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...)

Rule 2. Do not design robots capable of disobeying human beings unless obedience violates Rule 1.
Rule 3. Do not design robots in such a way that they cannot protect/repair themselves, unless self-preservation requires the violation of rules 1 and 2.

We keep pointing to the stories in I, ROBOT as examples of how Asimov's Laws don't work, but what if they were never meant to work as described?

If you work anywhere near AI, think about it.

@starbreaker It really highlights the difference between his settings and our world. Thanks for posting; I am always pleased for any opportunity to rethink how I first read/considered #SFF

There’s nobody anywhere to hold anyone accountable for making a really unFriendly AI. #Asimov assumed widespread compliance so his stories could work but like... how and why do we get there? Drone warfare alone would seem to show we dgaf abt implications as a species.

@Cobalt I honestly think we need to do a better job of making sure techies have the ethical grounding to handle "should we" questions along with "can we" questions.

We've got developers, mostly white dudes, making decisions for the rest of us that quite frankly they're not at all qualified to make on their own.

And if it's their bosses making the decisions, the Nuremberg Defense ain't gonna save techies who just do what they're told and ignore the implications.