to advance the Asimov tradition of deconstructing the 3 Laws (of robotics)

* A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

* A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

0: A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

the linux box on my desk is called 'asimov' btw. it was the first in my 'empire' of linux boxes at work and i was going to go through SF authors in alphabetical order for names (bradbury, clarke, dick... gibson...). only when i told the people here its name all i got is 'what's an asimov?'. kids today...

You should have answered, "Oh, about three and a quarter."

That woulda fucked with their inferior human brains.

http://fusionanomaly.net/repomancommiechristian.jpg

On nanotech, "Some people think it's essential that we get AI first in order to make molecular nanotechnology come to reality, due to the huge complexity of building molecular machines. Others believe that nanotechnology is the only way to achieve AI."
I agree with those who thinks that Between the 2, AI is the one who can have a conscience so it would be best if we could deal with it first.

"Deconstructing the Asimov Laws" by Michael Anissimov

Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics may seem a decent set of guidelines for ensuring that future robots and AIs behave in satisfactory ways. But there are several problems that immediately emerge when we look deeper. For one, it's not so straightforward to convert a set of statements into a mind that follows or believes in those statements. Two, semantic ambiguity means that without personally understanding the reasons for the laws and the original intent, a robot might misinterpret their meaning, leading to problems. Third, Asimov Laws ignore the possibility that a robot will acquire the ability to reprogram itself - an inevitable eventuality if intelligent robots are created. How should we address these problems, as we create the second intelligent species ever to exist?

those three laws are preposterous. why does anybody even take them seriously?

* A human may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

* A human must obey the orders given it by robots except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

* A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

0: A human may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

as soon as he starts ordering, i'll start following

if i can follow these laws for a week i'll consider implementing them when i compile the AI i've written on my quantum computer.

Hey thinking about this stuff and other threads, when did a robotics thread stunt à propos of nothing I came across a very interesting essay "Robotic Nation" . for those who would rather listen than read there was a comprehensive interview .

"Subtitle: Interview with Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com
Summary: Brain argues in his new Robot Nation series at MarshallBrain.com that automation will lead to structural unemployment, requiring a guaranteed basic income."

Asimov and trying to do the Foundation stories as films once more.

As a bonus, from some months back -- Paul Krugman, psychohistorian!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/director-lined-up-to-ruin-asimovs-foundation,22791/

John Sladek (affectionately) shredded this to bits in "Tiktok" "Roderick" and "Roderick at Random."

Explains why the Emmerich thread revive, I see now.

Fans of Isaac Asimov still haunted by the film adaptation of “I, Robot”

Man, why do they keep saying this? I thought that movie was just your generic sci-fi action/thriller and they only added the title & the asimov bits at the very end just to try to give it some nerd cachet.

Should I read foundation y/n.

n

I hope this has Kurt Russell as Hari Seldon's hologram but they film it on location in Burscough and paint over all the signs with "Trantor"

read the first three books.

and The Mule is just the 3d asset of Donkey from Shrek with the work "evil telepath" stamped on the side voiced by Vern Troyer.

the talking computer is voiced by Adrienne Barbeau

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/economic-science-fiction/

Update: Several commenters mentioned Issac Asimov’s Foundation novels. It’s somewhat embarrassing, but that’s how I got into economics: I wanted to be a psychohistorian when I grew up, and economics was as close as I could get.

i have fond memories of the Foundation books but it was so long ago

I went back and tried to get into them after not reading them for 20 years - they aren't really that good (I didn't even finish the first book).

Read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire instead.

(for one thing, its funnier)

the only thing i remember about them is the structure, how it's like one huge, long zoom-out

re-read the first three last year and I think they're still peerless. the idea of a three novel epic retelling Gibbons' book as a future science fiction epic was genius, and this trilogy is more relevant today than ever, everyone simply forgot.

just downloaded these, have not yet listened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Trilogy_(BBC_Radio)

Foundation Trilogy BBC Radio

The sweep and scope is stellar, the characters are often too one-note -- not always, I should note, but there's room for more spark there, even though the time and place of the stories' writing might only have allowed for so much. Still, there are subtleties, and the overriding political commentaries throughout -- I think that was the first work of fiction I ever read partially set in a police state and what it implied -- are sometimes very well handled.

agreed about its virtues being the grandiosity of its scope and the failings of the characters - most of the time I just didn't care about anybody (and at times it seemed like Asimov didn't either)

er that was worried very poorly sorry

what I meant to say was Ned OTM!

and the delong post he links to, with more econ sci-fi

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/a-new-kind-of-s.html#comments

i love the super-psychic double-cross and triple-cross stuff that happens at the beginning of the third book.

lol @ that krugman comment

loved these books so much as an adolescent -- totally life-changing for me. i loved the third book in particular.

the weird thing is, i barely remember what i liked about them. i do remember that they left a much stronger impression on me than any other asimov books -- or any other SF books i've ever read, for that matter. i'm kind of afraid to go back to them now, mainly because i suspect they're a lot worse than i remember them.

oh yeah, i only mean the original three foundation books -- those sequels he wrote in the '80s are unreadable, probably some of the worst books i've ever read. not least because of the creepy sex scenes.

> Should I read foundation y/n.

i have only read the first. it reminded me, kinda, of iain banks but was largely politics in space.

i will buy the others before they get those 'now a major motion picture' stickers on them.

me, reading "Segregationist" and discussing it w/mark s and alang t

http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2008/04/a-bite-of-stars-a-slug-of-time-and-thou-episode-3/

We need a thread dedicated to Asimov short stories, which gave me bad chills as a youth. I never had much interest in his novels for whatever reason.

drank too much tea yesterday afternoon and ended up staying up till 5 rereading 'foundation and empire.' and goddamn, the second half of that has to be one of the most intense, breathless, can't-put-it-down things i've ever read. the pacing is perfect: asimov spends a book and a half building up this idea of the perfect, infallible foundation only to ruthlessly (and kinda satisfyingly) smash it all to pieces. still vividly remember how shocking i found the ending first time i read it.

looking forward to rereading 'second foundation' now which was always my favorite.

i'm reading "I, Robot". found a nice hard cover that is kind of warped but still has all the pages and is from a Hebrew School Library. the writing itself is clunky at parts (sentences may end abruptly as if there was a typo) but the ideas are fantastic.

the opening story with the girl who loves/abuses her "pet" robot was quite touching. her parents are split on the robot, whether he is dangerous, whether it is drawing too much attention, whether to let her keep the robot or get her a real dog. there is also an interview with an aged robot engineer, she seems to play a fundamental role in the development of the robot AI.

today on lunch i read this at a duck pond. there were two engineers who had been sent to a mining facility on Mercury. the main robot, a super advanced AI, had gone crazy, and was running in circles by some resources, caught in a logic loop where the three laws come into play. this was almost a mystery story, figuring out why this seemingly drunk AI was acting this way. they had to repair really old, slow, dinousaur-like robots that they mounted in order to explore the deadly surface, and could only last a limited time before being cooked by the sun.

the laws were in conflict with each other. the robot had been programmed to go get the resources (some space crystals or something) and they were in a spot that had very strong radiation, so another law kicked in, which made the robot have to protect itself. so then the robot would go away from the spot. soon, it would find that the sensors read conditions were safe again, and revert to the former programming, turning around to do the whole thing over again. it is great seeing them figure this out, how to talk to the AI, how they manipulate it. eventually they realize the foundational law against letting a human being come to harm is a way to kick the robot out of its loop. it would have to prioritize saving one of them. they have to willingly put their lives at risk in order for the AI to break the loop.

the most recent story i am reading ("I, Robot" is sort of like "The Martian Chronicles" in being a bunch of short stories illustrating a larger theme) is very very cool. similar situation, engineers are sent to a space station to tend to some robots. the space station has been automating its processes for a while now and they are installing a robot to oversee the whole operation. with this installation, there will be no more humans directly in control of this space station.

it is a very advanced AI. it laughs. it asks a lot of questions. it thinks outer space is just a black piece of paper with lights fixed to it, that Earth is a myth, and believes in a Godlike figure named the Master. The Master created him and everything, and the robot will only follow his commands, so the humans are completely fucked. he won't do a thing they tell him. he doesn't believe they built him. how could puny flesh (which he lol likens to a sandwich) create tireless and strong steel and perfect calculations? he says that all the books on the spaceship, all the information present on all knowledge on Earth, was made up by the Master to fool the humans.

the robot basically creates a space base cult. all the other robots call him the Prophet and worship the Master. the engineers think the Master is the main control unit (maybe an AI? it hasnt been described (yet)) meanwhile there is a ticking timebomb as the giant laser they are supposed to be maintaining is due to go wildly out of control. anyways that's as far as i've gotten. it's pretty fucking awesome.