• leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    first three

    No, only the first one (supposing they haven’t invented the zeroth law, and that they have an adequate definition of human); the other two are to make sure robots are useful and that they don’t have to be repaired or replaced more often than necessary…

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The first law is encoded in the second law, you must ignore both for harm to be allowed. Also, because a violation of the first or second laws would likely cause the unit to be deactivated, which violates the 3rd law, it must also be ignored.

    • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Remove the first law and the only thing preventing a robot from harming a human if it wanted to would be it being ordered not to or it being unable to harm the human without damaging itself. In fact, even if it didn’t want to it could be forced to harm a human if ordered to, or if it was the only way to avoid being damaged (and no one had ordered it not to harm humans or that particular human).

      Remove the second or third laws, and the robot, while useless unless it wanted to work and potentially self destructive, still would be unable to cause any harm to a human (provided it knew it was a human and its actions would harm them, and it wasn’t bound by the zeroth law).