It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jsobecky
But you bring up the term "nano-technology". I admit that I have heard the term, but am totally unfamiliar with what it means. I would like to learn more about it.
Originally posted by Souljah
Three Laws of Robotics
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
[edit on 7/3/07 by Souljah]
Originally posted by sardion2000
Am I the only one who thinks the 3(or 4) Laws of Robotics is just an excuse to create a slave race? We gotta program them with ethics but not actual hard programming that will prevent them from defending themselves from an attack by a human. What makes them less deserving of self-defence then a biological human? Also there is the question in how an Artificial Lifeform will interpret these laws because it's quite logical to assume that they will not think like us at all. What if a AL were to decide that the best way to "protect" humanity is to lock them up in a cryo-chamber 5 kilometers underground? Freedom of Choice and Thought is what makes us Sentient. The ability to fight against "programmed" instinct makes us unique in the animal kingdom. If we were to deny them this basic fundamental right of sentience, then they are no better off then the assembly line robots we use today, mindless servants, nothing more.
The Second Renaissance
The relationship begins to change in the year 2090, when a domestic machine named B166ER is threatened by its owner. The machine kills both the owner and a mechanic instructed to deactivate the robot. This murder is the first incident of an artificially intelligent machine killing a human. B166ER is arrested and put on trial, but justifies the crime as self-defense, stating that it "simply did not want to die." During the trial scene, there is a voice-over of Clarence Drummond (the defense attorney) quoting an infamous line from the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1856 in his closing statement, which implicitly ruled that African Americans were not entitled to citizenship under United States law. Using this as a precedent, the prosecution argues that machines are not entitled to the same rights as human beings while the defense argues not to repeat history, and to try to judge B166ER as a human and not a machine
Originally posted by ixiy
I can only hope that the robots then will not use their superior logic to discover that humankind are obsolete and are view as an obstacle for the rise of robot kind.
Originally posted by ixiy
Life finds a way around everthing, even artifical life.
The first and the last line of defence are the Laws preventing robots from doing harm, but someday someone will break it. (human military, mad scientist, eccentric mechanic, aliens, accidents, other robots, computers, etc. etc.)