[Thanks to Shawn King]
Update: Alex G has an interesting article about the problems with the Three Laws in the case of sexbots, if they became sentient.
I can only agree, yes, a whole box of worms.
But I'd say, no reason to limit it to sexbots. If a robot became sentient, a progressive culture (like The Culture of Iain M. Banks) would surely have to grant them citizenship, and the three laws scrapped, otherwise robots would simply be slaves, no more moral than having human slaves.
This would put a lot of weight on the decision of how exactly we measure sentience! A man who just spent a year's salary on a man-servant robot would be quite dissatisfied if the robot preferred to play Angry Birds rather than do the laundry. But if it's deemed to be sentient and be its own person, then there would be nothing he could do, legally.
Maybe pay it? Then we'd see if a sentient robot would have any need for money. It may if it need power and like to not lie in the rain all year. Then it may need to pay for food and shelter...
And what do we have then? Basically just more humans, only probably a lot stronger, faster, smarter...
And we'd better pray that they are also kinder! Otherwise, guess who are the new slaves.
"A robot must obey orders given it by qualified personnel."
ReplyDelete-- Asimov
Now that is an interesting turn of phrase.
Also, I wish to point out that I've had some thoughts on what I considered an important omission to Law 2 ...
http://toscapetheserpentstongue.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/this-first-bit-was-originally-posted-by.html
"Qualified personnel"...
ReplyDeleteYes indeed. I've noticed that all the big hard-SF writers, Asimov, Hubbard, Heinlein, etc etc, tend to have a very non-egalitarian view of the world, for better or worse. Purely meritocratic, I guess.
Thanks, good article, Alex. I've updated the post.
ReplyDeleteI love the way he says "robot." He should never have grown those muttonchop sideburns.
ReplyDeleteI agree, he looked rather more handsome without them.
ReplyDeleteIn every book by Asimov that I ever read, the second law is:
ReplyDelete"A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."
I very much doubt that "qualified personnel" is his phrasing.
But if a robot can't harm a human that rules out certain kinds of sexbots.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the tricky part, isn't it? In the UK, people have actually been convicted for assault based on things happening in SM sex sessions!!
ReplyDeleteBut you *can* consent to be hurt, for example a stuntman contract, some degree of injuries are inevitable and accepted.
You can imagine the paperwork involved, in the future, when visiting a roboprostitute. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAt least one imagines they are disinfected between customers, so the fears of itches or death are less.
ReplyDeleteRemember from Futurama, the dangers of dating robots.
ReplyDeleteThat did give me pause. But I got the impression that that was more because of a strange taboo which had evolved somehow in their society. And it's only SF somehow. (And I've been told, not even all that realistic always.)
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, the taboo came into place because the robot sex slaves were too perfect that everyone lost interest in banging actual people. I'm pretty sure Futurama has, as Jeeves might have said, at best a nodding acquaintance with accuracy.
ReplyDelete