Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Janos on March 14, 2004, 03:35:17 pm
-
Apparently hasn't been posted yet.
We all know Isaac Asimov, one of best intellectual sci-fi writers. His stories of robots, Spacers, Foundation and humanity have been an inspiration to us all. More peaceful philosophy and mindtwisting problems and crimes.
Of course, a man who, before his death due to AIDS, rapidly manufactured intellectual elements known as "books", is a talent just waiting to be harvested. Novel compilation I, Robot has been source for a few short TV flicks, so now it's time to go for larger screen!
See, let's take story "Little Lost Robot". Hey, we've had this Animatrix - let's put some hot hot robot CGI gorefest into it. I don't know whether it suits it or not, but it looks cool. Anyone read the book? No? Well whatever. Who should star this... I know! WILL SMITH [dun dun dunn]!
He's such a jolly good fellow, teh funnay and everything. Let's make him throw bad jokes all the time and go ape**** akimbo a la Bad Boys.
Yea, let's rape and twist the story more. Susan Calvin... Yeah, she should be the token Good-looking Big-breasted Trophy Woman, working for an evil Corporation. Sure, this movie has nothing to do with the books except the name and dumbed-down Laws, but whatever.
So, without further ado, go and see this fine piece of art. http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/IJKLM/I-Robot/trailer-page.html
This looks like utter ****. Thanks to //www.somethingawful.com for providing us with this delightful information.
:ick:
edit: for great justice
-
I'll weep tears of blood tonight.
Why I, Robot? Why not call it something else entirely? 'Super Death Robots of Doom' or something, I don't know, but there's no point in naming it after something when it doesn't resemble it in the slightest... oh, except for the sake of the Almighty Dollar.
*spits*
-
I noticed, I wept.
I wouldn't mind throwing a big atomic bomb on Holllywood right about now. It'd only benefit the world
-
Nah, leave al Qaeda to handle 'em. Might as well let those boys have a good time once in a while.
[views trailer]
MOTHER ****!
-
you think they take requests?
-
Maybe if we pass around a petition...
-
yeah it did look pretty cheesy
-
I really don't know how to cry enough for this travesty. What makes this worse is that Alex Proyas is behind it. How could the man who gave us Dark City be working on this?
-
...you, robot we all robot for I, robot!
-
:wtf:
-
Tis a travesty to be sure. Those Hollywood BS artists think they can improve on the Master? They'll spend half the damn movie trying to simplify the 3 Law of Robotics enough for the stoners they're catering to.
-
Actually, I think it'll be a fun flick to watch.
Sure, they've attached the wrong title to it. But I think it'll be a fun flick.
So where was th large breasted chick mentioned? I'm pretty angry that I didn't see anyone with larger than a B-cup.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, I think it'll be a fun flick to watch.
Well I loved Dark City so I know what the director is capable of. It could be that he trailer is just designed to get the people into the cinema and the film will turn out completely different. But I really hope this isn't just a mindless killer robot movie.
-
Siwfty eyed reg-glowing robots going rambo.
Oh, and I just checked it again. "Susan Calvin" indeed has no big boobs. :(
-
Oh, what an insult to Isaac Asimov...
Someone tried to merge the laws of robotics with Matrix, and ended ****ing up both universes...
Holy ****...
-
The matrix universe is ****ed up from the begining, so I see no problem there.
-
*sigh*
http://www.intothematrix.com/
the second rennaisance pts 1&2..
compare
asimov aside, methinks that there's gonna be trouble from the wachowski brothers since it's basically the premise behind the aformentioned shorts.. :doubt:
oh yeah, in the trailer... navras begins to play..:blah:
-
:wtf: :hopping: :mad:
That's all I have to say....
-
Second Renaissance I and II were cool flicks. Partially because they were huge tekno-gorefest, with nice pictures and excellent soundtrack.
This movie, however, looks like utter ****. Hey, they used Navras from Matrix: Revolutions sountrack. what the ****
-
There can be only one!
With Kubrick dead, nothing can surpass the Wachowski Brothers...
-
Well it's certainly NOT Asimov, but it may be interesting in a killer-robot movie kinda way.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several Asimov shorts that would make excellent films, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We have to get the 'Will-Smith-Action-Wisecrack(TM)' picture.
I'll just have to check my brain at the door I suppose.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*sigh*
http://www.intothematrix.com/
the second rennaisance pts 1&2..
You thgink I haven't seen them? Hell, I d/led them the day they were out on the official website, and I own the DVD.
They rock, but I stand on my point: matrix was a much better stand alone movie than a full blown universe.
-
Based on a bit of Usenet-spelunking, apparently this film is from an entirely original script, which the "I, Robot" name was brought into as an afterthought. Sounds about right.
Dunno why they didn't just call it "MiB III" and be done with it.
-
BTW does anyone else feel that the whole "sugar" joke is probably the weakest piece of Will Smith wise-cracking comedy ever?
Says a lot about the movie that they thought that bit was good enough to put into the trailer doesn't it?
Even if the movie is good they need to sack whoever made that trailer for them.
-
but it could have been so good!
-
I can imagine the same comments before Blade Runner was released, K. Dicks fans were probably as dense as you all are :doubt:
To be clear: WAIT FOR THE DARN MOVIE TO BE OUT BEFORE BARKING!
Geez.
-
Nico, did you even watch the trailer? It's typical wisecracking Will Smith. Looks like he just walked off the set of Bad Boys II and onto a ripoff of Second Renaissance.
-
My dear, sweet Jesus! What have they done?
I just saw the trailer, and they have shreded the Three Laws of Robotics. I mean "This summer, Laws were made to be broken!" WTF!?!?!?
In Asimov, and I mean every single Robot book or story Asimov ever wrote, the Laws were so completely infallible that the characters found it inconceivable that a robot could contravene them. This is the biggest rape of a Literatary universe there has ever been.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I can imagine the same comments before Blade Runner was released, K. Dicks fans were probably as dense as you all are :doubt:
To be clear: WAIT FOR THE DARN MOVIE TO BE OUT BEFORE BARKING!
Geez.
Like I said. The trailer is utter ****e. I'm mearly doing what you're supposed to do with them. Judge whether the movie is worth seeing or not based on them.
Judging from the 2-3 "jokes" that were included in the trailer it's certainly not funny. Did you actually laugh at the sugar joke? I cringed as if in pain when I heard it.
Now the only problem that remains is whether the action will be any good. There the movie does have more of a hope. The action did look mildly entertaining and Alex Proyas is a great Sci-fi director. However the basic premise of the movie as is sounds so old that it doesn't seem worth paying for. Guy builds robots, robots turn on humans, lots of human VS robots action ensues. Boring. The only part that actually was of any interest to me was the interrogation scene with the robot. Now if the movie was a sci-fi whodunnit I might be more interested.
Anyway my point, as with the earlier post is that the movie looks like a pile of ****e. Maybe that's due to the movie being a pile of ****e or maybe it's because of a crappy trailer. The other links on the site had links to teasers which feature a more faithful version of Asimov's rules of robotics so there is some hope.
As for your comment about Blade Runner. I never saw the trailer for it but I'm sure it was impressive enough to make you want to see the movie.
-
I watched it cos of the Music, but then I've always liked Vangelis :)
-
Mmmm, exploderific.
-
Wow, Bladerunner SUCKED.
The first time I saw it, that is. A second viewing made it all clear how unutterably good the flick was. :)
-
If I recall, it was all about 'Gumshoe' movies at the time, so the film ended up a sort of combination of seedy downtown bars and smoky rooms combined with futuristic equipment It worked perfectly, and if anyone asks me what life will be like in about 50-75 years, I'd say 'Go watch BladeRunner'.
Nice to know my Trenchcoat will still be in fashion then ;)
-
The director is extremely capable. Don't write this movie off just yet.
-
My real objection to the movie is the title. It really bears no relation at all to the original so why bother using the title at all. If anything it appears to have alienated any fans of the book.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
The director is extremely capable. Don't write this movie off just yet.
Not that I disagree with you but I'd like to provide a counterpoint:
Remember, this is the same director that eventually put the monologue and introductory scenes into Dark City, thus completely ruining the plot.
Luckily, I was warned by a buddy to fast forward the DVD until I got to the bathtub. On a second viewing, I learned why: That monologue and the introductory scenes totally destroy the suspense and wonder of the whole thing.
-
I always heard that the studio forced that introduction to be added.
-
:wtf: Ypu gotta be frikkin kidding me...
This isn't I Robot.
GOD DAMN THEM! DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL! :hopping:
A day I feel truly ashamed to be in the same business...
But alas, if they were to change the title, it still seems like an utter rip off of 2nd renneisance. And what was with the whole interogation scene? The robot says he didn't do it, he gets frustrated, and the cops say he did it. Ok... That just totally threw all of Asimov's concepts out of the window. I just hope, they don't start bloody saying " by the best selling author" or any crap like that.
****! This is as bad as if they'd make a H.P Lovecraft short story into a film, like say Call of Cthulu, and made it into a Eddie Murphy comedy. Where Cthulu would be actually a good alien sent to Earth to do bad things, but finally agrees to help Eddie as his family got lost on a boating trip and landed on Ryleh and are scared by the odd little "furry" demons that pop out of the stonework. All action figures safe for kids over 5, with special ooze dripping Cthulu and Furry plush demons. Furry Demon card game to be started in Christmas time just before release of direct to video sequel also staring Eddie in a cameo in Call of Cthulu: Dagon's day out.
MARK MY WORDS!!! Those sons of *****es are thinking of it right now! :hopping:
-
They already made a movie of Dagon.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Wow, Bladerunner SUCKED.
The first time I saw it, that is. A second viewing made it all clear how unutterably good the flick was. :)
I was about to flame you :p
Yeah, I saw the trailer ( but w/o sound, it wanted me to install some stuff, didn't want to ). From my experience, trailers are always bad, so...
As for the rest, I'm just not interested in that movie, so I don't care, actually :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
They already made a movie of Dagon.
See?!! :hopping:
-
how DARE they!! KILL EM ALL!!!!!!!!!
This is an example of the lowly trash that actually force out the GOOD movies from hollywood, just because its an action flick. The person who thought of calling it I, Robot needs to be paid a visit by Asimov's ghost...or better yet, simply be killed.
-
actually, if you go to Isaac Asimov's grave, you can hear a high pitched whurring sound, which is being caused by him spinning at approximately 7500 rpm.
-
Next years big release, The Magician, based on the book by Raymond Feist, starring Sean Connery as Harry Potter :rolleyes:
-
or how about
(http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Carltheshivan/pst01.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Next years big release, The Magician, based on the book by Raymond Feist, starring Sean Connery as Harry Potter :rolleyes:
Actually, that could only improve the story. There's not been many works of fantasy fiction that suck as bad as Feist's Krondor books, though Janny Wurts, Mercedes Lackey, Holly Lisle and Anne McCafferey seem determined to break Feist's record.
-
Originally posted by Carl
or how about
(http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Carltheshivan/pst01.jpg)
Directed by Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick.
"Humor is out there... this Summer."
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, that could only improve the story. There's not been many works of fantasy fiction that suck as bad as Feist's Krondor books, though Janny Wurts, Mercedes Lackey, Holly Lisle and Anne McCafferey seem determined to break Feist's record.
A couple of those I haven't heard of, but what wrong with The Dragonlady and Mercedes Lackey?
-
(http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Carltheshivan/pst02.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
A couple of those I haven't heard of, but what wrong with The Dragonlady and Mercedes Lackey?
Besides the fact that they each have exactly ONE (1) story and they keep putting it out with the character names changed?
When I think of all the poor trees that are wasted daily to keep putting out that crap, my eyes and ears bleed.
-
IN A WORLD composed of intersecting multi-dimentional strings, THERE IS ONE MAN who can bring order out of the chaos. this summer, the Univers is going to EXPLODE and your world will never be the same again!!!
-
Starring John Travolta, Nicolas Cage, And Some Other guy
-
if it's got Travolta, then you know it's gona have some realy interesting (www.scientology.org) creative tweaks on the workings of the universe
(I wouldn't click that if I were you BTW, I didn't check to see if they owned it, but they probly do and the'll hunt you down from your IP address and harass you and brain wash you untill the day Xool comes to enslave humanity)
-
Xool? Isn't that the bad god in GhostBusters?
-
:lol: yeah
-
I was only half remembering it, I remembered it started with an X
Xenu is the guy, a little something something, this is acurate as far as I remember about scientology
"Some 75 million years ago, Xenu was the ruler of the local Galactic Federation (which, as everyone knows, encompasses the planet Earth, called Teegeeack back then).
Xenu was an evil ruler, according to Hubbard. Xenu also had an overpopulation problem in the many planets of his political realm. So he rounded up the excess population, froze the people in glycol, transported them to Teegeeack in rocket ships that looked like the commercial DC-8 jetliners [prop aircraft] flying back when Hubbard wrote level.
Curiously, Hubbard does not say how many years it took these rockets to cross interstellar space, nor how they carried enough fuel to accererate and deccelerate. He completely finessed those issues.
Anyway, Xenu then placed the frozen people into volcanic craters on Earth (Hubbard specifically mentioned Hawaii and Las Palmas volcanoes, which geologists will tell you did not exist 75 million years ago) and then detonated nuclear bombs over their heads, killing their meat bodies, vaporizing them completely, and freeing the spirit beings that were within.
If all that were not bad enough, Xenu then allegedly trapped all the free floating Thetans with some sort of electronic ribbon traps. After all, these Thetans were OT. They could travel back to their home planets before the DC-8s got back.
Xenu didn't want them back. He had to confuse them, make them too confused and stupid to want to go back. So, Hubbard says that Xenu next brainwashed and implanted false memories into the trapped Thetans. He did this by forcing them to watch movies, in the same manner that the young droogie was brainwashed by the authorities in the book "A Clockwork Orange."
Be assured that I'm not kidding here. This is really what the "Wall of Fire" teaches.
Please bear with me, we're almost done.
A quick side bar: Hubbard alleges that the entire religion of Christianity comes about due to one of these implanted false memories, which Hubbard called "R6." In R6, the ribbon trapped thetans were shown films of crucifixtions. Hubbard taught that the effects of the R6 implant on today's society is to make us feel irrationally sympathetic to Christ's crucifixion, and makes us predisposed to become Christians. Hubbard clearly implies that Xenu's brainwashing of people to be sympathetic toward a crucified Chirst is really just a manupulation and control process, and by implication, Hubbard probably felt that in being a Christian, one is not free of Xenu's devious plans to keep all the Thetans of this planet subjegated. In effect, the R6 lesson teaches that only Scientology can help all the poor, brainwashed, deluded Christians.
For the record, I am not a Christian. If I were, this teaching would really offend. But even as a secular person, I am offended by the lies told in Scientology's marketing hype, which claim that Scientology is fully compatible with Christianity. Scientology, at the upper levels, is decidedly hostile toward Christianity, and in fact, to all other organized religions as well.
Also, keep in mind that these bizarre Xenu and implant teachings are taught ONLY to those at the upper levels. They are not generally known by lower level adherants. I've seen Scientologists who have not yet advanced to the OT3 level deny that Scientology would ever teach stuff this goofy sounding. I just smile to myself.
But I digress. To finish up the story of Xenu, according to Hubbard, some "good" people, or "loyal officers," as Hubbard called them, within the Galactic Federation, finally realized that Xenu was a bad dude. They mounted a coup-d'etat, deposed him, stripped him of his position and threw him into an electronic mountain prison, somewhere in our Galaxy, where he remains to this day.
Luckily for us, Hubbard came along in the 1950s and "discovered" what really happened. He "discovered" the "fact"
that we all have been implanted by Xenu with R6, R2, and other false brainwashing implants. Hubbard then selflessly designed a program, Scientology, which will free us (for only a small fee) from these delusions.
Aren't we so very fortunate to have such a man in our corner?"
-
LR Hubbard, also hates Christians and phyciatrists, becase they were trying to reinforce the false memories while he was in there magical mind prison (nut house)
and John Travolta is a proud member (it's actualy quite scary when you find out how many big stars are members)
-
http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/celebrities.htm
-
Wait, it's a religion (?) with spaceships and ****?
Ok, I'm gonna create my own religion too.
-
uh, if you ask them they'll say it's a religon, but it's more like a realy ****ing ****ed up super cult, there actualy kinda dangerous
(remember Batle Feid Earth, it's suposedly had Scientologist subliminal crap in it)
-
The (possibly apocryphal) origin of Scientology was a bet between Hubbard and another writer over lunch that he could come up with and make people believe in a religion with just one book. Thus was born Dianetics and its erupting volcano cover and the commercials.
-
Oh yeah... What was it?... There was something about having leverage is good. The also starting a revolt with a 1000 year old harrier jet flown by cavemen. Yeah! Thats it!
-
the realy scary thing is when I was a little kid (3-6) I wanted to read those books. thank Xenu I don't have stupid/overly rich parents
-
see? here we are with another religion thread :D
-
Yeah, I think this all's my bad. My presence just seems to make people think of Jesus.
And from there I guess it's just a short associative jump to Scientology and so on...
-
Mik, if you want the ultimate example of the regurgitated story, read the Belgariad by David Eddings and then read any other series by David Eddings ;)
Actually Magician, Silverthorn and Darkness at Sethanon were brilliant books, it's just that was where the whole ordeal should have stopped. The later, poorer, books have ruined the original, brilliant ones :( Same goes to a lesser degree to the DragonRider books, the first few were innovative, but then Anne Mcaffrey has sort of turned it into a Mills & Boon kind of thing :(
-
Originally posted by mikhael
When I think of all the poor trees that are wasted daily to keep putting out that crap, my eyes and ears bleed.
They are called series, so yes they are going to have similar themes.
-
Oh, hell, yeah, Flipside! I can't read Eddings at all. Someone needs to jab him in the head with an icepick. There's a chance they'll kill all the braincells associated with Sparhawc.
You know, there's a difference between a "series" (say, George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Fire and Ice') and shamelessly trotting out an old whore in new makeup (anything by Lackey, McCafferey, etc).
If I can reduce your story to a formula, you're doing something horribly wrong. Pern and most Mercedes Lackey and a few others:
$angsty_teen meets and bonds with $strange_animal with [magical|scientifically-enchanged] powers. $angsty_teen learns error of [his|her] ways and goes on to became critical to the survival of [his|her] $geopolitical_unit. In many cases, $angsty_teen is recast as $powerful_and_dangerous_but_really_kind_hero before all is said and done.
There. That's most Pern and most Valdemar books. There's fomula for urban fantasy (that evil cult contributed to by Lackey, Hamilton, and their ilk).
I challenge you to find that sort of formula for ANY well written series. Lets take a look at the top of one of my bookshelves. We'll use just the top, front row of my book shelf. Each shelf is stacked two high and two deep and there's eight shelves, plus several large boxes of books. Here's a very short list of good, non-formulaic SERIES:
the Lord of the Rings, Chronicals of Narnia, His Dark Materials, The Crown of Stars, The Coldfire Trilogy, The Mageworlds books, the Kushiel series, The Bench novels, Memory Sorrow and Thorn, the Chung Kuo books, the Heritege Universe books, the Manifold series, the Xeelee Sequence, the Heechee saga, the Expendable books, Otherland, or the the Neuromancer trilogy.
If that many authors can manage to write that many stories without descending into formulaic drudgering, I contend that Lackey and McCaffery and their ilk are doing something horribly, painfully wrong.
-
You would grant that most of their is aimed at a younger age group that you or I occupy though, correct?
If so that explains why they are so formulaic, and you are just being intellectually pinheaded.
I, and millions of others, happen to enjoy most of Pern, up until "All the Weyrs of Pern", it should've end there. I haven't read enough Lackey to tell the difference
-
McCaffery may be aimed at teenagers, but teenagers aren't intellectual midgets. They're capable of reading series books that share a world without rehashing the same plots over and over and insult their intelligence and critical capacities.
Take, for example, The Chronicles of Narnia and His Dark Materials. Both of them are aimed at younger readers, but both are absolutely brilliant. Each of them manages to tell several smaller stories (7 for Narnia and 3 for Materials) that fit into an overarching story arc. The plots don't get rehashed, though characters and places and idea return from book to book. Take a look at the Prydain Chronicles for another perfect example.
Contrast that to stuff like Lackey and McCaffery and Anthony, all of whom manage to rewrite the same story fifteen or twenty times, doing a search and replace on proper nouns. Same old whore, just fresh paint.
-
Oh, Prydain Chronicles..! *wipes off a tear*
Though it was quite a clichésoup from time to time. But in a good way.
-
Wow, this thread has gone WAY off-topic; people are talking more about allegedly mediocre fantasy books instead of the I, Robot movie.
I'm going to reserve judgment on the movie, but I want to ask a couple of questions about the book. What was the plot of I, Robot? I'm familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics since I read the Foundation Series; the 3 laws were mentioned in "Foundation and Earth." (And, no, I did NOT read the "Prequel to Foundation" series, in case you wanted to know. I HATE prequels.)
And IIRC, a FOURTH (secret?) Law of Robotics was mentioned in "Foundation and Earth" that said something to the effect of "A robot must do all it can to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it conflicts with the previous three Laws." Could it be that the robots in the new "I, Robot" movie are rebelling "for humanity's own good?" God, how formulaic would THAT be? Not to mention that it would destroy the logic circle... but then again using just the three original laws, I can forsee LOTS of instances where the logic circle Asimov envisioned would break down...
Thoughts and comments? (And don't forget to summarize the plot of the I, Robot book, please.) :)
-
In several of Asimov's stories, he explored the consequences of a robot having to deal with situations where two of the three laws came into conflict.
-
I, Robot, at least the copy I have, is an anthology of approx. 12-15 short stories that Asimov wrote to both show the infallibility of the 3 Laws of Robotics and what happened given certain circumstances that caused a conflict between the laws.
-
It's been years, but I think the laws were :-
1: A robot may not, by action or inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2: A robot will take all actions possible to preserve it's own existence as long as it does not contravene the first law.
3: There is no exception to the first law of Robotics.
Zeroth Law : A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind. This law was added to the programming later by the robots themselves.
-
They should've done Robots and Murder, that's got everything.
Murder, Mystery, Dystopic future Earth, even sex in the second part.
Sorry for the double post.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's been years, but I think the laws were :-
1: A robot may not, by action or inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2: A robot will take all actions possible to preserve it's own existence as long as it does not contravene the first law.
3: There is no exception to the first law of Robotics.
Zeroth Law : A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind. This law was added to the programming later by the robots themselves.
Why would you need the 0th law? Surely the first law covers that. (Can't think of a situation where mankind would come to harm with individual humans coming to harm too).
Oh and your second law is actually the third one. 2nd law is that a robot must always obey a human's orders unless it contravenes the 1st law.
-
That was it, and the Zeroth law does still stand, the first law was very very difficult to define when it came to the Robots abilities to alter emotions in humans, it was practically impossible for them to act on any problem because they had to look at the possible repurcussions in the first law, even when they were acting to alter on persons attitude to save billions of lives (e.g. Making Bin Laden feel the love) because this could be an infringement on the first law, they had no way of telling whether altering a person would at some point in the future cause them harm. In Bin Ladens case, he would be caught and shot, so under the first law, they wouldn't be able to do this, despite the fact that their inaction has caused human suffering. The Zeroth law was the only loophole they had available.
-
And the Zeroth Law was only available for some advanced robots, such as Daneel, because of it's complexity, as Flipside said.
-
Originally posted by Janos
And the Zeroth Law was only available for some advanced robots, such as Daneel, because of it's complexity, as Flipside said.
I remember Daneel; he appeared at the end of "Foundation and Earth." I know there are other Asimov stories involving him, but I never got to read them yet.
-
Yes, it was because of an impasse in even the Zeroth law that Daneel needed Golan Trevise to make the decision between Pyschohistory and Galactica, he had no way of being able to determine the long term effect of either on Mankind.
-
Now if they were doing the Caves of Steel, then I would be interested.
-
Flipside misremembered the three laws; he said he couldn't recall them quite clearly. But I found them on the Internet and I've quoted them here:
1st Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2nd Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3rd Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
And also, later on, the Zeroth or 0th Rule was developed which says that: A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind, even this contradicts the First, Second or Third Laws.
Karajorma had a question that I want to reply to:
Originally posted by karajorma
Why would you need the 0th law? Surely the first law covers that. (Can't think of a situation where mankind would come to harm with individual humans coming to harm too).
Karajorma might have been confused since the laws were misquoted, but if he understood the laws as I've written them down now and still has the same question, I want to respond to that.
There's a likely scenario involving a conflict of the Three laws of Robotics that I want to point out to all you guys, but especially Karamajora, that shows that Asimov's "logic circle" of the Three laws is flawed.
Imagine a family of four: A father, a mother and two children a teenage son and daughter. They purchase a domestic robot (programmed with the Three Laws, of course) to help with chores around the house.
Now imagine that there is a military coup that overthrows the democratic government of the nation this family lives in. The father and son decide to get involved in a local resistance cell and begin quietly planning guerilla attacks on occupying soldiers. The robot hears this and immediately thinks "My First law prevents me from letting my masters kill other humans; I'm not permitted to stand by and let other humans get killed, even if they are soldiers of an occupying army."
So, naturally, the robot wants to stop the father and son from killing other humans, but what happens when the robot realizes that the dictatorship the family is living under also constitutes harm to his own human masters? A robot can't allow humans to come to harm, right? But how can one reconcile the fact that in order to prevent harm to a human, it is sometimes necessary to take human life?
If enemy soldiers come to the family's house to arrest the father and son, how can the robot protect his masters if the only way he can keep the family safe is to kill the soldiers? (Non-lethally incapactitating the soldiers is not an option; there are too many of them. Besides, it's easier to kill a group of soldiers than it is to knock them all out.) The robot can't commit any action that would kill the soldiers, but neither can he simply stand by and let the soldiers take away the family to be executed. Following either course of action violates the First Law. This is a classic case of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
That is one instance where the First of the Three Laws of Robotics is insufficient.
The addition of the Zeroth Rule (A Robot may not, by action or inaction, bring harm to Mankind) helps reconcile this quandary.
If a dictatorship is harmful to Mankind (something I think everyone can agree on), then the robot is free to kill enemy soldiers of that dictatorship in order to protect other humans whose continued existence benefits Mankind (namely, freedom-loving and democracy-loving people).
Does this answer your question, Karajorma?
-
I get your post and I'd already thought it through.
Take the second law. Suppose a robot recieves two commands at the same time. Lets say get me my pipe and slippers while someone else says prepare my lunch. Obviously the robot must prioritise those orders and if there is only enough time to do one of them the robot must pick one (unless we are saying that robots sit there whirring and clicking every time there is a conflict of orders).
Now lets look at the evil dictatorship you mention. A brutal dictatorship obviously causes a greater deal of harm to humans than the taking of individual lives to stop it does. So again the robot is left with a dichotomy in that his actions or inaction will always cause harm. Now while to us humans this is a deep moral question to a robot it would be no bigger a logic problem that which task to do in the earlier example. In fact the robot would always go down the logical path that resulted in it helping the resistance (directly or indirectly).
Now maybe I'm missing something not having read the original Azimov stories but I think this is covered by the first law.
-
Because by it's actions it is endangering the life of the Dictator. Which goes against the same law. Even the taking of one human life was impossible to a Robot, even hiring someone to do it was the same as doing it yourself. This was one of the biggest flaws in what I could stomach of Foundations Fear.
That is why 'Mankind' had to be defined, in order to allow such decisions to be made. Daneel had enhanced his brain almost to the point of the uncertainty principle by this stage, it should be remembered.
Also, a Robot caught in the problem above has a simple cure. The ability to question it's orders and state that it is impossible to do both at once.