undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmorsecodist9mo ago0 comments

I think it's fair to point out that they were never intended to be a good framework for aligning robots and humans. Even in his own stories they lead to problems. They were created precisely to make the point that encoding these things in rules is hard.

As for practical problems they are extremely vague. What counts as harm? Could a robot serve me a burger and fries if that isn't good for my health? By the rules they actually can't even passively allow me to get harmed so should they stop me from eating one? They have to follow human orders but which human? What if orders conflict?

0 comments

diggan9mo ago

> I think it's fair to point out that they were never intended to be a good framework for aligning robots and humans. Even in his own stories they lead to problems. They were created precisely to make the point that encoding these things in rules is hard.

That seems like the biggest point missed here. They're intended to be able to lend themselves to "surprising" conclusions, which is exactly what we don't want, so it seems obvious to me that those laws aren't good enough? That's how I remember the stories at least.

adastra229mo ago

This seems very much a “did you even read the book??” moment. That Asimov’s laws didn’t work, and indeed failed spectacularly, was kinda the whole point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

diggan9mo ago

adastra229mo ago

This seems very much a “did you even read the book??” moment. That Asimov’s laws didn’t work, and indeed failed spectacularly, was kinda the whole point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse