Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "机器人三定律" in Chinese language version.
Last modified:
This is an exact transcription of the laws. They also appear in the front of the book, and in both places there is no "to" in the 2nd law.
“But you quote it in incomplete fashion. The Third Law is ‘A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.’ ” “Yes, Dr. Calvin. That is the Third Law in reality, but in my dream, the Law ended with the word ‘existence’. There was no mention of the First or Second Law.”
Chris Stokes, a philosopher at Wuhan University in China, says, “Many computer engineers use the three laws as a tool for how they think about programming.” But the trouble is, they don’t work.
He explains in an open-access paper:The First Law fails because of ambiguity in language, and because of complicated ethical problems that are too complex to have a simple yes or no answer.The Second Law fails because of the unethical nature of having a law that requires sentient beings to remain as slaves.The Third Law fails because it results in a permanent social stratification, with the vast amount of potential exploitation built into this system of laws.
Chris Stokes, a philosopher at Wuhan University in China, says, “Many computer engineers use the three laws as a tool for how they think about programming.” But the trouble is, they don’t work.
He explains in an open-access paper:The First Law fails because of ambiguity in language, and because of complicated ethical problems that are too complex to have a simple yes or no answer.The Second Law fails because of the unethical nature of having a law that requires sentient beings to remain as slaves.The Third Law fails because it results in a permanent social stratification, with the vast amount of potential exploitation built into this system of laws.
