Jump to content

Talk:Three Laws of Robotics/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


South Korea breaking laws

http://wn.com/South_Korea_using_robot_border_guards maybe someone who reads korean can confirm thuis and add to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.178.239 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read articles on the subject - according to The Telegraph they have implemented a robotic fixed sentry system that is non-automated. It detects and reports and a human operator gives the go ahead to fire. It sounds similar to the US CROWS systems.
Unfortunately this is not related to the Three Laws but should perhaps be included in another article.Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Groups of Robots

      • The Start

For the three laws of robotics, what will be happening when we have two or more groups of robots using the different machine languages and there is no common ground for these groups of robots?

Will the three laws still hold?

Xpree [e96lkw@hotmail.com] @ [Space = Malaysia 2N 105E, Time = 03.58 p.m. Zone H UTC+0800]

E. & O. E., + E. = (Errors and Omissions Exempted, plus Estimation)

      • The End

German Vandalism

Someone wrote Hallo, deutsches Wikipedians! Würdest du mir zum Du Arschloch alle herauf den Arsch zugestehen? in this article, which means something along the lines of "Hello, German Wikipedians! Can you stop being assholes?"

"Are violations of the Laws impossible?"

There is a section on the page discussing what exactly, the nature of the robotic 'laws' are--whether they are, in fact, as inviolate as the laws of physics. To quote the article, and its relevant Asimov reference:


_

However, in "Little Lost Robot", Susan Calvin asks the Mathematical Director of U.S. Robots, Peter Bogert, if he knows what removal of the first law would entail, and he replies, "I know what removal would mean. I'm not a child. It would mean complete instability, with no nonimaginary solutions to the positronic Field Equations." Earlier in the story, Calvin also expresses skepticism that it was possible to even weaken the first law in a positronic brain. It is unclear what exactly Bogert means by this, but many infer that he means the Three Laws are, in fact, laws of physics.

_


It isn't 'unclear' what Bogert means. Any system requires axioms at its foundation--look at Goedel's work--from which theorems are derived. In the case of humans, we rely on assumptions like "Our sense data is accurate," et cetra. A positronic brain relies on its own set of assumptions, of which the relevant nontrivial/obvious ones ["I have legs" or whatever other minor nonsense aside] are the Three Laws.

That is, the Laws create a rational framework in which a robot can act. Without the guidance of the Laws, a robot would not know how to act--a does not compute sort of breakdown. Calvin's incredulity that the First Law could be weakened indicates her skepticism as to whether a comprehensive set of behavior rules could exist with the weakened First Law. That is, whether a robot could act for more than five seconds without a does not compute error, without the guidance of the full First Law.

The existance of non three laws robots are thus possible... IF the three laws are replaced by other behavioral guides, which Asimov, in stories involving such robots, is scrupulous to provide.

I was seven when my mother read me I, Robot. I read it for myself five years later, and have read most of Asimov's other science fiction. Perhaps I read Asimov this way because I've always been a math geek since watching Square One Television, but it seemed obvious to me that that's what the story meant... and at the time, I didn't even know what a 'nonimaginary solution' was, aside from its obvious meanings as a plot device.

Robotics assessment and work required

I have re-assessed the article as part of the RObotics cleanups.

The article was delisted from FA six months ago and has not improved much since then. There are many large chunks of unreferenced text and some areas where it may be true that WP:OR or WP:SYN have crept in.

Normally an article that is delisted from FA receives an automatic A class assessment but, due to the amount of ref needed tags I have had to place amongst other things, I have decided that it only merits a B class.

The delisting comments are pretty damning also - FAR details

I have not read the article in fine detail but will do so tomorrow and copyedit it as it stands. I am about to do an AWB quick scan before I go off for the night and hopefully these two processes should identify most of the easy-to-fix stuff.

Main points

  • Each paragraph should have at least one reference
  • Prose and style should be consistent  Done - changed all "three laws" or "laws" to "Three Laws"
  • Article needs checking for structure
  • Anything not connected to the Three laws should be removed

 Done

  • Sections should be checked to ensure that text more relevant to other sections is moved
  • Redlinks need fixing  Done

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary checks and fixes

  • AWB scan  Done
  • Dashes script  Done
  • Peer review script  Done
  • FAC checktools  Done
  • Section header check  Done

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting *Completed to the start of 2.1.4 "Three laws removed" Chaosdruid (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Complete first run through  Done Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Add cn tags

The "citation needed" tags get a bit annoying when the text reads something like "In the story 'Liar!'the protagonist references the third law. . . " In those cases, no citation is needed because the citation is right there--it's in the story, "Liar." I propose removing all those types of citation tags. Grumpy otter (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
In reality to claim that the story says that without giving a ref for the book or short story would be fairly against policy. After all does the story Liar! actually have that in it ? surely the point of cites is to prove those very things. It is of no matter though as I have now completed those refs after locating the various texts and ebooks necessary and included quotes where necessary. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

References

  • find refs for those citations necessary  Done One or two were not really necessary and I removed them (such as for the three laws in the film Bicentennial Man where the picture provides the necessary detail) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Put up for peer-review

Addressing the problems

The first two points are from the FAR archive, the third from the above points - All are listed in order of importance most important at the top:

Section required to discuss secondary source commentary, critique and analysis

How to structure the section and refer to the already included material, or move it?

 Done section is perhaps not necessary as mostly covered in individual sections or in the ending section concerning contemporary usageChaosdruid (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

References or removal of unreferenced text

  • Quotes and statements of what various people thought or felt
 Done Chaosdruid (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Improperly formatted refs (foreign language refs not specifying the language, book refs lacking page numbers)
checked and added where can Chaosdruid (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material not relevant to the article etc.

  • Anything not connected to the Three laws should be removed
  • {{cquote}} These are a little overused

 Done removed spurious and cquotes Chaosdruid (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical

The line, "Giskard is telepathic, like the robot Herbie in the short story Liar!, and to apply the Zeroth Law through his understanding of a more subtle concept of "harm" than most robots can grasp," is not only grammatically incorrect, but is flagged as having no citation. I believe this line should be removed until such time that a reference is found. Or, at the very least, someone could decode it. I just can't tell what was the original intent of the line. I get stuck after "to apply" - perhaps someone smarter then me can reorganize it to something understandable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.204.67 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should read "..and tries to apply ..." or "and seeks to apply...". If there are no other suggestions I will amend it as such Chaosdruid (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2000/fc01927.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.187.35 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Laws_of_Robotics/Archive_3&oldid=402749665"