Ordering and stealing robots

In article <e8319284.0309011237.3b2f6ad7.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
Jaak Suurpere <jsaepuru.TakeThisOut@solo.ee> wrote:
 >Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are, as he explained, partly derived
 >from the requirements of a tool - it should not be dangerous, it
 >should do its work, it should not break. Yet they managed to mess up
 >the future of mankind.
 >
 >The Second Law states that a robot is to obey humans, humans
 >generally, even if this endangers its existence. It does make a
 >provision somewhere that it is relevant how much authority the human
 >has over the robot. Nevertheless, the Second Law is treated as general
 >and cathegoric principle.
 >
 >How many cases involve unauthorized people trying to command or
 >outright steal robots?

In "The Bicentenial Man", some hooligans order the title character to
disassemble himself.

--
pciszek at TheWorld dot com | "Mundus Vult Decipi"
| ("The world wants to be deceived")
| --James Branch Cabell<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

"Paul Ciszek" <pciszek.DeleteThis@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bj37v7$mi1$1@pcls4.std.com...
 > In "The Bicentenial Man", some hooligans order the title character to
 > disassemble himself.

Not to mention the implication that US Robots would have liked to quietly do
away with their errant creation as well, after taking him back for 'study'
purposes. I think you could call that an 'unauthorised' attempt at
destruction.


Amanda<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

 >
 > In another, John Bigman Jones is trying to order a robot that is keeping
 > them captive to let him go. He tries all kinds of tricks (like telling
 > the robot that the Sirians are planning on killing them), but to no
 > avail.
 >
 >
 > Ray Drouillard
 >
 >
 >

That sounds vaguely like a a fanfic I read here on the NG over a year ago.
I think it was by Johnny Pez, and it involved Powell being held captive over
Jupiter(?) and he has to convince the robots to let him go. I'm all mixed
up, I can't remember what's the Doctor's anymore....


BFD!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

jsaepuru RemoveThis @solo.ee (Jaak Suurpere) writes:

 >The Second Law states that a robot is to obey humans, humans
 >generally, even if this endangers its existence. It does make a
 >provision somewhere that it is relevant how much authority the human
 >has over the robot. Nevertheless, the Second Law is treated as general
 >and cathegoric principle.

 >How many cases involve unauthorized people trying to command or
 >outright steal robots?

  Well, in Asimov's early stories robots are kept in research labs
or specialized installations like space stations or Mercurian mines, so
the issue of stealing honestly doesn't come up. Most of the peole who
have access to the robots wouldn't think to steal them, or wouldn't be
able to get away with them anyway.

  I don't recall an Asimov story that directly addresses the issue
of a robot being ordered to go with its non-lawful owner, though. The
closest I can think of is in "The Robots of Dawn," I believe, in which
Dr. Falstolf mentions that Daneel and Giskard were given orders to put
Baley's health and welfare above anyone else's, and to give his orders
priority over anyone else's.

  It seems reasonable to me that a robot could have impressed into
it that there are dire consequences to not being where its legal owner
has ordered it to be (note that the Nestor robot ordered to get lost is
able to convince a number of other robots to not act when it's clear
they have an obligation to potential future needs), and so couldn't be
convinced that the first law is applicable except when the danger is
immediate and apparent.

  I know that in "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" one of the problems
given to the George robots is how to determine whether an order ought to
be obeyed, though -- how to judge whether a human is giving a reasonable
order or not. Taken too literally that suggests there wasn't any way to
keep a robot from following home anyone who demands it, which doesn't
feel right.

    Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Joseph Nebus wrote:
  > Well, in Asimov's early stories robots are kept in research labs
 > or specialized installations like space stations or Mercurian mines, so
 > the issue of stealing honestly doesn't come up. Most of the peole who
 > have access to the robots wouldn't think to steal them, or wouldn't be
 > able to get away with them anyway.

When was "Robbie" written? Isn't that one of his early ones?

Brian Tung <brian RemoveThis @isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/</a>
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/</a>
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/</a>
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt" target="_blank">http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

In <nebusj.1062699809 DeleteThis @vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu> nebusj DeleteThis @rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) writes:

[ snip ]

 >convinced that the first law is applicable except when the danger is
 >immediate and apparent.

  > I know that in "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" one of the problems
 >given to the George robots is how to determine whether an order ought to
 >be obeyed, though -- how to judge whether a human is giving a reasonable
 >order or not. Taken too literally that suggests there wasn't any way to
 >keep a robot from following home anyone who demands it, which doesn't
 >feel right.

Wasn't there a story where the second law was specifically expanded (or
the definition, at leas, was) to "by a QUALIFIED human being?"

And while I can't bring that up in my messy neuron field, there was a
related discussion in "the naked sun" where Klorissa describes the
specialized instructions the robots with her needed so as not to be fooled
by the little kiddies.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
   dannyb DeleteThis @panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

"danny burstein" <dannyb.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bj8eol$582$1@reader2.panix.com...
 > In <nebusj.1062699809.DeleteThis@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu> nebusj.DeleteThis@rpi.edu (Joseph
Nebus) writes:
 >
 > [ snip ]
 >
  > >convinced that the first law is applicable except when the danger is
  > >immediate and apparent.
 >
  > > I know that in "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" one of the problems
  > >given to the George robots is how to determine whether an order ought
to
  > >be obeyed, though -- how to judge whether a human is giving a
reasonable
  > >order or not. Taken too literally that suggests there wasn't any way
to
  > >keep a robot from following home anyone who demands it, which doesn't
  > >feel right.
 >
 > Wasn't there a story where the second law was specifically expanded
(or
 > the definition, at leas, was) to "by a QUALIFIED human being?"
 >
 > And while I can't bring that up in my messy neuron field, there was a
 > related discussion in "the naked sun" where Klorissa describes the
 > specialized instructions the robots with her needed so as not to be
fooled
 > by the little kiddies.

Asimov wrote a short story where the first law was modified. It removed
the "or through inaction" part.



In another Lucky Starr story, where Bigman Jones was ordering people to
do silly things in order to find out if they were Sirian robot spies,
David Starr pointed out that the commands given to the robot may need to
be specifically encoded.


Ray Drouillard<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

"Joseph Nebus" wrote;

 > It seems reasonable to me that a robot could have impressed into
 > it that there are dire consequences to not being where its legal owner
 > has ordered it to be

I seem to recall something about a hierarchy of Second Law priorities.
A rightful owner's orders, when not conflicting with a First Law requirement
would override a non-owners orders. The reason being that, absent any other
First Law issues, a robot would by default do harm to it's owner by not
following their orders, but would not do harm to a non-owner by ignoring their
orders.

But an action required by human laws would override the orders of a robot's
owner if those orders violate a law, not only because the top priority Second
Law orders are human laws themselves, but because a human owner too is
obligated to follow human laws. And allowing its owner to break a human law would
be a violation of the robot's First Law since violating a human law is, by default, harmful
to that human. From this it would follow that a robot should protect itself from
theft on the grounds of Second Law requirements of its owner AND on the grounds
of the importance of human laws which allow it to ignore orders of a potential
thief since those orders would violate a greater human law (or order). In fact,
a robot would also be following the First Law by protecting the potential thief from
harm by not allowing that thief to break a law.

So there are multiple methods of Robotic Law reasoning for a robot to not only give
top priority to it's owner's orders, but to only follow "legal" orders by anyone, and for
a robot to guard itself from theft.

Stan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

danny burstein wrote:

> In <nebusj.1062699809.RemoveThis@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu> nebusj.RemoveThis@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >convinced that the first law is applicable except when the danger is
> >immediate and apparent.
>
> > I know that in "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" one of the problems
> >given to the George robots is how to determine whether an order ought to
> >be obeyed, though -- how to judge whether a human is giving a reasonable
> >order or not. Taken too literally that suggests there wasn't any way to
> >keep a robot from following home anyone who demands it, which doesn't
> >feel right.
>
> Wasn't there a story where the second law was specifically expanded (or
> the definition, at leas, was) to "by a QUALIFIED human being?"
>
> And while I can't bring that up in my messy neuron field, there was a
> related discussion in "the naked sun" where Klorissa describes the
> specialized instructions the robots with her needed so as not to be fooled
> by the little kiddies.

In "Robots And Empire", the Solarian robots considered as human only those who spoke in
the Solarian accent.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Stan Pope wrote:

> "Joseph Nebus" wrote;
>
> > It seems reasonable to me that a robot could have impressed into
> > it that there are dire consequences to not being where its legal owner
> > has ordered it to be
>
> I seem to recall something about a hierarchy of Second Law priorities.
> A rightful owner's orders, when not conflicting with a First Law requirement
> would override a non-owners orders. The reason being that, absent any other
> First Law issues, a robot would by default do harm to it's owner by not
> following their orders, but would not do harm to a non-owner by ignoring their
> orders.
>
> But an action required by human laws would override the orders of a robot's
> owner if those orders violate a law, not only because the top priority Second
> Law orders are human laws themselves, but because a human owner too is
> obligated to follow human laws. And allowing its owner to break a human law would
> be a violation of the robot's First Law since violating a human law is, by default, harmful
> to that human. From this it would follow that a robot should protect itself from
> theft on the grounds of Second Law requirements of its owner AND on the grounds
> of the importance of human laws which allow it to ignore orders of a potential
> thief since those orders would violate a greater human law (or order). In fact,
> a robot would also be following the First Law by protecting the potential thief from
> harm by not allowing that thief to break a law.
>
> So there are multiple methods of Robotic Law reasoning for a robot to not only give
> top priority to it's owner's orders, but to only follow "legal" orders by anyone, and for
> a robot to guard itself from theft.

What if the thief says "Follow me or I'll kill myself!"?
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Tim Bruening wrote:
> danny burstein wrote:
>
> > In <nebusj.1062699809 DeleteThis @vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu> nebusj DeleteThis @rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) writes:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > >convinced that the first law is applicable except when the danger is
> > >immediate and apparent.
> >
> > > I know that in "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" one of the problems
> > >given to the George robots is how to determine whether an order ought to
> > >be obeyed, though -- how to judge whether a human is giving a reasonable
> > >order or not. Taken too literally that suggests there wasn't any way to
> > >keep a robot from following home anyone who demands it, which doesn't
> > >feel right.
> >
> > Wasn't there a story where the second law was specifically expanded (or
> > the definition, at leas, was) to "by a QUALIFIED human being?"
> >
> > And while I can't bring that up in my messy neuron field, there was a
> > related discussion in "the naked sun" where Klorissa describes the
> > specialized instructions the robots with her needed so as not to be fooled
> > by the little kiddies.
>
> In "Robots And Empire", the Solarian robots considered as human only those who spoke in
> the Solarian accent.

There were no Solarian robots in "Robots And Empire". Solaria has
withdrawn and ceased contact with the other Spacer worlds. The
people succumb to their cultural deficiencies and gradually die.
When the Foundation finally catches up with Solaria in the distant
future, it is inhabited by robots and no people.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Tim Bruening wrote:
> Stan Pope wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Nebus" wrote;
> >
> > > It seems reasonable to me that a robot could have impressed into
> > > it that there are dire consequences to not being where its legal owner
> > > has ordered it to be
> >
> > I seem to recall something about a hierarchy of Second Law priorities.
> > A rightful owner's orders, when not conflicting with a First Law requirement
> > would override a non-owners orders. The reason being that, absent any other
> > First Law issues, a robot would by default do harm to it's owner by not
> > following their orders, but would not do harm to a non-owner by ignoring their
> > orders.
> >
> > But an action required by human laws would override the orders of a robot's
> > owner if those orders violate a law, not only because the top priority Second
> > Law orders are human laws themselves, but because a human owner too is
> > obligated to follow human laws. And allowing its owner to break a human law would
> > be a violation of the robot's First Law since violating a human law is, by default, harmful
> > to that human. From this it would follow that a robot should protect itself from
> > theft on the grounds of Second Law requirements of its owner AND on the grounds
> > of the importance of human laws which allow it to ignore orders of a potential
> > thief since those orders would violate a greater human law (or order). In fact,
> > a robot would also be following the First Law by protecting the potential thief from
> > harm by not allowing that thief to break a law.
> >
> > So there are multiple methods of Robotic Law reasoning for a robot to not only give
> > top priority to it's owner's orders, but to only follow "legal" orders by anyone, and for
> > a robot to guard itself from theft.
>
> What if the thief says "Follow me or I'll kill myself!"?

Subject is suicidal. Subject must be restrained to prevent self-harm.
If subject is able to speak, subject will try to prevent this.

BONK!

Contacts security.

Breaking laws isn't harmful to people, men with guns are harmful to
people.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

"norrin" <adweiland.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1156200516.996024.73280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

>
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>> Stan Pope wrote:
>>
>> > "Joseph Nebus" wrote;
>> >
>> > > It seems reasonable to me that a robot could have impressed into
>> > > it that there are dire consequences to not being where its legal
>> > > owner has ordered it to be
>> >
>> > I seem to recall something about a hierarchy of Second Law
>> > priorities. A rightful owner's orders, when not conflicting with a
>> > First Law requirement would override a non-owners orders. The
>> > reason being that, absent any other First Law issues, a robot would
>> > by default do harm to it's owner by not following their orders, but
>> > would not do harm to a non-owner by ignoring their orders.
>> >
>> > But an action required by human laws would override the orders of a
>> > robot's owner if those orders violate a law, not only because the
>> > top priority Second Law orders are human laws themselves, but
>> > because a human owner too is obligated to follow human laws. And
>> > allowing its owner to break a human law would be a violation of the
>> > robot's First Law since violating a human law is, by default,
>> > harmful to that human. From this it would follow that a robot
>> > should protect itself from theft on the grounds of Second Law
>> > requirements of its owner AND on the grounds of the importance of
>> > human laws which allow it to ignore orders of a potential thief
>> > since those orders would violate a greater human law (or order).
>> > In fact, a robot would also be following the First Law by
>> > protecting the potential thief from harm by not allowing that thief
>> > to break a law.
>> >
>> > So there are multiple methods of Robotic Law reasoning for a robot
>> > to not only give top priority to it's owner's orders, but to only
>> > follow "legal" orders by anyone, and for a robot to guard itself
>> > from theft.
>>
>> What if the thief says "Follow me or I'll kill myself!"?
>
> Subject is suicidal. Subject must be restrained to prevent self-harm.
> If subject is able to speak, subject will try to prevent this.
>
> BONK!
>
> Contacts security.
>
How about "follow me or someone who is not here right now will murder my
family, and I have proof this is true."

--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots