Goonhub
11-03-2014, 12:56 PM
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.
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"
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 pointFriend, 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"