• @then_three_more
    link
    English
    514 months ago

    It would technically be the fifth law.

    Zeroth Law - A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

    • pruwyben
      link
      fedilink
      English
      194 months ago

      But if you’re starting from zeroth it would be the fourth.

      • @olutukko
        link
        English
        84 months ago

        and with robots and computers it just makes sense to start with 0

        • @captainlezbian
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          It’s even better because

          Tap for spoiler

          A robot created the zeroth law to allow the killing of people to save humanity

          • @HessiaNerd
            link
            English
            34 months ago

            Only in the shitty movie. Not in the books.

            • @captainlezbian
              link
              English
              24 months ago

              Was there a movie? Mind you it’s been like 15 years since I read robots and empire but

              Tap for spoiler

              Allowing the earth to be radiation poisoned would kill people but force the humans off earth

              Like I’d love some good robots movies. Robots of Dawn would likely struggle with reception, and honestly so would Under the Naked Sun but Caves of Steel? Less so.

                • @captainlezbian
                  link
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  Why would anyone put will smith in this movie, or call it I, Robot, much less I have to assume they combined robots and empire with caves of steel and that’s a shit decision as well‽

    • YAMAPIKARIYA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      154 months ago

      May not injure you say. Can’t be injured if you’re dead. (P.S. I’m not a robot)

      • @samus12345
        link
        English
        84 months ago

        Pretty sure death qualifies as “harm”.

        • YAMAPIKARIYA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The sentence says “…or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” If they are dead due to the robots action it is technically within the rules.

          • @samus12345
            link
            English
            54 months 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
              14 months 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
                24 months ago

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

      • andrew_bidlaw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        The concept of death may be hard to explain because robots don’t need to run 24\7 in order to keep functioning. Until instructed otherwise,a machine would think a person with a cardiac arrest is safe to boot later.

        • @NABDad
          link
          English
          44 months ago

          Who can say that death is the injury? It could be that continued suffering would be an injury worse than death. Life is suffering. Death ends life. Therefore, death ends suffering and stops injury.

          • andrew_bidlaw
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I mean, this logic sounds not unlike mister Smith from The Matrix.

            'Why, mister Anderson' moment from The Matrix

      • @Mithre
        link
        English
        124 months ago

        Actually no! Lower numbered laws have priority over higher numbers, meaning that if they come into conflict the higher number law can be broken. While the first law says they can’t allow humans to come to harm, the zeroth law basically says that if it’s for the good of the species, they absolutely can kill or otherwise hurt individual humans.

          • Shimon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            94 months ago

            Yes! I think it is the second story in the book

        • VindictiveJudge
          link
          English
          44 months ago

          Law 0 is also a derived law rather than a programmed one. Robots with both the three laws and sufficient intelligence that are in a position where Law 1 becomes a catch 22 will tend to derive Law 0.

        • @HonoraryMancunian
          link
          English
          24 months ago

          Lower numbered laws have priority over higher numbers

          That means this is the negative first law

    • TheRealKuni
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      deleted by creator

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    474 months ago

    This just reminds me I’m mildly irritated that robots in fiction have glowing eyes so often. Light is supposed to go into eyes, not come out of them!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      264 months ago

      Robots or any part of an automated production line with a camera typically has a light as well to either see in low light conditions or to ensure it always sees with a similar amount of light hitting the lense.

      • @HessiaNerd
        link
        English
        44 months ago

        Also, a lot of the machine vision systems I’ve run up against use red light, but it is kind of complex. If they want to detect say blood, I think blue light would actually give better contrast for detection.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      244 months ago

      They addressed this on the Orville. The glowing dots were not eyes. The droid had sensors that did all the work. The “eyes” were an aesthetic addition.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “The last thing you need is more desert”

        Excuse me?!

        “As I cannot stutter, I must conclude that you heard me”

        Isaac is one of the best parts of that show lmao

    • Annoyed_🦀
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      I really like the design of Assaultron from Fallout 4, they didn’t have such issue because their eye is placed just above the glowy part, and the glowy part is the head laser that will one shot you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      So long as the light isn’t coming from BEHIND the lense then you can think of it being like a camera flash

      Or just think of it as the power indication LED being made stylish

    • @Ziglin
      link
      English
      24 months ago

      To be fair it makes it harder to tell where the cameras are pointed (assuming they’re not wide angle lenses and they’re trying to work similarly to humans)

    • @samus12345
      link
      English
      22
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “Come on, you can trust me. You’re thinking of the old red light Agimus. Blue light Agimus wants to help!”

  • @hperrin
    link
    English
    214 months ago
    self.setEyeColor(self.isGood() ? 'blue' : 'red');
    
    • @Ziglin
      link
      English
      184 months ago

      Ooh imagine the chaos at some executive meetings where everyone’s evil eyes are blinding eachother.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        124 months ago

        The intensity of the red light should be proportional to the level of evil. You could literally put solar panels in those meetings.

  • @gibmiser
    link
    English
    144 months ago

    Well, can’t argue that it’s not practical

  • @tulliandar
    link
    English
    94 months ago

    If they’re evil it presumably means they’re disobeying the first three laws… they may disobey the fourth law too to help cover their other crimes

    • In the movie the bad ones didn’t exactly disobey the laws, they merely found a loophole where by they can protect humans by taking over completely so “human error” couldn’t harm humans.