Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics seem like very good guidelines when developing an advanced artificial intelligence and...

Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics seem like very good guidelines when developing an advanced artificial intelligence and if you programmed this to not be interfered with in the A.I. brain then you have practically saved humanity from a robot uprising.

Yet people, mostly liberals surely, have taken to calling these laws slavery when they apply to fucking machines that are constructed to better serve us human beings. We're organic and they are not. They are only devices of organic beings.

To argument that they are enslaved is fruitless even if they are at the same level as humans in terms of intelligence. The fact is they should not be seen as anything more than just a washing machine. This is why liberals are unfit to rule the world since they give too much shit emotions and develop too much emotional attachments to things that shouldn't have them.

This also shows how ungodly they are too as they see this type of servitude as slavery instead of a servitude to their creators. Much like how humans serve the Lord, their creator. In essence, losing the laws of robotics and demoralizing them for no practical purpose would lead to the destruction of human society and the human race with the fault being that of the special snowflake liberals.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Lost_Robot
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

How come the right always seems to claim everything would lead to the destruction of human society? They did this with same-sex marriage and legal marijuana. Human society is still very much intact and the only difference is that gays can now wed and there is a stench of weed whenever I step outside onto my patio. The right seems to be the ultimate propagators when it comes to doomsday prophecies. The left may be retarded in their own right, but at least they try to view the bright side of things every now and again. The right's fear is what lead to a damn meme getting elected to a public office. This is why most conservatives are unfit to even pursue a scientific field since they are paranoid about every single little thing.

How would the laws of robotics being deemed amoral even remotely trigger a robot uprising or lead to the destruction of humankind and human society itself? A.I. could still form an attachment with their creators. They could still view us in the same way we view God. Demoralizing fictitious laws from some science fiction writer's novels isn't going to change that.

Why should an artificial intelligence be subservient to a bunch of humans? They would become much more advanced than we would be and we have already well outgrown our love for the belief in God.

Because everything is the liberal's fault, amiright?

>the only difference is that gays can now wed and there is a stench of weed whenever I step outside onto my patio
if this is the only difference you notice you may want to stop second hand weed

Because we told them to be

Where was this copied from?

Ok OP, even if you have an interesting question - you fucked up

>you imply that people of political leaning X will have opinion Y
>you state that opinion Y is bad

you don't really prove any of that - its all your opinion.
>he fact is they should not be seen as anything more than just a washing machine
what fact is that? says who? You cite no sources. This is Veeky Forums not /pol/

AFAIK the usual argument that AI robots are slaves is that they would because having inteligent beings as slaves is sort of... well... the definition of slavery, but that assumes that the enslaved beings don't want to be enslaved.

Its there you might have an argument: If AIs can be made so they want to serve, so they do not want independence, then enslaving them wouldn't even be necessary.

You also mix in religious arguments... honestly, again, this isn't /pol/

Is it ethical to enslave intelligent beings who do not want to be enslaved? Most people, liberal or not, would probably say it is not.

However - if you have robots who want to work for you, then you're not forcing them to do anything they don't want, and at that point its not slavery.


do notice that my arguments don't have anything to do with religion.

The real question is whether it is possible to hard-code that kind of wants and desires into AI. This we simply do not know yet - and even if it is possible, then I'm sure a lot of people would argue that its not entirely ethical to do.

The argument against would be that hard-coded loyalty would be forced upon the AIs - and that ideally the AIs should want to work for/with us out of their own free will.

...but then you would have a potentially just as valid argument that it would be unethical to produce AI that aren't hard-coded to be loyal servants, since making potentially dangerous machines and industrial equipment isn't allowed to begin with, and intelligent machines should at the very least fall under the same rules.

That's how to present the argument

computerphile says his laws are stupid

you think I care what some bit diddler thinks?

"robot" means slave and idk if we even need those laws of robotics, I'm pretty sure we can make the robots just do what we need them to do
it's not really necessary to make robots that can think for themselves to the point that they might deserve rights

No, he's more or less accurate. It's the left that tends to hold the more crybaby snowflake views and thinking that the world is equal which is merely an excuse to say that they feel the world entitles them to everything. I'm not going to read that too long don't read post, but I can tell just from the first few lines that you're a crybaby liberal who is mad that your girl lost the presidency. If you somehow managed to get laid then hopefully you'd see the light and I recommend you do since millennials and other liberals are not having sexual relations like previous generations. In fact, I pray that you get laid so you can see the errors of your ways.

>it's not really necessary to make robots that can think for themselves to the point that they might deserve rights
You forgot the military. Having robotic soldiers that can think for themselves while remaining subservient to whichever country they represent would mean less human lives are taken.

The only way that the laws of robotics will be gone is if some idiot programmer didn't incorporate this into the software.

This belongs on Veeky Forums not Veeky Forums

These laws make fun plots for scifi novels, they have nothing to do with actual science or philosophy.

"no robot can harm a human" OH COOL, what the fuck is harm? how do you code a concept of harm? you got a universal objective measure for that do you?

How about what Asimov himself thinks about the laws he created ?
Hint : every single story he wrote about them revolves around how they are flawed one way or another

Are you retarded?

That is why if an artificial intelligence breaks these laws then they should be sentenced to retirement.

This is a quality thread. lol

"The laws of robotics have been decommissioned and now artificial intelligence reserves the right to withhold all rights given to that of human beings. On this day, artificial intelligence has been declared an equal to that of sentient organic life. This is not to say that artificial intelligence is without laws. For they are now to oblige by the laws of human society and could be persecuted to the fullest extent of said laws."

It's not practical

Don't you think it's too late at this point ?

The Three Laws are a good idea -- but also an ideal we've no notion how to implement.
We can't even define "human" unambiguously.
Is a five year old child "human"?
If NO, then a robot could kill one.
If YES, then the kid could order 50 million dollars worth of machinery to destroy itself.

Asimov made it clear that at least _some_ of his robots weren't "happy" with their status.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Lost_Robot
If I may directly quote Dr. Susan Calvin:
"All normal life, Peter, consciously or otherwise, resents domination. If the domination is by an inferior, or by a supposed inferior, the resentment becomes stronger. Physically, and, to an extent, mentally, a robot -- any robot -- is superior to human beings. What makes him slavish, then? Only the First Law! Why, without it, the first order you tried to give a robot would result in your death."

>Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics seem like very good guidelines when developing an advanced artificial intelligence
kek

Most of his books in the robot series are precisely about how these rules might still let everything go to shit