• @samus12345
    link
    English
    51 month ago

    Oh, I see, you’re saying they can bypass “injure” and go straight to “kill”. Killing someone still qualifies as injuring them - ever heard the term “fatally injured”? So no, it wouldn’t be within the rules.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 month ago

      I think he’s referring to the absolutism of the programmatic “or” statement.

      The robot would interpret (cannot cause harm to humanity) or (through inaction allow harm to come to humanity). If either statement is true, then the rule is satisfied.

      By taking action in harming humans to death, the robot made true the second statement satisfying the rule as “followed”.

      While our meat brains can work out the meaning of the phrase, the computer would take it very literally and therefore, death to all humans!

      Furthermore, if a human comes to harm, they may have violated the second half of the first rule, but since the robot didn’t cause harm to the person, the first statement is true, therefore, death to all humans!

      • @samus12345
        link
        English
        21 month ago

        That works if you ignore the commas after “or” and “through inaction”, which does sound like a robot thing to do. Damn synths!

          • @samus12345
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            “Nor” would be more grammatically correct and clearer in meaning, too, since they’re actually telling robots what not to do.