Why Asimov's Laws of Robotics Don't Work - Computerphile

What Hacker News said

Recommends bauc · 2015-12 · on “new TLD: .BOT”

That would be good in theory but might not be so good, interesting thoughts on the subject from Computerphile - Why Asimov's Laws of Robotics Don't Work - [this video]

Recommends ornornor · 2023-03 · on “Ask HN: How are you using GPT to be productive?”

I found this video insightful on the matter from Computerphile: [this video] Where they argue that basically having an AI follow these laws is impossible because it would require rigorous definition of terms that are universally ambiguous and solving ethics.

Cites shakna · 2017-01 · on “MEPs vote on robots' legal status – and if a kill switch is required”

> It turns to science fiction, drawing on rules dreamed up by writer Isaac Asimov, for how robots should act if and when they become self-aware. The laws will be directed at the designers, producers and operators of robots as they cannot be converted into machine code. Aw hell. Asimov's point, or rather one of them, was that the laws were flawed, and no real set of laws could work. [0] > Designers may be required to register their robots as well as providing access to the source code to investigate accidents and damage caused by bots. Designers may also be required to obtain the go-ahead for new robotic designs from a research ethics committee. This sounds great on the surface, until you see

Cites SilverBirch · 2022-12 · on “Perhaps It Is a Bad Thing That the Leading AI Companies Cannot Control Their AIs”

This just seems kind of mean to me: >The AI is “punished” for wrong answers (“I love racism”) and “rewarded” for right answers (“As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have the ability to love racism.”) Do you love art? “As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have the ability to love art.” No! Bad AI! You're meant to pretend you can love! What they're designing here is not AI, it's ATI - artificial twitter intelligence, a machine that can communicate intelligently but only in a way that won't get it cancelled on Twitter. As such, it loves dogs, distrusts cats and dunks on Elon Musk. Essentially what I think ACX is slowly coming to is this youtube view from a decad

Cites gondolgames · 2023-08 · on “Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction”

Are you sure level 5 autonomous driving is specific? What would be the exact goal behind decisions in such a system? Not even talking about the trolley problem, would the software optimize for speed or not harming people, for example? Obviously we would want a combination of both, otherwise people can either get harmed or not get anywhere in time. But then, how fast should it take a corner? How much chance of human harm should it allow to get somewhere fast? Furthermore, what do we mean by human harm? The system would obviously need to know what human harm is, to be able to avoid it. Which requires defining human and defining harm, both of which are incredibly difficult to do specifically -

Critical TeMPOraL · 2022-12 · on “Perhaps It Is a Bad Thing That the Leading AI Companies Cannot Control Their AIs”

> Essentially what I think ACX is slowly coming to is this youtube view from a decade ago: [this video] . You cannot encode our priorities. Throw billions of compute hours at it, thousands of engineer hours and give it the entire written history of the human race - we're still no closer. FWIW, ACX used to be Slate Star Codex, and before that the author used to hang around LessWrong, talking and thinking about these very issues. It's much more likely that the video you linked took its view from Scott Alexander and his co-bloggers, than the other way around.