12

Asimov's laws are not strong enough to be used in practice. Strength isn't even a consideration, when considering that since they're written in English words would first have to be interpreted subjectively to have any meaning at all. You can find a good discussion of this here. To transcribe an excerpt: How do you define these things? How do you define "...


7

The most challenging part is this section of the first law: or through inaction allow a human being to be harmed Humans manage to injure themselves unintentionally in all kinds of ways all the time. A robot strictly following that law would have to spend all its time saving people from their own clumsiness and would probably never get any useful work ...


6

Defining "harm" and in particular, "allowing harm via inaction" in any meaningful way would be difficult. For example, should robots spend all their time flying around attempting to prevent humans from inhaling passive smoke or petrol fumes? In addition, the interpretation of 'conflict' (in either rule 2 or 3) is completely open-ended. Resolving such ...


2

Asimov made the three laws specifically to prove that no three laws are sufficient, no matter how reasonable they seem at first. I know a guy that knew the guy and he confirmed this.


1

Right now, the scenarios where automata protect their own existence is limited. In the case of autonomous vehicles, primary goals would certainly be collision avoidance, and other hazards (deep water, cliff faces, etc.) It's possible that arial drones could have certain automated defense mechanisms specific to airborne threats such a missiles. Bots ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible