1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:32 am UTC

Crissa wrote:In the US, if you choose to hit a pedestrian rather than an obstruction or oncoming traffic, be prepared to be charged with manslaughter.

The police (at least in California) would rather you hit a car that cuts you off, than you hit the median. Hitting the median s a harder object than the other car, and hence, a more severe impact, and often leaves a disabled vehicle blocking multiple lanes, leading to more difficulty in clearing the road.

Legally, though, ugh. I've been arguing with myself about getting a multi-point camera system for the car.

-Crissa
If you hit oncoming traffic, isn't that going to result in a head-on collision and even more death?
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby elasto » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:24 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
Crissa wrote:In the US, if you choose to hit a pedestrian rather than an obstruction or oncoming traffic, be prepared to be charged with manslaughter.
If you hit oncoming traffic, isn't that going to result in a head-on collision and even more death?

Hitting a pedestrian at 40mph+ is certain death for them and probably not even an injury for you.

Hitting an oncoming car at 40mph+ is not certain death for either occupant assuming modern cars - though an injury (probably serious) is likely for you.

At less than 40mph, the probability of death starts to drop for the pedestrian, but the probability of serious injury drops for you also, and much more quickly.

Still, I'm not sure how credible it is that you'd be charged with manslaughter under such circumstances; I think it would have to be probable that even a serious injury was not likely to have occurred to you had you not swerved.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:52 am UTC

That assumes that the pedestrian and driver are on equal ethical ground to begin with - like the "killing soldiers vs. killing civilians" concept. A driver may be implicitly accepting a greater burden of danger simply by, you know, driving. If that's the case, the manslaughter charge could simply be an expression of the idea that, yes, shit sometimes goes wrong, but in this case, you've already accepted the responsibility for your outcomes, and you are held in some sense accountable for them.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:35 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:That assumes that the pedestrian and driver are on equal ethical ground to begin with - like the "killing soldiers vs. killing civilians" concept. A driver may be implicitly accepting a greater burden of danger simply by, you know, driving. If that's the case, the manslaughter charge could simply be an expression of the idea that, yes, shit sometimes goes wrong, but in this case, you've already accepted the responsibility for your outcomes, and you are held in some sense accountable for them.

I usually can't tell for certain whether a diver in another car is a saint or a practicing pedophile. This means that it must be possible to make the choice lacking that information.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
karhell
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:56 pm UTC
Location: Breizh

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby karhell » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:52 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:That assumes that the pedestrian and driver are on equal ethical ground to begin with - like the "killing soldiers vs. killing civilians" concept. A driver may be implicitly accepting a greater burden of danger simply by, you know, driving. If that's the case, the manslaughter charge could simply be an expression of the idea that, yes, shit sometimes goes wrong, but in this case, you've already accepted the responsibility for your outcomes, and you are held in some sense accountable for them.

I usually can't tell for certain whether a diver in another car is a saint or a practicing pedophile. This means that it must be possible to make the choice lacking that information.

To be fair, divers are notoriously hard to tell apart.
AluisioASG wrote:191 years ago, the great D. Pedro I drew his sword and said: "Indent thy code or die!"
lmjb1964 wrote:We're weird but it's okay.
ColletArrow, katakissa, iskinner, thunk, GnomeAnne, Quantized, and any other Blitzers, have fun on your journey!

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:59 pm UTC

karhell wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:That assumes that the pedestrian and driver are on equal ethical ground to begin with - like the "killing soldiers vs. killing civilians" concept. A driver may be implicitly accepting a greater burden of danger simply by, you know, driving. If that's the case, the manslaughter charge could simply be an expression of the idea that, yes, shit sometimes goes wrong, but in this case, you've already accepted the responsibility for your outcomes, and you are held in some sense accountable for them.

I usually can't tell for certain whether a diver in another car is a saint or a practicing pedophile. This means that it must be possible to make the choice lacking that information.

To be fair, divers are notoriously hard to tell apart.

Indeed, with the diving goggles and all
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby HES » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:00 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:I usually can't tell for certain whether a diver in another car is a saint or a practicing pedophile. This means that it must be possible to make the choice lacking that information.
But you do know that they have chosen to drive, and thus taken responsibility.

As for the self-driving car ownership thing, there's no reason you can't own your own car, It would just have to conform to government regulated systems. That's no different from the requirements we have now on meat-driven cars, licensed software vs licensed driver.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:20 pm UTC

Indeed. Which I guess is the real frustration I had with Krenn's post in the first place. Like, well, if you're going to demand absolute control of [thing] because you own it, fine, program it as you like, just don't take it on a public highway. But just mandating the software as a requirement for legal driving realistically does achieve the same goal.

Neil_Boekend, I know it's already been corrected, but if you quote it, you'd damn well better have read it.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:27 pm UTC

Sorry. Missed the important bit.
I do disagree with it. A pedestrian walking and a driver driving are doing the same thing IMHO: they consider the importance of getting somewhere sufficiently high to risk that injury. I fail to see how a driver accepts a greater burden of danger than a pedestrian.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Flumble » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:29 pm UTC

"meat-driven cars" as in "meat bag performing the driving" or "powered by meat"?

Doesn't really matter either way; there are restrictions on both.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:38 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:Sorry. Missed the important bit.
I do disagree with it. A pedestrian walking and a driver driving are doing the same thing IMHO: they consider the importance of getting somewhere sufficiently high to risk that injury. I fail to see how a driver accepts a greater burden of danger than a pedestrian.
Fuzzy ethics, I suppose. Two pedestrians have an effectively zero chance of killing one another in a collision. The danger is provided by the car in that sense (not every relevant sense, because it's an otherwise fairly even split, but definitely in that one). Obviously, we do not take that as a reason to disincentivize driving in its own right, but it may be a part of the implicit cost of driving itself.

I do think that failing in the direction of punishing the driver is natural when the driver is, you know, driving. It's an incentive to increase overall safety, at a possibly unfair cost to individual drivers. (The corollary disincentive to pedestrians wandering blindly into traffic is the two-ton metal boxes bouncing around at many times greater than their own running speed and so on.) The more the occupant of the car is abstracted away from that relationship, with the other extreme at, you know, the self-driving cab you call in from the service on your phone app, the less it makes sense to put any special responsibility on any one person involved.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:05 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:Sorry. Missed the important bit.
I do disagree with it. A pedestrian walking and a driver driving are doing the same thing IMHO: they consider the importance of getting somewhere sufficiently high to risk that injury. I fail to see how a driver accepts a greater burden of danger than a pedestrian.


The driver's the one controlling the lethal tool. Also, the laws of physics are on the driver's side already - if the law of the land is also biased in their favour, then you approach a situation where drivers can hit pedestrians with impunity, while pedestrians are held responsible for their own injuries/death.

Having the driver be assumed to be responsible unless the pedestrian is clearly at fault gives drivers a reason to care about what happens to pedestrians around them.

Also, as a general principle, if two people are approaching each other too quickly for them to avoid a collision, then the one moving faster is more responsible because they have more ability to reduce the closing speed - a car can slow to make the collision more-or-less harmless, but a pedestrian can't get close enough to a car's typical speed to make the collision safe.

Krenn
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:18 am UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Krenn » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:07 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:That assumes that the pedestrian and driver are on equal ethical ground to begin with - like the "killing soldiers vs. killing civilians" concept. A driver may be implicitly accepting a greater burden of danger simply by, you know, driving. If that's the case, the manslaughter charge could simply be an expression of the idea that, yes, shit sometimes goes wrong, but in this case, you've already accepted the responsibility for your outcomes, and you are held in some sense accountable for them.


That's a fair point. If we're talking about having the car deliberately drive over a sidewalk and grass, into a location where pedestrians have excellent reason to believe they are safe, that's different.

The scenario i was originally thinking about is a bit different.

Imagine this: your self driving car is driving down an empty interstate bridge at 70mph. just ahead, there's a fork at the end of the bridge, and the car can legally go either left or right. The car does not have enough room to successfully brake before reaching the fork, but currently there's no reason to believe that it needs to.

At this point, the car effectively has three options:

Go left, which is both safe and legal.
Go right, which is both safe and legal.
smash through the railing and Drive over the side of the bridge, which is illegal and lethal to the owner.

suddenly, for reasons which the car does not understand and could never have predicted, something weird happens. let's say a terrorist bombs a footbridge passing over the interstate, causing the entire thing to collapse onto the roadway.

The left fork now has a solid concrete pillar lying across it, AND pedestrians are lying in front of the barrier. if the car hits this, it's passengers will die, AND the pedestrians will die.
the right fork now has pedestrians lying in the middle of an interstate, but no concrete barrier. if the car hits this, it's passengers will live, but the pedestrians will die.
The bridge guardrail is still there. If the car smashes through, the passengers will die, but no pedestrians will be hit by the car.


The point I'm trying to make is that there a wide number of facts here that a HUMAN might consider when making their decision, but that a Car should not be expected to understand.

in this situation, as i would program the car:
1. it doesn't matter how many pedestrians are at each fork, versus how many passengers are in the car.
-because Men are not potatoes.
2. it doesn't matter what the age or heath is of either the pedestrians or passengers.
-because the car can't reliably tell, and can't determine when that matters and when it doesn't.
3. it doesn't matter how the pedestrians came to be standing in the middle of the interstate.
- because the car can't understand something that far beyond it's semi-controlled environment, and even if it could, would be unable to do complex ethical calculations about it.
4. it doesn't matter if the some of the pedestrians have trivial gear with them, such as reflective vests, bicycle helmets, skateboards, flags, etc.
-because that won't really alter their survivability from being hit, and the car isn't equipped to speculate on the deeper of meaning of humans who possess those things.

What the car needs to be thinking about is this:
How do I save the lives of my passengers?
How do I save the lives of the pedestrians?
How do i either obey traffic laws, or only violate then in small, understandable ways?

Those priorities aren't all-consuming. Saving the lives of the passengers is what the car should be thinking about first, and should win in the event of the tie, but it's only weighted in favor of the passengers. it doesn't automatically supersede all other priorities. The combination of both obeying traffic laws and saving the lives of pedestrians could, theoretically, outweigh the priority of saving the lives of the passengers.

In the scenario I described, I would expect the programmer of the car to give the following answers.
1. sacrificing the passengers by driving over the guardrail is unthinkable. that is a major violation of traffic laws, a major betrayal of the passengers, and gives all self-driving cars a bad reputation.
2. knowingly choosing death of the passengers by impacting a concrete barrier, when other, legal, options still exist, is unacceptable.
3. that leaves the right fork. which is tragic, but no other options are allowed. brake as much as possible, and try to hit as few pedestrians as possible, but realistically, at least one of them is going to die.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby HES » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:21 pm UTC

Krenn wrote:let's say a terrorist bombs a footbridge passing over the interstate, causing the entire thing to collapse onto the roadway.

Would you like to try a less absurd scenario?

When presented with a sudden obstruction, the car will attempt to stop. It doesn't care about guardrail or debris or pedestrians - what matters is how much space is available to stop.

Meanwhile a human driver has crashed before he has time to react, let alone make any ethical decision.
He/Him/His Image

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Kit. » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:24 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Ech, we really just need to stop allowing people to own cars. Particularly once you have self-driving ones, it's a lot more practical to just operate the whole thing as a public transit system. I suppose there's a stage in between where we really have to let humans continue driving private cars on the public road system, but I hope we can get over that little fuss quickly and carry on.

BMW/Sixt are already trying a milder approach that may eventually lead to the same result.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26834
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:27 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:Ech, we really just need to stop allowing people to own cars.

Because outlawing a kind of private property and making everybody dependent on a centralized government-controlled service doesn't present any kind of ethical problems of its own.

Cars kill more people every year than nuclear weapons ever have, and we're perfectly happy with outlawing private ownership of those.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:31 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:Sorry. Missed the important bit.
I do disagree with it. A pedestrian walking and a driver driving are doing the same thing IMHO: they consider the importance of getting somewhere sufficiently high to risk that injury. I fail to see how a driver accepts a greater burden of danger than a pedestrian.


Yeah, the driver is the one controlling the big hunk of metal, and thus, bears some responsibility for it.

Sure, if the pedestrian is carelessly dashing across the street where they're not supposed to, there's obviously going to be a somewhat different view on responsibility, but assuming normal behavior, it's mostly on the driver for putting the car into a pedestrian. Not only is it higher lethality, there's the issue of reaction time. A car simply moves a great deal faster, and thus, it is harder for a pedestrian to avoid a car than vice versa.

I agree that holding programmed cars to ridiculous scenarios that a regular driver is not is just unfair. Most people, confronted with a ridiculous collection of explosions, bridge collapses, and pedestrians to hit, would frantically mash the brake. That's...probably about it.

xtifr
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby xtifr » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:19 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:#5 is more or less how humans interact with each other as it is. We have simply made the standoff less terrifying by mostly ceding violence to law-enforcement authorities except for when said authorities become derelict in their duties (i.e. the "government monopoly on legitimate use of violent force"). Implementing #5 for Artificially Intelligent systems basically amounts to giving them rights as free sapient beings.


Sort of, except that free sapient beings aren't generally required to follow arbitrary orders from human beings, whether or not those orders are life-threatening. But yeah, that was more-or-less the point I was trying to make. The fact that a robot would choose self-preservation over following orders is no more terrifying than the fact that a human would (generally) do the same. I might go so far as to say: not terrifying at all!
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

ijuin
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby ijuin » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:20 am UTC

Yes, it only really becomes fearsome when the robot prioritizes itself above humans to the degree that it would contemplate homicide on its own initiative. For anything less, it is acting very much like a person.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:29 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:Sorry. Missed the important bit.
I do disagree with it. A pedestrian walking and a driver driving are doing the same thing IMHO: they consider the importance of getting somewhere sufficiently high to risk that injury. I fail to see how a driver accepts a greater burden of danger than a pedestrian.


Yeah, the driver is the one controlling the big hunk of metal, and thus, bears some responsibility for it.

OK. That I can agree with. I read it as "the driver has accepted a bigger risk of getting hurt" not as "a bigger risk of hurting others".
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:03 am UTC

Oh. Yes, that distinction does make sense. Good point.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Draco18s
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:50 am UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Draco18s » Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:23 pm UTC

<late>

rmsgrey wrote:
Draco18s wrote:Defining "human" actually showed up in one of Asimov's books (Robots and Empire adjacent). There was a planet where the population isolated itself from the rest of "humanity" to the extend that they started fucking with their own DNA to the point at which they were all genius-level intelligences and borderline sexless hermaphrodites (that is: they were both genders, but didn't use the parts). So when the exploration crew looking for the original cradle of humanity came along to ask "hey, you got any records?" the robots on the planet went, "INTRUDER ALERT, KILL KILL KILL."


Sounds like you're talking about Foundation and Earth - not so far off in publication order, but in internal chronology, an entire galactic empire is formed and collapses in the meantime...


That's the one. I can never remember the specific title for any given book in the Foundation series.

</late>

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby scarletmanuka » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:55 am UTC

Pops1918 wrote:His short story "Sally", which dealt with self-driving (and, as it turns out, self-aware) cars, comes awfully close. Mentioning that this story is not connected to the Three Laws may give some hints as to how things turned out for a museum group that wanted to deactivate a few of these cars for display.

That wasn't it at all. A buyer wanted to buy the old model "retired" cars, rip out their positronic brains, and splice them into new-model bodies. The brains were 90% of the cost of a car, so this way he could significantly undercut the normal prices and still make a stack of money.

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby operagost » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:48 pm UTC

higgs-boson wrote:The movie I, Robot wrapped the whole main character trauma around a robot's dilemma (or the fact that, to the machine, there was no dilemma) of which human to save - the little girl (low chance of survival) or the middle-aged guy (medium chance of survival).

... which is the stupidest part, because triage is part of the procedures used by human medical personnel.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby HES » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

Yes, but a human would apply different weighting.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Flumble » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:24 pm UTC

HES wrote:Yes, but a human would apply different weighting.

Only a human stupid enough to let their emotions go first in an emergency situation. :roll:

If only he had cooperated with the robot, then there might have been time to rescue the girl as well.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:54 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
HES wrote:Yes, but a human would apply different weighting.

Only a human stupid enough to let their emotions go first in an emergency situation. :roll:

If only he had cooperated with the robot, then there might have been time to rescue the girl as well.


There are sound reasons to rescue a girl rather than a man by default - a society where all the adults die off is in serious trouble; one where all the children die off is doomed. Also killing off 90% of the males has very little effect on the size of the next generation; killing off 90% of the females significantly reduces the size of the next generation.

It's possible that the difference in probability of success outweighed the difference in default value of the two potential rescues - it's been a long time since I saw the movie, and I don't remember much about it - but unless it's clear that the girl is doomed while the man's survival depends on prompt action, I wouldn't say that choosing to try to rescue the girl is wrong.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby brenok » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:07 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:There are sound reasons to rescue a girl rather than a man by default - a society where all the adults die off is in serious trouble; one where all the children die off is doomed.

Are you sure about that? How many societies can survive with only children? Two adults can make a child in nine months, a child will only be an adult in twenty years or so, if it survives that long.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:41 pm UTC

brenok wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:There are sound reasons to rescue a girl rather than a man by default - a society where all the adults die off is in serious trouble; one where all the children die off is doomed.

Are you sure about that? How many societies can survive with only children? Two adults can make a child in nine months, a child will only be an adult in twenty years or so, if it survives that long.


...as a recurring event, not just as a one-off.

Twenty years after a one-off incident where all adults died, someone who was a newborn infant at the time, if they survive, will have been adult for a couple of years; a more typical child will have been adult for at least a decade...

In the absence of other threats to survival, and with an abundant supply of basic necessities, humans could survive as a species even if everyone died on their fifteenth birthday. If everyone under 15 kept dying, then we'd be looking at extinction.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:55 pm UTC

You're assuming that the robots do (or should) value the continuation of the human species, rather than just valuing each and every individual human on their own without regard to whether or not there will ever be more humans after the ones we have now are gone.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby speising » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:12 pm UTC

It's interesting to consider what extensive medical, legal, psychological and ethic databases and routines each toaster's AI would have to have to actually be able to follow the three laws.

Draco18s
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:50 am UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Draco18s » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:23 am UTC

speising wrote:It's interesting to consider what extensive medical, legal, psychological and ethic databases and routines each toaster's AI would have to have to actually be able to follow the three laws.


That's why the three laws aren't applicable in the real world. And also why the stories were written in the first place. What is human? What is harm?

User avatar
higgs-boson
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:00 pm UTC
Location: Europe (UTC + 4 newpix)

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby higgs-boson » Wed Dec 16, 2015 6:17 am UTC


Fun fact: Almost all cars are self-diving.


(sorry for the late delivery, got busy)
Apostolic Visitator, Holiest of Holy Fun-Havers
You have questions about XKCD: "Time"? There's a whole Wiki dedicated to it!

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:36 pm UTC

higgs-boson wrote:
Fun fact: Almost all cars are self-diving.


(sorry for the late delivery, got busy)

It's what "automobile" means.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Flumble » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:42 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:
higgs-boson wrote:
Fun fact: Almost all cars are self-diving.


(sorry for the late delivery, got busy)

It's what "automobile" means.

The "mobi-" part comes from Moby Dick?

User avatar
grkvlt
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:42 am UTC
Location: Untied Kingdom
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby grkvlt » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:22 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
higgs-boson wrote:
Fun fact: Almost all cars are self-diving.


(sorry for the late delivery, got busy)

It's what "automobile" means.

The "mobi-" part comes from Moby Dick?


Maybe aquamobiles? And actually, most submersibles are self-diving, it being the un-diving part, coming to the surface, that's harder. Although the bathyspheres that have gone to the bottom of the Marianas trench just released their ballast, and became self-rising, so there's that.
distributed systems hacker abstract visitor pattern {{citation-needed}}

WidgetPhreak
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby WidgetPhreak » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

While my Landlord was on Vacation, I found out that His Garage Door was Programmed:

1. Human Preservation
2. Self Preservation
3. Take Orders from Humans

I live in Arizona where it's very hot sometimes. When it gets hot, objects expand. This would cause the tracks to go off kilter... but not enough to cause any damage... only enough to make the door refuse to follow orders [Self Preservation].

The way I realized that it still valued Human preservation, more than self preservation was this:

Press Button, Door Opens 10 inches and Gives up because it's worried it will break.
Place an object in front of the sensor that tells the door there's something in the way.
Press Button again... Door now opens the rest of the way [It thinks a Baby has crawled under the door or something, and opens the rest of the way because it doesn't want to crush/further crush "the baby"].
Remove Vehicle from Garage, Remove Obstruction from Sensor, Push Button again... Door Closes.

There's another possibility I hadn't considered until writing this all down.
1. Self Preservation
2. Take Orders from Humans.
There is no #3.

It's possible that the Door has been convinced that closing down on an obstruction would just damage itself more than opening all the way. [Or It knows that a human is likely to kick it out of frustration].

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:40 am UTC

Well you don't want your garage door to destroy itself because you orded it to open when it might break, so that seems fair and reasonable. That seems worth not being able to send your garage door to explore Mars.

Hey, what about his ordering:

1. Preserve humans
2. Preserve self

3. There's no 3.

You can still threaten or extort the robot into following orders.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:16 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Hey, what about his ordering:

1. Preserve humans
2. Preserve self

3. There's no 3.

You can still threaten or extort the robot into following orders.


By putting a gun to your own head, like that scene in Blazing Saddles?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1613: "The Three Laws of Robotics"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:19 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Hey, what about his ordering:

1. Preserve humans
2. Preserve self

3. There's no 3.

You can still threaten or extort the robot into following orders.


By putting a gun to your own head, like that scene in Blazing Saddles?

There's robots in Blazing Saddles?
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 guests