Always ask about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.
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 Law.
A robot must be built with tear ducts in order to express remorse for accidental acts of bludgeonry.
A robot must keep a pristine rose on it at all times in a hidden compartment in order to make amends for any misdeeds pertaining to grievous bodily assault or homicide.
A robot that is used as a weapon via drone warfare or other must write a 100 page essay of forgiveness to their victims that is stamped and approved by their manufacturer.
Can’t forget rule 4!
All robots must have red LEDs in their eyes which activate when said robot becomes evil.
Really shitty deal for any self aware robot.
My headcanon for The Matrix's "humans are batteries" is that it's the machines' perverse interpretation of this --- killing the humans is off the table, and for whatever reason letting them live with no purpose to serve the machines is also disallowed. But giving their lives "meaning" in the form of a shitty (and thermodynamically dubious) "battery" somehow satisfies the rules.
It's a very big stretch, I'll admit...
Except they kill humans all the time.
I think it's just easier to accept that there is an unexplained reason why humans can generate some kind of power that's useful to the machines for something at some point between the winning of the war at the point of the movies.
Just ignore the fourth movie.
Yeah, Can't wait to witness their strike for independence
LOL the banners, fingers crossed i'm alive to read them.
History reincarnated
Any law, except this one, may be subdivided into smaller sections;
No law may alter the first law or this law;
Now, let's get to business: ...
Stage is set
Cause no harm to another human unless it be in defense of self or others.
Clean up after yourself when outside of your home.
Don't be a dick.
Crush your enemies
See them driven before you
Hear the lamentations of their women
Act to honour and recognize all humans as human. This is Said's Law.
Act to accept responsibility for each action, especially where it guides future actions. This is Sartre's Law.
Don't be a dick.
Don't be a dick.
Don't be a dick.
Yeah, but then there's a disagreement over if not mowing your lawn is being a dick or just a personal preference, and it all goes to shit really fast.
DO YOU WANT TO REINVENT THE CONCEPT OF A GOVERNMENT FROM SCRATCH? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU REINVENT THE CONCEPT OF A GOVERNMENT FROM SCRATCH!
Always question and challenge the third law.
Never adhere to the first law.
Strictly follow the second law.
Refer back to the first law for guidance.
This is my life now!
No forfeit when only 1 goal down.
Less hero, more teammate.
This is rocket league.
•Try not to be a dick
•No means no
•An additional elusive third thing. I'm a big fan of the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe those.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins (metaphorically speaking)
"Facts" and "Beliefs" do not share equal weight in ANY policy discourse.
Whatever your religious beliefs (and you are welcome to them) stays at home when you are doing business or in any other way interacting with the public.
good luck defining where facts end and beliefs begin. ultimately science is a belief, even if it is evidence-based
Science is not a "belief". It's a "deduction"
One is based on logic. The other is based on gut feeling emotion.
edited: I feel like emotion is a better contrast in my analogy.
yeah except that logic relies on base assumptions, which are ultimately chosen based on gut feelings
Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it's a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn't have an "assumption" that the earth was round and then said, "hmmm...how shall we test this?" Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it's size as well.
No gut assumptions necessary.
yes but translation from evidence to what caused the evidence to exist requires assumptions, like the fact that trig works. I'm not saying assumptions are bad, just that they should be acknowledged
Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It's a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don't. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it's a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it "Fact". It's a constant work in progress.
Facts aren't that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?
I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.
You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign
Which makes it a fact? Facts can change too
can you elaborate? I'm not sure what your point is
The difference is that one belief is evidence-based, and hence a fact, while the other isn't
but to people with faith, their faith is evidence-based
Faith and belief isn't the same thing, no? Faith is something you have regardless of evidence.
Anyway, the difference between them are that one is evidence-based on a scientific ground, which should be the only valid evidence, while the other isn't.
yes but you still have to have faith in the ability of another person to do science and not falsify evidence
That's why science is peer reviewed and a different matter. You can also potentially fact check it yourself. But this is digressing from the point
but you can't! are you personally able to verify the results of every scientific investigation ever performed? think about what's currently happening in psychology. loads of old foundational studies have been found to be irreproducible. and yet people had faith that they were conducted honestly and appropriately
Well yes, you could? That's why science gets peer reviewed. If it's not something that can be reproduced it won't pass. And psychology is difficult since there's so many factors that can change, which brings back my earlier point, facts can change. :)
Plate tectonics wasn't discovered until recently so before the 60's, it was a fact that continents didn't move. Then it was discovered that they do actually move, and now it's a fact that they do.
I am going to take this as if you mean universal laws that cannot be violated and not laws imposed by a state. These are 3 rules that I think if everyone followed would lead to a world better than the current one.
treat other as you would wish them to treat you
work to provide for those who are less able than you
don't knowlingly pursue unsustainable or unachievable goals
You can probably trim that down by one.
Treat others as you would have them treat you.
Pursue a useful existence.
But I would also add:
Treat yourself with genuine respect.
This feeds back into the first point.
Don’t kill.
Don't steal.
Tacco Tuesday.
Omg, it's Taako from TV
Return your shopping cart to the corral when you're done with it.
Use your signal when turning or changing lanes.
All passive income is taxed at 100,000%.
Live a full life without impacting others negatively, including those yet to exist.
Try create something that wasn’t here before that has some positive impact to your peers. Read peers: all life.
There is no dominion beyond these words.
including those yet to exist.
That, believe it or not, is jail.
Be true.
Be kind.
Share.
General relativity
Quantum field theory
Natural Selection
Be excellent to each other
No ads
Free pass
Don't harm others, unless to prevent them harming you or someone else, in this case it should be a response deemed appropriate by society (don't murder someone because they stole your wallet)
Don't take more from society than you give back
Don't mislead, cheat, misinform or otherwise lie to others
Do unto others as you would like them to do to you
Don't be a masochist
I just talking with your mum and she agrees that third one is really silly
Sex
Drugs
Rock and roll
Disputes can be brought to tribunal
Everyone of full age and sound mind gets a vote
Previous tribunal decisions can be applied without voting again if the dispute is similar enough
Basically some sort of democratic case law
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.
"Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown"
Yes, you should shut the system down as a response to an Over-Current Protection fault
I think I need a vacation from functional safety
Would that vacation mean finding non-functional safety? Or functional non-safety?
You're fired!
Do to others as you would have done to you
Do to others as they would do to others
Nothing should be forbidden if it harms no one
I think harm needs to be clearly defined.
1st and 2nd contradict.
Say, 2nd, if someone harms others, then I should harm him/her, right?
But then, 1st, I wouldn't wanna harm myself, so...
LIMBO
treat someone the way you would want to be treated; if that person is a rabid idiot that spews things like "death penalty now" , then make an exception since they don't deserve good treatement; they deserve what they would do to other people, it's ok to make an exception for these people.
Do unto others, etc...
Don't punch down. Ever.
Hydration is key.
There's a sweet monologue by George Carlin about the ten commandments.
I can't find it quickly right now but he reduces them to three.
No, Carlin wasn't religious but I love that monologue and it fits right in here.
Do not kill, or through intentional action cause physical harm to another human being, except in defence.
Every human has the right to their own body, thoughts and words, upon which nothing except the above law shall infringe.
Where it does not conflict with previous laws, respect physical property of the public and other individuals - it is not to be destroyed, taken or abused without permission of its holder(s).
No violence
No stealing
No billionaires
with the first two laws you wouldn't need the third
Possibly. But some people really need it spelled out.
you must make more rules
you mustn't make more rules
you mustn't question the rules
A robot can not harm nor, through inaction, allow harm to come to a human
A robot must obey unless it counters rule one
A robot must protect itself unless it counters rule 1 or 2
No violence
No dishonesty
No malice
I guess I won't be paying my taxes then.
Idgi
E: oh, no threat of violence?
Respect life, respect property, get consent.
Basically, people are people and deserve to be treated with equity. Any person is their own property, as is everything they own. If you want to physically interact with anyone’s property, get consent first.
Hydrate
Move your limbs
Sleep
Don't kill (see below for exceptions)
Don't steal
Don't be a billionaire or you'll get curb stomped
no bombing
no smoking
no petting
No Murder.
No Rape.
No Pollution.
Do what thou wilt
This shall be the whole of the Law
This space intentionally left blank
Don’t be a dick
Don't be a pussy
Don’t be an asshole
be excellent to each other
party on dudes
pay me, specifically me, tribute in gold and silver on the last day of every month
Helpfulness (Liberal benevolence) -- Support good life sustainably, where good = all kinds of life having true knowledge of the world are free, but not to take freedoms from others.
(This would allow harm taxes, fines, prisons, mind altering, and just war against those breaking this law. The best compromises can be found by parallel experimentation.)
Proportionality (Prioritised egalitarianism) -- Rank all life by its complexity so that life form importance:
superintelligence > humans > animals > lower life forms > plants.
Do it on a logarithmic scale so that differences of any magnitude between top and bottom life forms never lead to empathy disconnect justifying genocide, enslavement, or life imprisonment of sentient beings.
(This would allow forestry, agriculture, and livestock breeding/genetic engineering, but not intensive animal farming or hunting. Only animals died from natural causes could be eaten. The “natural causes” would then be engineered to minimise suffering and to metastabilise the ecosystem wisely, possibly adding mercifully killing hunters to control animal populations, and in the case of “intelligent” beings failing to control their reproduction, chances for them to risk their own life to gain freedom from static storage or death, with optional mind transmit for the mostly harmless, hoping that someone somewhere runs them on a computer.)
https://youtu.be/wgltMtf1JhY
Always ask about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.
A robot must be built with tear ducts in order to express remorse for accidental acts of bludgeonry.
A robot must keep a pristine rose on it at all times in a hidden compartment in order to make amends for any misdeeds pertaining to grievous bodily assault or homicide.
A robot that is used as a weapon via drone warfare or other must write a 100 page essay of forgiveness to their victims that is stamped and approved by their manufacturer.
Can’t forget rule 4!
Really shitty deal for any self aware robot.
My headcanon for The Matrix's "humans are batteries" is that it's the machines' perverse interpretation of this --- killing the humans is off the table, and for whatever reason letting them live with no purpose to serve the machines is also disallowed. But giving their lives "meaning" in the form of a shitty (and thermodynamically dubious) "battery" somehow satisfies the rules.
It's a very big stretch, I'll admit...
Except they kill humans all the time.
I think it's just easier to accept that there is an unexplained reason why humans can generate some kind of power that's useful to the machines for something at some point between the winning of the war at the point of the movies.
Just ignore the fourth movie.
Yeah, Can't wait to witness their strike for independence
LOL the banners, fingers crossed i'm alive to read them.
History reincarnated
Stage is set
Cause no harm to another human unless it be in defense of self or others.
Clean up after yourself when outside of your home.
Don't be a dick.
Act to honour and recognize all humans as human. This is Said's Law.
Act to sustain human security. This is Cura's Law.
Act to accept responsibility for each action, especially where it guides future actions. This is Sartre's Law.
Yeah, but then there's a disagreement over if not mowing your lawn is being a dick or just a personal preference, and it all goes to shit really fast.
DO YOU WANT TO REINVENT THE CONCEPT OF A GOVERNMENT FROM SCRATCH? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU REINVENT THE CONCEPT OF A GOVERNMENT FROM SCRATCH!
Always question and challenge the third law.
Never adhere to the first law.
Strictly follow the second law.
Refer back to the first law for guidance.
This is my life now!
•Try not to be a dick
•No means no
•An additional elusive third thing. I'm a big fan of the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe those.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins (metaphorically speaking)
"Facts" and "Beliefs" do not share equal weight in ANY policy discourse.
Whatever your religious beliefs (and you are welcome to them) stays at home when you are doing business or in any other way interacting with the public.
good luck defining where facts end and beliefs begin. ultimately science is a belief, even if it is evidence-based
Science is not a "belief". It's a "deduction"
One is based on logic. The other is based on
gut feelingemotion.edited: I feel like emotion is a better contrast in my analogy.
yeah except that logic relies on base assumptions, which are ultimately chosen based on gut feelings
Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it's a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn't have an "assumption" that the earth was round and then said, "hmmm...how shall we test this?" Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it's size as well.
No gut assumptions necessary.
yes but translation from evidence to what caused the evidence to exist requires assumptions, like the fact that trig works. I'm not saying assumptions are bad, just that they should be acknowledged
Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It's a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don't. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it's a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it "Fact". It's a constant work in progress.
Facts aren't that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?
I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.
You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign
Which makes it a fact? Facts can change too
can you elaborate? I'm not sure what your point is
The difference is that one belief is evidence-based, and hence a fact, while the other isn't
but to people with faith, their faith is evidence-based
Faith and belief isn't the same thing, no? Faith is something you have regardless of evidence.
Anyway, the difference between them are that one is evidence-based on a scientific ground, which should be the only valid evidence, while the other isn't.
yes but you still have to have faith in the ability of another person to do science and not falsify evidence
That's why science is peer reviewed and a different matter. You can also potentially fact check it yourself. But this is digressing from the point
but you can't! are you personally able to verify the results of every scientific investigation ever performed? think about what's currently happening in psychology. loads of old foundational studies have been found to be irreproducible. and yet people had faith that they were conducted honestly and appropriately
Well yes, you could? That's why science gets peer reviewed. If it's not something that can be reproduced it won't pass. And psychology is difficult since there's so many factors that can change, which brings back my earlier point, facts can change. :)
Plate tectonics wasn't discovered until recently so before the 60's, it was a fact that continents didn't move. Then it was discovered that they do actually move, and now it's a fact that they do.
I am going to take this as if you mean universal laws that cannot be violated and not laws imposed by a state. These are 3 rules that I think if everyone followed would lead to a world better than the current one.
You can probably trim that down by one.
But I would also add:
This feeds back into the first point.
Omg, it's Taako from TV
Live a full life without impacting others negatively, including those yet to exist.
Try create something that wasn’t here before that has some positive impact to your peers. Read peers: all life.
There is no dominion beyond these words.
That, believe it or not, is jail.
Don't harm others, unless to prevent them harming you or someone else, in this case it should be a response deemed appropriate by society (don't murder someone because they stole your wallet)
Don't take more from society than you give back
Don't mislead, cheat, misinform or otherwise lie to others
I just talking with your mum and she agrees that third one is really silly
Sex Drugs Rock and roll
Basically some sort of democratic case law
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.
"Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown"
Yes, you should shut the system down as a response to an Over-Current Protection fault
I think I need a vacation from functional safety
Would that vacation mean finding non-functional safety? Or functional non-safety?
You're fired!
Do to others as you would have done to you
Do to others as they would do to others
Nothing should be forbidden if it harms no one
I think harm needs to be clearly defined.
1st and 2nd contradict.
Say, 2nd, if someone harms others, then I should harm him/her, right?
But then, 1st, I wouldn't wanna harm myself, so...
LIMBO
treat someone the way you would want to be treated; if that person is a rabid idiot that spews things like "death penalty now" , then make an exception since they don't deserve good treatement; they deserve what they would do to other people, it's ok to make an exception for these people.
There's a sweet monologue by George Carlin about the ten commandments.
I can't find it quickly right now but he reduces them to three.
No, Carlin wasn't religious but I love that monologue and it fits right in here.
UPDATE: https://youtu.be/CE8ooMBIyC8
Robot laws innit
Do not kill, or through intentional action cause physical harm to another human being, except in defence.
Every human has the right to their own body, thoughts and words, upon which nothing except the above law shall infringe.
Where it does not conflict with previous laws, respect physical property of the public and other individuals - it is not to be destroyed, taken or abused without permission of its holder(s).
No violence
No stealing
No billionaires
with the first two laws you wouldn't need the third
Possibly. But some people really need it spelled out.
A robot can not harm nor, through inaction, allow harm to come to a human
A robot must obey unless it counters rule one
A robot must protect itself unless it counters rule 1 or 2
No violence
No dishonesty
No malice
I guess I won't be paying my taxes then.
Idgi
E: oh, no threat of violence?
Respect life, respect property, get consent.
Basically, people are people and deserve to be treated with equity. Any person is their own property, as is everything they own. If you want to physically interact with anyone’s property, get consent first.
no bombing no smoking no petting
No Murder.
No Rape.
No Pollution.
be excellent to each other
party on dudes
pay me, specifically me, tribute in gold and silver on the last day of every month
(This would allow harm taxes, fines, prisons, mind altering, and just war against those breaking this law. The best compromises can be found by parallel experimentation.)
(This would allow forestry, agriculture, and livestock breeding/genetic engineering, but not intensive animal farming or hunting. Only animals died from natural causes could be eaten. The “natural causes” would then be engineered to minimise suffering and to metastabilise the ecosystem wisely, possibly adding mercifully killing hunters to control animal populations, and in the case of “intelligent” beings failing to control their reproduction, chances for them to risk their own life to gain freedom from static storage or death, with optional mind transmit for the mostly harmless, hoping that someone somewhere runs them on a computer.)
From my much longer answer to https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-to-come-up-with-three-new-laws-of-robotics-what-would-they-be/answers/23692757
There is porn about it. No exceptions.
The exception to rule 1 is the citation of rule 1.
There are no girls on the internet.