What if Asimov's Laws of Robotics weren't supposed to govern robots' behavior, but the people designing them (and AIs)?

Rule 0. Do not design robots capable of harming humanity, or, by inaction, allowing humanity to come to harm.
Rule 1. Do not design robots capable of injuring human beings or, through inaction, allowing human beings to come to harm.

(more...)

@starbreaker

but zero is literally impossible as stated

I can attack someone fatally with a Roomba, and technically this is inaction on the part of the robot

if they have to all be made soft YET capable of preventing abuse, there's no reason to bother with rule 3 at all, you'd need AI running bodies made of gobs of individually disposable nanites, with tons of protection routines for humans so as to prevent inaction

but then they're nearly "indestructible" in a sense

@starbreaker

anyway, while in theory this is great, I currently fear humanity far more than any AI

so really, I'd feel awful putting some baby AI into the world only for humans to rip it to chunks, cackling like fucking howler monkeys, claiming they "beat a robot" and "humans rule" and whatever else

the omnics are pretty much how I think humanity will handle AI

so I'd rather my bots can defend themselves from people when they need to, people are

well

awful

@starbreaker

(I mean, if AI starts terminatoring the earth, I will call you personally and apologize, but like, I think Facebook II is way more likely for our apocalypse -- whatever thing(s) end up replacing that basic goddamn parasite-monolith's place in our lives will try to eat us like Facebook I did. but if Skynet happens, I will seriously apologize. especially if it's because of my own babies. total mea culpa situation.)

@sydneyfalk Facebook is something Mark Zuckerberg should have thought twice about building. He never considered the implications, and acted as if the negative externalities were somebody else's problem.