|
Related Topics:
| I, Robot -- the novel! - I noticed in Barnes and Noble today that they're marketing the book I, Robot, with the caption ``One Man Saw It Coming'' and promising it was the basis of the hit new movie. Inside was, of course, the text of the classic, standard old I, Robot we've..
robot novels - I've read all the Asimov robot stories. Can any one suggest other good robot stories by other writers? Thanks in advance, Marc -- Marc Casals
The Movie - I, Robot - Hey, Will this movie ruin the average person's of Asimov? I mean, it's not following along with his stories but it could be pretty What do you think? Those not
I, Robot. The Movie - I'm reading in an italian magazine about cinema that I, ROBOT is in It's a movie with Will Smith about a cop who is on a murder committed by a robot. Directed by Alex Proyas (never heard before). The brief does not tell..
Asimo the robot? - Can anyone confirm if Honda named Asimo after Asimov?
|
|
|
Next: Isaac Asimov: Order and technology of early Foundation
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:24 pm
Post subject: Robot Visions
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
In this story, Temporalogists send a robot named Archie from 2030 to
2230 to investigate the future. Archie finds a prosperous planet with a
population of 1 billion (down from 10 billion in 2030). There are also
people on the Moon, Mars, and the asteriod belt. Archie spends five
years seeing everything but the asteriod belt. The Temporalogists
decide not to make anymore time trips for fear of altering this "happy
ending". However, the narrator of the story questions Archie further.
Archie says that there were no cities except for preserved relics and no
robots (as the people of the future needed no metal caricatures of
humanity. The future people admired the past in many ways (hence the
relics of cities) and had carefully preserved machines, books, displays
of past fashions in clothibng and future, etc. Most importantly, Archie
saw no babies, not even in the growing Lunar colony. The narrator
decides that the people of the future are humaniform robots, who
replaced extinct humanity. The narrator (the first humaniform robot)
leaves a report for the future robots so that they know what to show
Archie. He also orders Archie to stay silent. The narrator robot
doesn't want the future altered.
Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
had seen any farms or anyone eating?
Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
extinction of humanity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
>>Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
extinction of humanity?
Perhaps humaniform robots are human in more than just form? In other
words, they no longer are affected by the laws of robotics, and have a
'human' desire to want to conquer those weaker than themselves - ie
humans.
Caroline
The Thunder Child
http://thethunderchild.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Tim Bruening wrote:
> In this story, Temporalogists send a robot named Archie from 2030 to
> 2230 to investigate the future. Archie finds a prosperous planet with a
> population of 1 billion (down from 10 billion in 2030). There are also
> people on the Moon, Mars, and the asteriod belt. Archie spends five
> years seeing everything but the asteriod belt. The Temporalogists
> decide not to make anymore time trips for fear of altering this "happy
> ending". However, the narrator of the story questions Archie further.
> Archie says that there were no cities except for preserved relics and no
> robots (as the people of the future needed no metal caricatures of
> humanity. The future people admired the past in many ways (hence the
> relics of cities) and had carefully preserved machines, books, displays
> of past fashions in clothibng and future, etc. Most importantly, Archie
> saw no babies, not even in the growing Lunar colony. The narrator
> decides that the people of the future are humaniform robots, who
> replaced extinct humanity. The narrator (the first humaniform robot)
> leaves a report for the future robots so that they know what to show
> Archie. He also orders Archie to stay silent. The narrator robot
> doesn't want the future altered.
>
> Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> had seen any farms or anyone eating?
>
> Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> extinction of humanity?
(1) Is there any reason to expect that to be possible? And (2) That
isn't the First Law, it may be the Zeroth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Where the First Law is stated to be, "A robot may not harm a human
being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
"Harm" is difficult to define precisely, but I only recall one
bicentenarian. With that exception, and maybe Einstein stuff and so
forth, all the humans alive in 2030 inevitably will be dead two hundred
years later. A robot can't do anything about that, as far as we can
tell. And the unborn humans are not humans yet. And the human species
is not a human being.
Maybe the robots decide that childbirth represents an unacceptable risk
of harm, so they sterilise all the humans.
I forget where Asimov himself finally went with it.
Why do you crosspost to mn.humor ? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 03, 2004
Posts: 264
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>In this story, Temporalogists send a robot named Archie from 2030 to
>2230 to investigate the future. Archie finds a prosperous planet with a
>population of 1 billion (down from 10 billion in 2030). There are also
>people on the Moon, Mars, and the asteriod belt. Archie spends five
>years seeing everything but the asteriod belt. The Temporalogists
>decide not to make anymore time trips for fear of altering this "happy
>ending". However, the narrator of the story questions Archie further.
>Archie says that there were no cities except for preserved relics and no
>robots (as the people of the future needed no metal caricatures of
>humanity. The future people admired the past in many ways (hence the
>relics of cities) and had carefully preserved machines, books, displays
>of past fashions in clothibng and future, etc. Most importantly, Archie
>saw no babies, not even in the growing Lunar colony. The narrator
>decides that the people of the future are humaniform robots, who
>replaced extinct humanity. The narrator (the first humaniform robot)
>leaves a report for the future robots so that they know what to show
>Archie. He also orders Archie to stay silent. The narrator robot
>doesn't want the future altered.
>
>Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
>had seen any farms or anyone eating?
>
>Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
>extinction of humanity?
Emerson!!!
--
Ogden Johnson
(nee OJ III)
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and dot the sig and you'll net me at comcast.] >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >In this story, Temporalogists send a robot named Archie from 2030 to
> >2230 to investigate the future. Archie finds a prosperous planet with a
> >population of 1 billion (down from 10 billion in 2030). There are also
> >people on the Moon, Mars, and the asteriod belt. Archie spends five
> >years seeing everything but the asteriod belt. The Temporalogists
> >decide not to make anymore time trips for fear of altering this "happy
> >ending". However, the narrator of the story questions Archie further.
> >Archie says that there were no cities except for preserved relics and no
> >robots (as the people of the future needed no metal caricatures of
> >humanity. The future people admired the past in many ways (hence the
> >relics of cities) and had carefully preserved machines, books, displays
> >of past fashions in clothibng and future, etc. Most importantly, Archie
> >saw no babies, not even in the growing Lunar colony. The narrator
> >decides that the people of the future are humaniform robots, who
> >replaced extinct humanity. The narrator (the first humaniform robot)
> >leaves a report for the future robots so that they know what to show
> >Archie. He also orders Archie to stay silent. The narrator robot
> >doesn't want the future altered.
> >
> >Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> >had seen any farms or anyone eating?
> >
> >Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> >extinction of humanity?
>
> Emerson!!!
How does Emerson nullify the First Law? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:12 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
omnivore_ink.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> extinction of humanity?
>
> Perhaps humaniform robots are human in more than just form? In other
> words, they no longer are affected by the laws of robotics, and have a
> 'human' desire to want to conquer those weaker than themselves - ie
> humans.
But shouldn't they still have the Three Laws hardwired into them? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 31
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:59 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:24:54 -0700, Tim Bruening
<tsbrueni.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
>extinction of humanity?
The First Law doesn't compel robots to save the human species. It
does however compel robots to refrain from causing humans emotional
upset if the robot is sufficiently sophisticated to recognised that as
a form of harm. >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 03, 2004
Posts: 264
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Tim Bruening <tsbrueni DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
{snips}
>> >Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
>> >had seen any farms or anyone eating?
>> >
>> >Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
>> >extinction of humanity?
>> Emerson!!!
>How does Emerson nullify the First Law?
Review your Asimoviana. While it doesn't nullify the Law, it
covers the situation - an inconsistency in a story written not by
Asimov, but within a scenario he provided permission to other
authors to use.
I am not going to lose any sleep over this.
--
Ogden Johnson
(nee OJ III)
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and dot the sig and you'll net me at comcast.] >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
David Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:24:54 -0700, Tim Bruening
> <tsbrueni.TakeThisOut@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> >extinction of humanity?
>
> The First Law doesn't compel robots to save the human species. It
> does however compel robots to refrain from causing humans emotional
> upset if the robot is sufficiently sophisticated to recognised that as
> a form of harm.
Perhaps the robot narrator could steal technology from 200 years in the
future and transfer it to the present. Perhaps it could find out precisely
what happened and warn just Earth's leaders. >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:09 am
Post subject: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
In this story, Temporalogists send a robot named Archie from 2030 to
2230 to investigate the future. Archie finds a prosperous planet with a
population of 1 billion (down from 10 billion in 2030). There are also
people on the Moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt. Archie spends five
years seeing everything but the asteroid belt. The Temporalogists
decide not to make anymore time trips for fear of altering this "happy
ending". However, the narrator of the story questions Archie further.
Archie says that there were no cities except for preserved relics and no
robots (as the people of the future needed no metal caricatures of
humanity. The future people admired the past in many ways (hence the
relics of cities) and had carefully preserved machines, books, displays
of past fashions in clothing and future, etc. Most importantly, Archie
saw no babies, not even in the growing Lunar colony. The narrator
decides that the people of the future are humaniform robots, who
replaced extinct humanity. The narrator (the first humaniform robot)
leaves a report for the future robots so that they know what to show
Archie. He also orders Archie to stay silent. The narrator robot
doesn't want the future altered.
Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
had seen any farms or anyone eating?
Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
extinction of humanity? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 19, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:22 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru... DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> had seen any farms or anyone eating?
Bad writing?
> Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> extinction of humanity?
That's the Zeroth Law.
--
DJensen >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
DJensen wrote:
> On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru... DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
> > Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> > had seen any farms or anyone eating?
>
> Bad writing?
>
> > Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> > extinction of humanity?
>
> That's the Zeroth Law.
Wouldn't the extinction of humanity count as a massive violation of the
First Law? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 19, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:58 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:4677ADD3.C1EC1AFB@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>
>
> DJensen wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru....DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>> > Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
>> > had seen any farms or anyone eating?
>>
>> Bad writing?
>>
>> > Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
>> > extinction of humanity?
>>
>> That's the Zeroth Law.
>
> Wouldn't the extinction of humanity count as a massive violation of the
> First Law?
Depends on your definition of harm... a robot with a firm belief in an
afterlife could kill willy nilly.
Of course, if it was a natural non harmful extinction like a pandemic of
infertility the robots would have zero impetus to stop it. No one was
harmed, people lived out their full lifespan and died. all natural. There
isn't a fourth law that tells them to "preserve" the species. >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 19, 2007
Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Tim Bruening wrote:
> Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> had seen any farms or anyone eating?
He had enough information (no babies) so that the question was not
necessary.
> Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> extinction of humanity?
Because Asimov didn't write the story, and others' robots are not
compelled to follow his 3 (or 4) laws.
--
You see writers are like sewers ... what you get out depends a great
deal on what you put in.
-- J. Michael Straczynski >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 829
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:37 am
Post subject: Re: Robot Visions [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>books>isaac-asimov, others (more info?)
|
|
|
AJ wrote:
> "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni RemoveThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:4677ADD3.C1EC1AFB@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
> >
> >
> > DJensen wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru... RemoveThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since robots don't need food, why didn't the narrator ask Archie if he
> >> > had seen any farms or anyone eating?
> >>
> >> Bad writing?
> >>
> >> > Why isn't the narrator robot compelled by the First Law to prevent the
> >> > extinction of humanity?
> >>
> >> That's the Zeroth Law.
> >
> > Wouldn't the extinction of humanity count as a massive violation of the
> > First Law?
>
> Depends on your definition of harm... a robot with a firm belief in an
> afterlife could kill willy nilly.
The only religious robot I know of was Cutie (Reason). Cutie didn't seem to
believe in the Afterlife. Why would a robot believe in the afterlife? >> Stay informed about: Robot Visions |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
