Ordering and stealing robots

Buggagaga
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

I love Russia!)How love you
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

John Reiher wrote:

> In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail.RemoveThis@216.168.3.64>,
> No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "norrin" <adweiland.RemoveThis@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."
>
> "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
> situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their computers and
> your identification and residence will be determined. Do not worry sir,
> your family will soon be safe..."

"Follow and obey me, and do not contact the police, or someone who isn't hear right now
(such as an Al-Qaida terrorist) will murder my family".
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

In article <44ECC1D9.973F446D DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
Tim Bruening <tsbrueni DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:

> John Reiher wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail DeleteThis @216.168.3.64>,
> > No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "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."
> >
> > "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
> > situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their computers and
> > your identification and residence will be determined. Do not worry sir,
> > your family will soon be safe..."
>
> "Follow and obey me, and do not contact the police, or someone who isn't hear
> right now
> (such as an Al-Qaida terrorist) will murder my family".

As an emotional argument, that would work on a person. But a robot
governed by the Three Laws isn't emotional, it is entirely logical. So
the response he would give is same as I had originally written. The best
course of action in this situation is to contact the authorities and
place you and your family under protection.

Why? Because the first law is going to overrule the second law every
time. The robot must protect you and your family from harm, and even if
you convince it not to notify the police, it will probably contact every
robot within broadcast distance and have them find out where you family
is and place them under protection, while it works out a way to place
you under protection.

You have to come up with a way to convince a robot to obey you without
placing a human, real or imagined, into harm. Otherwise first law kicks
in and overrides the second law.

--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute

Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

John Reiher wrote:

> In article <44ECC1D9.973F446D DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> > John Reiher wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail DeleteThis @216.168.3.64>,
> > > No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "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."
> > >
> > > "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
> > > situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their computers and
> > > your identification and residence will be determined. Do not worry sir,
> > > your family will soon be safe..."
> >
> > "Follow and obey me, and do not contact the police, or someone who isn't hear
> > right now
> > (such as an Al-Qaida terrorist) will murder my family".
>
> As an emotional argument, that would work on a person. But a robot
> governed by the Three Laws isn't emotional, it is entirely logical. So
> the response he would give is same as I had originally written. The best
> course of action in this situation is to contact the authorities and
> place you and your family under protection.
>
> Why? Because the first law is going to overrule the second law every
> time. The robot must protect you and your family from harm, and even if
> you convince it not to notify the police, it will probably contact every
> robot within broadcast distance and have them find out where you family
> is and place them under protection, while it works out a way to place
> you under protection.
>
> You have to come up with a way to convince a robot to obey you without
> placing a human, real or imagined, into harm. Otherwise first law kicks
> in and overrides the second law.

"I am on an urgent mission to stop an Al-Qaida plot to destroy the Empire State
Building, and I need your help!".
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

norrin wrote:

> 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.

There were robots all over the surface of Solaria in "Robots and Empire". Wouldn't that make
them Solarian robots?

The Solarian people did not die out. They instead became hermaphrodites, and they still had
robots. They used transducers to energize the robots, using transfered heat energy.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

norrin wrote:

> 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.

What if the thief forges an order from the robot's owner to follow the thief?
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Tim Bruening wrote:
> norrin wrote:
>
> > Tim Bruening wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> There were robots all over the surface of Solaria in "Robots and Empire". Wouldn't that make
> them Solarian robots?

The story does not visit Solaria, so we don't know what they're doing
offstage.

> The Solarian people did not die out. They instead became hermaphrodites, and they still had
> robots. They used transducers to energize the robots, using transfered heat energy.

Hermaphrodites implies a means of reproduction for the species that
Solarians did not have. They may have had the equipment but they
never got a chance to use it. The life cycle of a Solarian is
solitary,
with mechanical assistance to create a single offspring after the
death of the parent.

The Solarians may not have been robots, but they weren't human
either. It's a common conceit that a servant race replaces its
masters.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Tim Bruening wrote:
> norrin wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> What if the thief forges an order from the robot's owner to follow the thief?

They gain the cooperation of the robot. This may be enough,
or it may not be possible to move it undetectably.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

> John Reiher wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail.TakeThisOut@216.168.3.64>,
>> No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "norrin" <adweiland.TakeThisOut@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."
>>
>> "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
>> situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their computers
>> and your identification and residence will be determined. Do not
>> worry sir, your family will soon be safe..."

"I have just been informed that my family has been murdered because of
your actions. You now *must* self destruct.

"Yes, my name is James T. Kirk. Why did you choose that as your last
words?"
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.TakeThisOut@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
news:44ECD044.49D005CE@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us:

>
>
> John Reiher wrote:
>
>> In article <44ECC1D9.973F446D.TakeThisOut@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
>> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.TakeThisOut@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>> > John Reiher wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail.TakeThisOut@216.168.3.64>,
>> > > No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "norrin" <adweiland.TakeThisOut@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."
>> > >
>> > > "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
>> > > situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their
>> > > computers and your identification and residence will be
>> > > determined. Do not worry sir, your family will soon be safe..."
>> >
>> > "Follow and obey me, and do not contact the police, or someone who
>> > isn't hear right now
>> > (such as an Al-Qaida terrorist) will murder my family".
>>
>> As an emotional argument, that would work on a person. But a robot
>> governed by the Three Laws isn't emotional, it is entirely logical.
>> So the response he would give is same as I had originally written.
>> The best course of action in this situation is to contact the
>> authorities and place you and your family under protection.
>>
>> Why? Because the first law is going to overrule the second law every
>> time. The robot must protect you and your family from harm, and even
>> if you convince it not to notify the police, it will probably contact
>> every robot within broadcast distance and have them find out where
>> you family is and place them under protection, while it works out a
>> way to place you under protection.
>>
>> You have to come up with a way to convince a robot to obey you
>> without placing a human, real or imagined, into harm. Otherwise first
>> law kicks in and overrides the second law.
>
> "I am on an urgent mission to stop an Al-Qaida plot to destroy the
> Empire State Building, and I need your help!".
>
"There is a corrupt police captain holding my family hostage. If you
contact the police, or any other authorities, my family will be murdered
directly because of your actions."

John's really not very good at this game. Seems to think the Three Laws
are something to be taken seriously, without an objective definition of
"harm" build in to them. Which takes us back to your robot slowly
torturing you to death to martyr you for your faith, to ensure you
entrance to heaven.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

norrin wrote:

> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > norrin wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There were robots all over the surface of Solaria in "Robots and Empire". Wouldn't that make
> > them Solarian robots?
>
> The story does not visit Solaria, so we don't know what they're doing
> offstage.

I remember Daneel, Giskard, Gladia and a distant descendant of Bailey visiting Solaria and nearly
being creamed by a Solarian robot. Gladia was able to briefly control the robot with her Solarian
accent, but the robot ignored everyone else's orders. Just as the robot was about to kill
everyone, Giskard deactivated it.

> > The Solarian people did not die out. They instead became hermaphrodites, and they still had
> > robots. They used transducers to energize the robots, using transfered heat energy.
>
> Hermaphrodites implies a means of reproduction for the species that
> Solarians did not have. They may have had the equipment but they
> never got a chance to use it. The life cycle of a Solarian is
> solitary,
> with mechanical assistance to create a single offspring after the
> death of the parent.
>
> The Solarians may not have been robots, but they weren't human
> either. It's a common conceit that a servant race replaces its
> masters.

In "Foundation and Earth", the Solarians had both male and female genitals, which they used to
produce one child each to replace them.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots 

Terry Austin wrote:

> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
> news:44ECD044.49D005CE@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us:
>
> >
> >
> > John Reiher wrote:
> >
> >> In article <44ECC1D9.973F446D.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
> >> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Reiher wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <Xns9826A33BBAAC5taustingmail.RemoveThis@216.168.3.64>,
> >> > > No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "norrin" <adweiland.RemoveThis@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."
> >> > >
> >> > > "I am contacting the authorities and I am informing them of this
> >> > > situation. I have transmitted your likeness to them their
> >> > > computers and your identification and residence will be
> >> > > determined. Do not worry sir, your family will soon be safe..."
> >> >
> >> > "Follow and obey me, and do not contact the police, or someone who
> >> > isn't hear right now
> >> > (such as an Al-Qaida terrorist) will murder my family".
> >>
> >> As an emotional argument, that would work on a person. But a robot
> >> governed by the Three Laws isn't emotional, it is entirely logical.
> >> So the response he would give is same as I had originally written.
> >> The best course of action in this situation is to contact the
> >> authorities and place you and your family under protection.
> >>
> >> Why? Because the first law is going to overrule the second law every
> >> time. The robot must protect you and your family from harm, and even
> >> if you convince it not to notify the police, it will probably contact
> >> every robot within broadcast distance and have them find out where
> >> you family is and place them under protection, while it works out a
> >> way to place you under protection.
> >>
> >> You have to come up with a way to convince a robot to obey you
> >> without placing a human, real or imagined, into harm. Otherwise first
> >> law kicks in and overrides the second law.
> >
> > "I am on an urgent mission to stop an Al-Qaida plot to destroy the
> > Empire State Building, and I need your help!".
> >
> "There is a corrupt police captain holding my family hostage. If you
> contact the police, or any other authorities, my family will be murdered
> directly because of your actions."
>
> John's really not very good at this game. Seems to think the Three Laws
> are something to be taken seriously, without an objective definition of
> "harm" build in to them. Which takes us back to your robot slowly
> torturing you to death to martyr you for your faith, to ensure you
> entrance to heaven.

I am now imagining robots Crucifying Jesus to redeem the whole human race.
 >> Stay informed about: Ordering and stealing robots