I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot Capsule Submission

No review here.

S P O I L E R

S P A C E

DYN's

SLH wearing black at Snowball II's funeral? Homer's two strands of fire being on fire during the second welding torch accident? Bart's room has shag carpetting? Grandpa spilling his drink when he talked about robots at the dinner table? a can of Duff Beer and Maggie being inside Whack-a-Homer during the match against Frink's robot?

Refs.

I, Robot -Title -Frink's robot obeys the "Three Laws of Robotics" (see comments)

Domino's Pizza -Dominoe's

Killing Me Softly With His Song -"Killing him softly with his saw."

Muhammed Ali -Name of Frink's robot

Robocop -Frink's robot resembles the ED-209

The Terminator -Frink's robot defeating a robot that resembles a T-800.

Comments:

The "Three Laws of Robotics" are three rules created by science fiction author Isaac Asimov that are the suggested guidelines for the behavior of robots and other smart machines. The three rules are as followed:

1. Robots must never harm human beings or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. Robots must follow instructions from humans without violating rule 1. 3. Robots must protect themselves without violating the other rules.

Joe Klemm

[email] (Joe Klemm) wrote in news:[email]:

To be picky,

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

"Jason LaRue" wrote in message news:[email]...

Spoilers for (I think) Robots and Empire by Isaac Asimov

Don't forget Daneel Olivaw's rule 0, A robot may not injure a humanity or, through inaction, allow a humanity to come to harm. He *is* allowed to harm humans if it's for the greater good of humanity.

Only if you feel those are legitimate books.

When he folded the Foundation books in with the Robot books, I felt he was just recycling his past, rather than adding anything to the separate series. The Foundation and the Robot books were good enough by themselves, so I see no reason to believe that they ever did intertwine, and I sure don't see the last books as real.

Mind you, I tend to think the same about Heinlein's books, messing with stories that didn't need messing with.

And other golden age authors have done the same thing, revisiting books written decades before, and I suspect it's the same thing, though I can't think of any that I've read.

Michael

[email] (Michael Black) wrote in news:btteiv$98g$[email]:

I just finished the 7 foundation books, read in the order 3-4-5 (original trilogy) 6-7-1-2. I actually enjoyed the first two prequels (written later than 6-7), but felt 3-4-5 were clearly the best. 6 and 7 were "out there", but still a good read, even if the story got a bit farfetched. I didn't have a problem bringing in the robot element, as it added an interesting twist to the original story - and was integrated fairly well, I thought.

I don't have a problem with Asimov revisiting the original series, if only because there was plenty of untold story potential there.

Joe Klemm wrote:

I guess that by the 31st century, then, at least rule 2 will have been repealed? (Has Bender or any other robot violated the other two?)

"Matt Garvey" wrote in message news:[email]...

author

robots and

human

repealed?

I'm pretty sure Bender openly flouted all three.

BTW, I'm reminded of an old "Dilbert" cartoon. Dilbert builds a robot, and is reminding him of Asimov's "Robot's Code". The Robot replies, "I never signed any code. In fact, I can use my strength to make YOU serve ME!"

But it's an interesting thing since the three laws are often taken as absolute, like the law of gravity. I can't remember which books, but I've seen the idea (or some variation) show up in non-Asimov books, and obviously movies and/or tv shows.

Yet, Asimov's robots only need to follow it because they've been designed that way. There is nothing that requires robots to operate that way, and it was never clear to me from Asimov's books and stories how it was implemented. I seem to recall it was something more subtle than software.

Of course, I'm still wondering how US Robotics became a modem company.

Michael

That Asimov's robots were designed that way was what made the Three Laws so important. Before, it was common in stories for robots to act pretty much like human slaves--resenting their enslavement and eventually rising up and destroying their masters.

Asimov's innovation with the Three Laws was to treat robots as machines. They were tools, designed by Man. Like other tools, they would have safeguards. We have blade guards on our circular saws, circuit breakers in our electrical circuits, and so on. An Asimovian robot no more resents being a slave to humans than a toaster or refridgerator does.

This caused a big change in robot stories. After Asimov's stories, the "robot slave revolt" stories were dead in serious science fiction. Robots that cause harm need to have a good reason (e.g., military robots designed to kill, or Futurama robots under Mom's control), and even then, they are tools, behaving as designed.

As far as implementation goes, in Asimov's stories, the robots basically had artificial brains, and the Three Laws were built in as the equivalent of instinct or involuntary reflexes. An analogy would be with the way humans love their children, and normal humans can't even think hypothetically about hurting their kids.

What about *other people's* kids?

"Hey, baby, wanna kill all humans?"

[email] (Joe Klemm) wrote in message news:...

They are SUGGESTED, right?

Joe Klemm wrote: