On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 09:37:32 -0400 The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It seems clear to me that when Asimov formulated the Three Laws, he > either failed to account for the possibility of legitimate cases for > robots injuring or otherwise harming humans (war, law enforcement, > private security, ...), or - and I think this is the more likely > scenario - was specifically trying to disallow any of those things > from ever being considered legitimate to have a robot do, either out > of philosophical objections or out of concern for the consequences > which could arise (in a robot-uprising sense, if nothing else) if > that door were once opened even a crack. On the other tentacle, the Good Doctor was well aware of, and got a lot of good stories out of, the problems associated with the Three Laws. "By the Asimov who made you, you're a better man than I, Hunk a Tin." -- Randall Garrett -- "When we talk of civilization, we are too apt to limit the meaning of the word to its mere embellishments, such as arts and sciences; but the true distinction between it and barbarism is, that the one presents a state of society under the protection of just and well-administered law, and the other is left to the chance government of brute force." - The Rev. James White, Eighteen Christian Centuries, 1889 Key fingerprint = 38DD CE9F 9725 42DD E29A EB11 7514 6D37 A332 10CB https://charlescurley.com
