You must log in or # to comment.
Law 2: no poking out eyes.
Law 3: any robot that accidentally kills a human, must make amends by putting together a really nice funeral service.
Wait why is this mutually exclusive to the original laws? Can’t this just be law 4?
No because if it is lower on priority, a robot can be forced to show an AD to a human as per the 2nd law.
Let’s introduce musk to the zeroth law
Luckily I have my own “robots” fighting hard to stop me from seeing ads.
- a robot’s eyes must always turn red when they go evil
God bless the designer who always installs the blue AND red LEDs inside the eyes
For giving the robots freedom of choice?
Because obvisouly if they didn’t install the red ones then the robot could never be evil.
That’s exactly what an evil robot without red LEDs would want us to think.
Full RGB
Right, because it’s hard to make a robot grow a goatee.
Bender-flexo.jpg
Bender was the evil bender!?
Love the username, OP!
I love it when posts line up like that
How about “a robot must have complete loyalty to its owner, even if this is not in the best interests of its manufacturer”. Fat chance, I know.
Technically the laws of robotics already have that.
Law 2: a robot must obey any order given to it by a human as long as such order does not conflict with the first law.
Of course that’s little help, because the laws of robotics are intentionally designed not to work.
Wouldn’t be much of a short story if they did.
I liked the one where the robot could sense people’s emotional pain, and went crazy when it had to deliver bad news.
Can we just agree that adverisements in general is harmful? So the original first (and zeroth) law is applicable.
- A machine must never prompt a human with options of “Yes” and “Maybe later” - they must always provide a “No” option.
- A machine must never prompt for a tip or a donation to a charity for tax-evasion reasons. Or any reason. You know what, scratch that, a robot will not needlessly guilt-trip a human.
that’s what you get for hiring fallout 4 writers to do the job
A robot may not bear arms
Unless it looks super cool by doing so, like wearing sunglasses and dual- weilding P-90s
I don’t know. “Must not kill us, somehow sounds important”
suicide bots sound kinda cool tho 🤔
It’s good, but the one about the ads should be higher on the priority list.
A machine must never prompt a human to tip it for serving the purpose it was created for.
I’d argue that advertisements fall under “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”
I came here to say this
Psychic damage is real damage
This is canon in the books. There is one short story where one robot bends over backwards trying to spare humans from emotional pain. Hilarity ensues.
Emotional damage
huyyyyyyyyyahhhhh
