From: Charles Hixson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2010 - 13:29:59 MST
Asimov's three laws are actually a lousy starting point. That was, sort
of, the point of the stories in "I, Robot". They're easy to say in
English, but don't really have any definite meaning.
OTOH, they are a great thing to keep in the back of one's mind while
trying to decide if something is a reasonable construct.
On 11/13/2010 08:27 PM, Piaget Modeler wrote:
> Would Asimov's three laws be an easier starting point?
> If not, why not?
> > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:20:07 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [sl4] Simple friendliness: plan B for AI
> > From: email@example.com
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Alexei Turchin
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > 3) AI must comply with all existing CRIMINAL an CIVIL laws. These
> laws are
> > > the first attempt to create a friendly AI – in the form of state.
> That is an
> > > attempt to describe good, safe human life using a system of rules. (Or
> > > system of precedents). And the number of volumes of laws and their
> > > interpretation speaks about complexity of this problem - but it
> has already
> > > been solved and it is not a sin to use the solution.
> > Most states in human history, including most now existing, are pretty
> > much the definition of *un*friendly. That there has never been a case
> > yet where people's rule-of-thumb attempts to "describe good, safe
> > human life using a system of rules" haven't led to the death,
> > imprisonment and in many cases torture of many, many people, seems to
> > me one of the stronger arguments against a rule-based system.
> > --
> > http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/andrew1308 - buy my books
> > The National Pep - Pop Music to hurt you forever -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT