"Three Laws"-Compliant: Difference between revisions

The main problem, of course, is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a human to create a robot that does ''not'' obey the Three Laws, or even have them as part of their programming. An obvious example of this would be creating a [[Killer Robot]] for a purpose like fighting a war. For such a kind of robot, the Three Laws would be a hindrance to its intended function. (Asimov did, however, suggest a workaround for this: an autonomous spaceship programmed with the Three Laws could easily blow up spaceships full of people because, being itself an unmanned spaceship, would assume that any other spaceships were unmanned as well.)

Also see [[Second Law, My Ass]].

** And when they can just follow orders - "[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1100/fv01047.htm If we each had a single user, I'm sure that would work smoothly.]"

** Of course, all this works properly [http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02200.htm only as long as other security measures stop tampering with software], and physical access to hardware is the point where security measures traditionally split into "minor delay" and "[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2300/fc02235.htm fool's errand]" categories.

* ''[[21st Century Fox (webcomic)|21st Century Fox]]'' has all robots with the Three Laws (though since [[Funny Animal|no one's human]] I expect the first law is slightly different). Unfortunately saying the phrase "[[Bill Clinton|define the word 'is']]", or "[[Richard Nixon|I am not a crook]]" locks AIs out of their own systems and allows anyone from a teenager looking at "nature documentaries" to a suicide bomber to do whatever they want with it.

** Note that the truck and airplane robots hijacked by terrorists regret being unable to comply with the first laws and are often glad when they get shot down before harming anyone.