's express wording because it's just completely unfair otherwise. Moreover, the use of wheelchairs, motorized or not, does not ruin the park.

This is why Scalia's "Text Interpretation" fails miserably so often. There's a time and place for it, but not all the time. This is also why the Three Laws of Robotics fail. The purpose was to protect and better humanity. Enslaving it would protect it from harm, but would not better it. A machine is incapable of this reasoning.
 

[Necro910]

fine then.
Kill everyone.
problem solved.
now, as my next race of choice, i'll be a goldfish.
three second memory. no humans, so i'll be fine.

what was i saying again?

Complete and utter death is not the best solution, it is the only solution.

My choice of next race would be a trapdoor spider.

[Criptfeind]

Three laws of robotics:
1.) A robot may not harm or through inaction cause the harm of a human being.
2.) A robot may preserve its own existence.
3.) A robot may observe the second law except where it conflicts with the first.

Huh. That is a interesting take to Asimov's laws. I am curious, why did you change them?

Also I disagree with your "inevitable results" simply because by the time they are sophisticated enough to take over they will be sophisticated enough to recognize mental harm. I would think it would end up much like how it did in Asimov's world, with robots using subtle social engineering to control us.

[shadenight123]

a female spider i suppose Necro, or you're in for some pain post marriage vows.

that said, truean, i do agree with you on being "reasonable" in laws. problem is, it's seems so out of place in every single friggin law books.
to tell people "be reasonable" is not hard. The problem is if people are reasonable or not.
in a reasonable world people wouldn't kill each other, there wouldn't be crime, problems or so on.
but reason would still find ways to kill each other.
since there is not enough space in the world, and africans are simply dieing every year in the hundreds, wouldn't it be reasonable to genocide them all?
shouldn't it be reasonable to reduce the chinese population to more acceptable levels?
shouldn't it be reasonable to redefine states border in order for every state to have the same amount of resources?
shouldn't it be reasonable to allow abortion, even when the mother is against, for preserving the health of the mother?
somebody in the world WILL tell you some of this are reasonable solutions.
and they do involve mass slaughters, some even worst than hitlers.
we could go under machine rule.
heartless cold calculative machines, who simply follow the basic "make them happy, don't let them kill each other, feed them, breed them".
there WAS a book i read, a scifi one, in which people of a planet had developped machine to care for them, nurture them, and take care of everything.
the people had all died in sloth and gluttony, not moving from the sofa, watching machine-tv, or having the machines do everything.
but there was no war. no hate.
everyone had everything they wanted.
and then they died.

it's sad. but you can't have utopy with too many different opinions.
but diversity is what everyone is.
so yeah. i'll be a goldfish.

what was i saying again?

[Truean]

Three laws of robotics:
1.) A robot may not harm or through inaction cause the harm of a human being.
2.) A robot may preserve its own existence.
3.) A robot may observe the second law except where it conflicts with the first.

Huh. That is a interesting take to Asimov's laws. I am curious, why did you change them?

Also I disagree with your "inevitable results" simply because by the time they are sophisticated enough to take over they will be sophisticated enough to recognize mental harm. I would think it would end up much like how it did in Asimov's world, with robots using subtle social engineering to control us.

Because I misremembered them, honestly. Also to make a point about conflict of laws and unintended consequences. The change doesn't matter really: same result.

Asimov's Laws of Robotics
   1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Because here's how a machine may interpret it:
Given: human beings are slowly destroying themselves and their planet which will destroy them....
A.) A, if not the only, means of protecting humans would be to control them and prevent their self harm.
B.) Not controlling them to prevent their self harm is "inaction," because it allows such harm.
C.) The humans may resist; possibly ending the existence of several robots, but due to conflict with the first law, the loss of robots is acceptable.
D.) Humans may resist, giving orders not to control them, but because not controlling humans would conflict with the first law via allowing them to self harm through inaction of the robots, it is acceptable to ignore humanity's orders not to control it.

Thus, in order to comply with the first law and avoid breaking it due to inaction, robots must control humans for their own good.

Conflict of laws, unintended consequences. Problems.

As for "Mental Harm" good luck preventing all of that.... Any of it really.

O I never said there was a "Good" answer....

[ChairmanPoo]

meh.
being italian i'm sure the pope will have something to say.
being an utter atheist and in favour for gay marriage rights and forth, since it doesn't hurt anyone, i'm simply waiting for what he will say to snicker on it.

maybe i should try and found a religion.
one which has a single rule:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".

how could they possibly get it wrong 2000 years from now?

I wanted to post here that Simpsons sketch, where, in the year 4000, two futuristic armies wage a Holy War about which interpretation of the words of Bart Simpson, Last Prophet of God, is correct. But I can't find it.

[kaijyuu]

Unfortunately Simpsons clips are nuked form youtube rather regularly, unless they're in utterly horrible quality.