Karl`s PC Help Forums

Police use Robot
LSemmens - 15-7-2016 at 13:00

to kill for the first time A good thing?

marymary100 - 15-7-2016 at 14:47

It's against the first law of AI so while I understand why we might think it is a good thing, it is a slippery slope.

LSemmens - 17-7-2016 at 09:06

Actually it's the first law of ROBOTICS, not AI. Devised by Isaac Asimov in1942

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws, also known as Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although they had been foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the 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 Laws.[1]


marymary100 - 17-7-2016 at 09:28

AI is a field of robotics. The same rules apply.

LSemmens - 17-7-2016 at 09:54

[pedant mode] That's like saying the laws against speeding only apply to red cars, because one was reported as having sped.

marymary100 - 17-7-2016 at 10:01


scholar - 18-7-2016 at 01:37

Originally posted by marymary100
AI is a field of robotics. The same rules apply.

The rules are part of the fictional universe of positronic brain pathways in robots.

I recall a science fiction story based on the premise that someone was foolish enough to try to actually program these laws into an actual robot. As a result, the robot in the story was completely unreliable.

In real life, robot missiles already are programmed to make adjustments to their trajectories en route, and they kill people who are at the target destination, without regard to whether the intent of the mission is to kill people or destroy structures or equipment.

LSemmens - 18-7-2016 at 03:41

Then point is that Police have used a remote control device to kill. Not, so much, as the fact that robots did the killing. We all know that there are plenty of automated devices used in warfare and has been since the first slingshot was used.

marymary100 - 18-7-2016 at 08:00

I suggest you watch the clip.

LSemmens - 18-7-2016 at 08:36

To Whom was your comment addressed, O'Mary?

Katzy - 18-7-2016 at 09:38

In a country that has more guns than people, I suspect the AI might be superior to that of the populace...


marymary100 - 18-7-2016 at 09:52

Originally posted by LSemmens
To Whom was your comment addressed, O'Mary?

All of you.

scholar - 18-7-2016 at 12:52

A robot is simply a tool. When lethal force is necessary, it looks like a good idea to me. I see no advantage to declaring the use of robots off limits in lethal situations.

Broadening the question: Is it useful for lawful authorities to generally ban the use of a lethal weapon to all, even themselves? We certainly benefited from agreements not to use poison gas in warfare, so long as all parties honored the agreement. But, it all falls apart when some do not enter the agreement, or break it.

Katzy - 19-7-2016 at 13:13

But, of course, lightbulbs, tennis balls, water guns and cans of soup are far more dangerous than assault rifles.

[bad img]http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/c028.gif[/bad img]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ann-coulter-piers-morgan-tennis-balls-more-dangerous-than-guns-good-morning-britain_uk_578 dd49ce4b069bdac5d2d89?utm_hp_ref=uk

marymary100 - 19-7-2016 at 13:18

America! America!
God save us all from thee,
And keep cops from the neighbour 'hood
From sea to shining sea!

Katzy - 19-7-2016 at 20:19

[bad img]http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/nodding.gif[/bad img]