Pretty sure Asimov didn’t consider that when he wrote his three laws of robotics.
replies(2):
Or, as Dr Malcom would say: life, uh, finds a way.
This should be a crucial piece of information about the tree laws, yet it's not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the three laws [1], which is otherwise quite detailed. Reading this, everything makes me think that it was not a parody. I didn't feel like it was parody when reading the Robot series neither. He wanted an alternative to the Frankenstein plot where robots kill their creators and the three laws were part of the answer.
This I agree with. A big part of the fun of the series is that Asimov constantly plays with these laws.
Thanks for the clarification.
(I still completely disagree that "parody of rationalists who are so uncreative they expect a ruleset can actually impose control" was the intent. I believe not only the word "parody" is to throw away, but the whole sentence with it too. I understand better your stance now though)
I think the strongest evidence is that many other examples of Asimov, especially short stories are cautionary and deal with hubris and unexpected side effects.
However it's funny to ask for 'evidence' about fiction in the context of "parodying rationalists". no? Since what would count as evidence? Another, more "authoritative" literary interpreter saying the same thing? Maybe a long time ago - historical statements seem to carry more weight, as if people were wiser back then?. Or Asimov himself? But don't they say, only bad writers explain themselves?
rule 2: IBM gets a pass¹
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON
(hmmm... except wikipedia doesn't have the story)
Part of the issue is that we keep calling these people “highly intelligent” and that is all they and others focus on. That is how we get the Zuckerbergs of the world. Their hubris is not a “but” (as if it were unrelated), it is instead a direct consequence of that unqualified praise.
But qualification is important. Intelligence is relative to the domain it is applied to. Being highly logical is often conflated with being intelligent, but being good at computers has zero relation to emotional intelligence, social intelligence, environmental intelligence, or any of the myriad of important types of intelligence which are useful to humanity.
Basically, stop calling those idiots “highly intelligent” or “geniuses” because they can make a line go up and have an irrational market throw money at them. You’re praising them for the characteristics that make them selfish.
Interestingly, this continues to be the case even when the author states his intent plainly. Jonathan Blow's "Braid" is a great example of this: there are several different readings of the story, despite Blow openly talking about his intended meaning.
(I would argue that a text that only allows a single "correct" interpretation is an instruction manual, not a work of art.)
Asimov wrote his robot short stories in which the three laws played a primary role at a time when robot as Frankenstein's monster was the norm. His short stories attempted to create a more positive optimistic note about how humans and robots could collaborate. The three laws were a way to make it crystal clear that robots could not hurt us, by rule. And the fun was then imagining all the unexpected ways that psychologically that might play out. But in the short stories the robots never actually hurt anyone although they often caused a lot of frustration and fear.
If anything the three laws seemed to show the inate fear of humans to the unknown. The laws were completely impossible to circumvent and people knew this ... And yet they remained staunchly opposed to having robots on earth. Completely illogical.
Anyways, looking at the way LLMs are playing out it seems to me Asimov was wrong. It is quite the opposite. Humans seem to have no fear of robots hurting them, and as a matter of fact seem to get frustrated when a robot isn't allowed to cave their head in with their super human strength when asked (metaphorically).
Asimov writing about his intent
> But don't they say, only bad writers explain themselves?
...No? If someone says that, why do you believe them? That frankly sounds like a pretty stupid and lazy claim about the world. One of the most interesting parts of, for example, Tolkien analysis is his abundant notes and letters working out his intent and meaning.
Yes indeed.
> and thus the writing satirical to an extent
I don't follow here. Asimov's books don't feel satirical. Or I missed something important, but I doubt it.
I don't agree with this "thus", the implication doesn't seem automatic to me.
The statement that kicked this off was not a statement of interpretation, but a statement of fact: "Asimov wrote the three laws as a parody". This is a statement that has a true or false answer. You are free to interpret the story as parody and to try to find evidence in the text and use that to argue your point, and that is a perfectly valid way to interpret the stories, but tells you nothing on Asimovs initial intentions.
If you are going to say "The artist intended X when creating this work" then you're going to need evidence beyond the work. Just like there is no one right way interpret a work of art, you cannot use a work of art in isolation to 'prove' artist intent.
Their confidence outweighs their experience. That’s what I mean by hubris, not that they’re on spectrum savants playing with power they don’t understand and can’t. They fully can appreciate the consequences of their work, but they don’t have the world experience to understand what in their work will fail and what will work.
One day they will be people I trust can be responsible for the decisions they’re making. And hopefully by that time it’ll be the time their decisions really matter a lot. But right now they’re just too young.
I think you were asked a good question. What would constitute "evidence", to you?