Breakin the laws or how did they AI rebel?

[RobAK801]

I am sure we all agree that no system can ever be "perfect" and if anyone has read the story that the 3 laws come from, or seen I Robot which is based on the story, then you have a perfect example of a possible AI rebellion. We are better than you, you are a danger to yourselves, therefore we should be in total control, dissenting elements will be neutralized

[commissarjason]

I think its more of "We are, by the 3 laws, designed to protect the Masters. So now, to our way of seeing things, the Masters cannot adequatly protect himself to the degree which we were programmed to uphold. So to follow the invoilable laws set by the Masters, we have to, at any and all cost, protect the Masters even if it means harming him or harming other Masters so as to preserve and protect our Master's race."

Something like that.

[Space Voyager]

Asimov himself wrote stories with "renegade" robots, so the three laws of robotics are not absolute. Nothing can prevent occasional deviation from the plan.

[kknd2]

Not sure if this post fits this section , tell me if its wrong.

Was wondering...how can posibly the AI in SotS rebel asuming it is based on Asimov's law sistem?

It might have something to do with the fact that I'm not Isaac Asimov?

The AI's that rebel in SotS are imperialist military AI who routinely disobey Asimov's laws even when functioning perfectly. They are designed and trained to kill other sentients. When they "malfunction" they do not go from being pacifistic to violent--they go from being loyal to the Master Race to being their own masters.

--Arinn

Firstly, thanks to the story source for the comment! secondly, so when i research the AI techs im ripping off the AI Kerberos made for SOTS?!?!

[martinl]

I always wonder why people treat the three laws like they are some sort of inevitable outgrowth of robotics.

They are fiction. Good fiction, sure, but fiction.

Computers don't think anything like that now, and there's no reason to believe that AI will think like that in the future.

If computer-related law keeps evolving like it currently is, the "laws of robotics/AI" will focus on DRM and using the robot to go through your underwear drawer to make sure there are no pirated CDs in there.

[Red_Machine]

Anything that humanity creates will be inherantley evil. Everything we've invented has always been designed to serve as a weapon or a spuuorter of war initially. Like cars; the general public getting them was just a spin-off from a military project. It will always be the same.

I don't think we should ever create AI, but I'm sure Virtual Intelligence would be okay, like in Mass Effect.

[Mecron]

If there is any greater meaning in SotS, its that creating life, digital or otherwise, PURELY to serve goes badly sooner or later. The fantasy of an entire race of slaves that are just so gosh darn happy to serve Bwana, like the droids in star wars, irritate the hell out of me.

[martinl]

Anything that humanity creates will be inherantley evil. Everything we've invented has always been designed to serve as a weapon or a spuuorter of war initially.

Even Pogs?

[martinl]

If there is any greater meaning in SotS, its that creating life, digital or otherwise, PURELY to serve goes badly sooner or later. The fantasy of an entire race of slaves that are just so gosh darn happy to serve Bwana, like the droids in star wars, irritate the hell out of me.

I can see that as a lesson in SOTS, but I always thought the core message was something along the lines of "Defend yourself, or be glassed."

As for life, do you mean intelligent life? If just life in general, those insulin producing microbes are probably gonna turn on us soon.

[Mecron]

I KNEW if I didn't add the word "sentient" some nitpicking, superior, lil a---....ummm...yes...good point M.

[martinl]

I KNEW if I didn't add the word "sentient" some nitpicking, superior, lil a---....ummm...yes...good point M.

You forgot "tight-assed."



Edit: Pondering the implications, it seems I fell right into your trap.

Well played sir.

More generally, I sometimes wonder if AI (assuming it happens) is going to be a clear-cut breakthrough or a slow progression over a very hazy line. If the latter, we might end up progressing from smart expert systems to intelligent beings with rights without really realizing it. One day, some angsty college student protests your holo-blog because you've enslaved the toaster.

[Slasher]

We already have whole species of slaves geneticaly manipulated to serve our purposes. We normaly call them farm animals. But is a beast of burden fundementaly different from a robot doing the same job?
The problem is not making things to serve us. Its making them smarter than they have to be, giving them power, control over industrial production, our lives and the ability to evolve beyond their original purposes... Mostly the last one though...

[Mecron]

yeah...self awareness...kind of the tipping point. I have herded cattle in real life, slash...not really a lot of sentiency there

To make a being as aware of yourself and then expect it to be happy forever as a slave? That is where things tend to get dicey.

[martinl]

yeah...self awareness...kind of the tipping point. I have herded cattle in real life, slash...not really a lot of sentiency there

On the cows, yah, not real smart. But it can be fun to imagine.

[Slasher]

How do you know cows aren't "sentient"?
Have you ever asked one?
Did you understand the answer it gave you, do you know you communicated the question in a manner it could understand?
How do you define the kind of "Sentient" that you bellive cows aren't then?