"As for safety, the software in the robot, which could not be altered or replaced without triggering a burnout of the robot itself, would never obey an order that had any reasonable probability of endangering others." (p. 225)
Here is a faint echo of Isaac Asimov's future history in a later Poul Anderson future history. What a long way we have come from I, Robot. Indeed, the title story of Robot Dreams is one of three alternative culminations of Asimov's Robot stories. And Anderson's inclusion of the term, "software," reflects the distance that has meanwhile been travelled in the real world with computer technology.
Sf is one long discussion of ideas and extrapolations. And, so far, Anderson's Genesis, published appropriately in 2000, is one culmination of sf.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm skeptical about the plausibility of any Asimovian Three Laws of Robotics. Any machine that uses computer software can be programmed by its maker to do whatever he wants it to do, including deliberate harm to others.
Ad astra! Sean
The first extensive use of robots will probably be in military contexts -- which make "not harming others" very, very, very unlikely. Robots are just tools, and weapons were the first tools.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Humans being what they are, we have to expect all tools to have military applications.
Strictly speaking, however, the first extensive use of robots began decades ago, for industrial purposes, robots being used for repetitive tasks.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I was thinking of autonomous, AI robots.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I think the Ukraineians are pioneering in the military uses of autonomous robots, missiles, drones, etc., in the war against Russia. Nothing like having a war to really concentrate one's mind on how best to win it!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup. As a matter of fact, they'd been staging ground attacks by remotely 'nudged' robots lately, too. Massed formations are definitely out.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Good, Russia deserves to be beaten back and defeated. I recall you discussing in 2022 how Russia has a stupid command and control set up.
I think the future of warfare lies in the skilled use of advanced tech by relatively small units for ground operations. Backed up by reserves, when necessary.
Ad astra! Sean
I think the future of warfare lies in us abolishing it and using advanced tech to enhance life.
Paul: well, there's absolutely no sign that war will ever be abolished. And anyone who gives up the capacity to make war is holding up a sign: EXTERMINATE/ENSLAVE ME.
The solution obviously is not for one country to disarm totally while others remain armed but that does not mean that nothing can be done to oppose warmongering and the arms trade. I think that the latter must be done for the long term development and survival of mankind.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Far more likely the future of warfare is that it will continue to exist--unless a world state unifies Earth and monopolizes the means of violence. Futilities like bemoaning the arms trade will do squat to abolish war. I will continue to agree with Anderson and Stirling.
Mr. Stirling: I could quibble and argue small states like the curious co-principality of Andorra might continue to exist because nobody fears or covets it enough to gobble it up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We do not know what is most likely - unless it is imminent destruction. I am talking about possibilities, not probabilities.
"Futilities like bemoaning..." The arms trade is an abomination. You express contempt towards anyone who looks forward. Of course you will continue to agree with another point of view! That is obvious and does not need to be said.
Paul.
Paul: note that the arms trade needs people who want to -buy- arms.
Oh, yes.
Kaor, Paul!
If I "sound" angry and impatient it's because I am. My attitude is like what Dominic Flandry often felt like: frustration and anger at wishful thinking, short-sightedness, purblind denial of hard facts and dangers, etc.
The arms trade is not always an abomination. I'm dang glad the US is able to arm and equip its armed forces so well and quickly. Fear of the power and might of America helps immensely to keep savages and tyrants in check.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Enemies of the US are no more savages than the US sometimes is. The arms trade is always an abomination and we, the people of the whole world, urgently need to move towards a world without it.
Short-sightedness? I look far into possible futures which can be very good or very bad. Your opinions are not hard facts. To disagree with opinions is not to deny facts. It is a fact that society has changed and that we CAN change it a lot more either for good or for bad. It will NOT remain as it is. That is an optical illusion.
The US backs tyrants. You want to keep in check only those tyrants who oppose your side.
A discussion has to start from the recognition that each side has a point of view with reasons for it. I could talk about "purblind denial of hard facts and dangers" but I see no point in that! I am sometimes impatient with repetition.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good! I'm glad there are times, often after too lengthy intervals, the US smashes its enemies. I wish the UK was still strong and tough enough to do so as well. There is no "...people of the whole world." We have peoples, tribes, nations. And it's going to stay that way till somebody unifies Earth.
I don't care if the US sometimes finds it necessary to support tyrants. I am also not forgetting how often people with your POV have also supported tyrants. I still remember with disgust how leftists were praising Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as they took over Cambodia in 1975. And how soon they showed their true and hideous faces. I can list other tyrants leftists supported or made excuses for.
A world in which the US did not exist, or was far smaller and weaker, or retreated into an isolationist "festung Amerika," would be a far worse and vastly more dangerous world. Nazi Germany might still exist, the USSR might be conquering the world, jihadist armies might be invading everywhere, etc.
I too can attempt looking far into the future--and I am more skeptical than some. My views of what those possible futures can be is based on what I believe a solidly backed view: human beings are not going to change the ways you hope they will. Because I don't believe mere technological changes are going to change what human beings are innately like.
I have never tried to stop you from advocating your preferred beliefs. Hence, I see no reason for you to sometimes write "A discussion has to start from the recognition that each side has a point of view with reasons for it."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You oppose tyrants except the ones that the US supports? I have never supported a tyrant. What is my POV? It is one that opposes all tyrants.
The UK strong enough to join an attack on Iran? Fortunately not.
Human beings have changed the world and themselves and CAN change in the way I want them to. You do not know what will or will not happen. Of course we have people of the whole world and they need to move away from the world in which the US exists. There are Russians who oppose Putin, Americans who oppose Trump, Iranians who opposed the Shah and oppose the Ayatollahs and many Jews who oppose Zionism and Israel. All these people need to come together.
You have used the phrase, "denial of facts." That is not recognition of a contrary point of view with reasons for it. Stopping somebody from advocating his beliefs is not the issue.
Paul.
Post a Comment