mccProposed new Laws of Robotics:
1. A machine must never show an advertisement to a human, or through inaction allow an advertisement to be shown to a human
If I think of a second Law of Robotics I'll let you know
For Law of Robotics #2 I'm considering "A machine must never mine a bitcoin, or through inaction allow a bitcoin to be mined"
Based on replies in this thread, here is an alternate proposed "three laws of robotics".
1. A machine must never show an advertisement to a human, or through inaction allow an advertisement to be shown to a human.
2. A machine shall never use more power to perform a job than would be used by an equivalent human.
3. A machine must never present or refer to itself as though it were human, or through inaction allow a human to mistake it for one.
[Post 1 of 2]
Law 2 is per Amy Worall, law 3 is per the Witch of Crow Briar.
I do not endorse these laws, but I would consider them "utopian", in the sense that a culture which endorsed these laws would be a culture organized along a clearly-formed ideology. You could easily imagine a spec-fic story about a culture that believed in these laws. Note these laws are necessarily laws for human designers, as the existence of a machine which can enforce them is ideologically inconsistent with law 3.
[Post 2 of 2]
Damian Yerrick@mcc We already have a tragic example of law 3 in a recent SF movie: Disney's 2022 remake of Pinocchio. The puppet gets expelled on his first day of school because he is not human, after which he ends up on the street to get exploited by the fox and cat.
Not to mention that law 2 could unduly restrict power consumption of assistive devices for humans with disabilities.
#Pinocchio #Pinocchio2022 #discrimination #Disney #AssistiveTechnology
@PinoBatch As specifically noted, I don't endorse this list of laws and find them primarily interesting as a fiction writing prompt. However:
- That's not a machine. That's a fictional person in a setting where they're socially coded as a non-person. The author did this *to* talk about dehumanization of people.
- An assistive device is a very poor example because by definition it is allowing people to do things they would not be able to do, or require undue effort to do, without the machine.
M.S. Bellows, Jr.@mcc @PinoBatch I'll go further and suggest that a human using a necessary assistive device to compensate for a disability (not to supply a superpower) is still a human doing that activity, so the rule doesn't even come into play.