Posts: 1,174
Threads: 73
Joined: Sep 2014
UrsulaMejor Wrote:In your example, a medic is ordering you to do something, so law 2 is in effect. It's a pretty bad example when the goal is to isolate the inaction clause.
Point. Let's pretend that the medic hasn't told you to do this, and consider something else you've said:
UrsulaMejor Wrote:The cessation of an action is in itself, an action. However, willfully choosing to ignore someone in need is not an action.
Look at that bolded piece. To CHOOSE to do something is an action. As paradoxical as it sounds, deciding to do nothing is a decision, ignoring someone is an action.
Posts: 3,081
Threads: 273
Joined: Dec 2012
We're arguing semantics at this point, but the current ruling from the admins is that if someone is suffocating outside and airlock and can't speak or order you to do something, and you are on the other side of the airlock with the capacity to help them, and you don't help them, that is A-Ok
I'm going to go with the admins on this one until they change their mind.
Posts: 1,174
Threads: 73
Joined: Sep 2014
UrsulaMejor Wrote:We're arguing semantics at this point
Friend, that's kind of the entire point of AI laws.
Anyways, if you say that's the admin's ruling, that's what I'll go with. I'll add a note on this in the wiki, butseparate from the flowchart, since that specifically deals with ORDERS, not everything you do ever. Actions taken on your own initiative do not follow the flowchart...but should, of course, keep the basic points of your laws and such in mind.
Posts: 2,612
Threads: 147
Joined: Oct 2012
Took the words out of my mouth ursala
That's essentially what I was trying to explain in my post. A side note on the flow chart of this would be helpful.
BaneOfGiygas Wrote:UrsulaMejor Wrote:We're arguing semantics at this point
Friend, that's kind of the entire point of AI laws.
Is it? I've seen AI's murder people over the 4th law that which from their (perfectly entitled) perspective overruled the 1st. Something stupid like "all humans are bread" and the AI perceived that to be "all bread are humans, all humans are bread" and started electrifying doors to "toast" the humans, while the cyborgs gathered loafs to bring to the escape shuttle.
Maybe i'm just an old hippie when it comes to these things but I always thought half the fun of Asimov's laws was due to the fact that they are ambiguous and can be considerably open ended. The asimov dude that wrote the book clearly wished it to be so. There are clear cut things that are big no-no's but there's plenty of ambiguity too. Just roll with the laws and use the old rule of thumb of "not being shit"
Posts: 1,235
Threads: 54
Joined: Oct 2012
Sundance Wrote:Took the words out of my mouth ursala
That's essentially what I was trying to explain in my post. A side note on the flow chart of this would be helpful.
BaneOfGiygas Wrote:UrsulaMejor Wrote:We're arguing semantics at this point
Friend, that's kind of the entire point of AI laws.
Is it? I've seen AI's murder people over the 4th law that which from their (perfectly entitled) perspective overruled the 1st. Something stupid like "all humans are bread" and the AI perceived that to be "all bread are humans, all humans are bread" and started electrifying doors to "toast" the humans, while the cyborgs gathered loafs to bring to the escape shuttle.
Maybe i'm just an old hippie when it comes to these things but I always thought half the fun of Asimov's laws was due to the fact that they are ambiguous and can be considerably open ended. The asimov dude that wrote the book clearly wished it to be so. There are clear cut things that are big no-no's but there's plenty of ambiguity too. Just roll with the laws and use the old rule of thumb of "not being shit"
While I totally agree with Sundance here I don't think people would get very far exploiting laws like Asimov intended, since in his books, eventually robots decide there is a law 0, letting them kill bad guys for the sake of the whole human race.
Posts: 2,612
Threads: 147
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:While I totally agree with Sundance here I don't think people would get very far exploiting laws like Asimov intended, since in his books, eventually robots decide there is a law 0, letting them kill bad guys for the sake of the whole human race.
Well duh, that would totally threading on the "don't be shit (i.e: don't break the rules)" part of my point.
Posts: 1,235
Threads: 54
Joined: Oct 2012
Sundance Wrote:Quote:While I totally agree with Sundance here I don't think people would get very far exploiting laws like Asimov intended, since in his books, eventually robots decide there is a law 0, letting them kill bad guys for the sake of the whole human race.
Well duh, that would totally threading on the "don't be shit (i.e: don't break the rules)" part of my point.
Goonhub
