|
If Mythbusters can do it, why can't the rest of us?
What is this talk of release? I do not release software. My software escapes leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a guy paid to fish. Fish were then examined for radiation as the lake pond was for reactor cooling.
|
|
|
|
|
The Zombie Survival guide teaches us that a better standoff survival weapon during the apocalypse is a cross bow. The reason for this is zombies are attracted to loud noises. Way before you get your 200th firing of bird shot off your intestines will be in the process of being consumed by your estranged infected 3rd wife.
Please redo the experiment with a crossbow and publish your results, a detailed procedure is required.
|
|
|
|
|
That little animated gif at the bottom is adorable!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys thought i should start an interesting debate topic
My recent research into robotics has made me contemplate Azimov's laws and the possible loopholes in the laws
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
Well lets say we can put the exact comprehension of such law's in the required 1's and 0's
and also forgetting the massive loophole exposed in i-robot where we basically get owned by the first law.
How else could a robot willingly harm a human while obeying the laws.
Well how about creating its own robot army and then willingly walking away before the dangerous robot army becomes alive (well the inaction phrase basically covers this)
How about the ability for a robot to change its own base code , that will erase these directives. (would that be a violation of any of these rules)
Edit -
Now I know the guy wrote these years ago and he could not have possibly have contemplated robotics in its current state and sophistication.
This is merely a debate topic for (find the loophole or try to perfect it) its not like I am going to send his relatives a bill for a robot rampage, it goes without saying but apparently I have to say it
Chona1171
Web Developer (C#), Silverlight
modified 2-May-14 8:45am.
|
|
|
|
|
Azimuth's rules may be going off on a tangent. (You did mean Asimov's [^] laws?)
modified 6-May-14 12:46pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Chona1171 wrote: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
I can't do that Dave.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
I think you need to get out more.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
The very first problem with Azimuth Asimov's laws that it takes for sure a mechanical brain that can be think with the complexity of human brain. In Asimov's time it was far even more than today, so you can't expect him to create a perfect rule-set... I'm sure that if it will come to reality to build such robots we will have to create some new laws...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
You missed the zeroth law:
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
No, he just never read the books : )
BTW, it took me forever to find forward the foundation, the greatest Sci-Fi tie in ever because it was out of print, then Amazon comes along : (
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite stories. Just bought a new hardback edition of the trilogy. 
The greatest sci-fi author, bar none.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I like him too. And thought the same, until I realized he was essentially a communist.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
ahmed zahmed wrote: I realized he was essentially a communist
Just because he was of Russian descent? 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
No, because if you read the novels closely you will see that. And also his political philosophy was at least socialistic.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Quinn wrote: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
What if the robots decide that humans are the greatest threat to humanity and eliminate us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you read your Azimov, you'll see that he had the "brain" as hardwiring rather than as a form of byte code, and that the complexity of the positronic brain would prevent rewiring. This was cleverly documented in the first encounter with R Daneel Olivaw.
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense.
As soon as an entity understands the concept law, it will understand that it can be defied.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Without thinking too hard about it, these are two issues I see immediately:
1. A human will have to encode these rules. How often do we infallibly develop perfect software?
Assuming we can get past item 1 -
2. If we let the robots self replicate, that will be the fatal flaw. The rate they will be able to evolve will be beyond anything that we are able to comprehend. There was only a single robot in control in iRobot. Imagine 1 robot for every human being on the planet thinking, self-replicating and evolving.
That would seem to end in the same scenario as the with the Black Goo and nanotechnology.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watt wrote: How often do we infallibly develop perfect software
Yeah, Asimov even based some of his stories on error like that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing you watched the movie, but didn't read the book.
|
|
|
|
|
In my busy schedule I like the summary that movies provide  - not all the time though world war z (movie) was a giant let down
so yeah i didnt read the i-robot book.
Chona1171
Web Developer (C#), Silverlight
|
|
|
|
|
The only similarity between the book "I, Robot" and the film "I, Robot" is the title
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Quinn wrote: The only similarity between the book "I, Robot" and the film "I, Robot" is the title
Truth.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
