Should real robots obey Asimov's Laws?

[Nate the Great]

This is a fairly simple poll. Ever since Asimov created the Laws, scifi authors and fans everywhere have jumped on them as being "definative" or "mandatory" for modern robotics. However, we all know that such codified directives are hardly required. So, the question is, should we add them to robots when/if we get to the point that there are robots "smart" enough to understand and obey them?

Yeah, this is a topic designed for controversy, but I think that Doctor Who has been hogging the spotlight in this forum long enough.

[e of pi]

Are the Laws a good concept? Yes. Are they a good set of basic guidlines? Yeah. Are they perfect or the best? No. They're too simple, as seen in I, Robot and other areas, to allow full trust. More practical, but less explicitly statable or imaginable laws will be more likely.

[mudshark]

A requirement? No. They may not be preferable, or even practical, for that matter, but I think that the general notion of "laws of robotics" bears consideration.

Even though Asimov coined the word (in 1940, according to one dictionary), he would have been the first to point out that he himself was not a roboticist. He reasoned, though, that robots, beyond a certain level of sophistication, could not be programmed with every eventuality anticipated -- it was far too complicated -- and that they would need to have some set of rules for working out, independently, just what to do in an unforeseen circumstance. They needed to be able to think something through, and needed to know where the lines were... what was in-bounds and what was not.

His Three (or four) Laws of Robotics fulfilled a literary function. I think it likely that real roboticists will have to design in -- perhaps are beginning to do so already -- a comparable set of rules that, while they may bear little or no actual resemblance to Asimov's, will fulfill the practical equivalent of that function.

[Hejira]

I think if we get to the point where AI really is I, then morals should be taught to them, as they are to humans.

Yes, we have scumbag humans, but that doesn't stop us making more humans.

[MaverickZer0]

No. Setting guidelines like that will only eliminate the reaches of the AI. If you want to limit them, do so physically--give them only the strength of an adult human, say--rather than mentally by set parameters. They should learn morals like anyone else. And if they go psycho, we can lock them away in a capsule for 30 years with ethical sims running in their head.

But the Three Laws, when you look at them, are not practical. What if one human is in danger from another one, and you cannot shield the one in danger? The only option is to diasble the attacker, but under Asimov's three (though not the fourth) the robot would freeze. And then, what if many robots were in danger from a human, a fanatic or something? What then? Or many animals?

You can't cut everything down so simply. Asimov's Laws work well for Asimov's writing. In the real world, we'd need different limits; hence limiting physical strength. I hesitate to suggest we limit their intelligence as well, because that would be what they were for and unfair, but possibly that would only be when the robot seemed to be a danger.

[Nate the Great]

Uh, even human strength can be quite dangerous when coupled with the proper weapon and intelligence behind it.

I think that the key here is the question "how many tasks that we would want robots to do really require anything even remotely close to human intelligence?" I can't think of one. Hence any programmed moral code would be unnecessary.

As for the robot that can't shield the human, it's simple enough to add "if you can't protect one human without hurting another, just do nothing."

[MaverickZer0]

Agreed. But if not given a reason to do so, a large intellect will not rebel, knowing nothing could be accomplished. Robots are less likely to warmonger than humans, not more.

In which case, you're once again limiting an AI's capabilities. Limiting their possibilities in a way you could not do with a human. I am talking about possibly-sentient robots here, not factory-line workers that need only guidelines.

Limiting again. It's also saying to the human in danger, if you don't care about the robot, 'tough luck, it's just your time, though there is someone who could get you out of it right there'.