Uncensor any LLM with abliteration

Pretty sure Asimov didn’t consider that when he wrote his three laws of robotics.

Asimov wrote the three laws as a parody of rationalists who are so uncreative they expect a ruleset can actually impose control

Or, as Dr Malcom would say: life, uh, finds a way.

Do you have an evidence for this? It surprises me and I can't find anything about it.

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

I agree the term parody is absolutely inappropriate but it’s also not the case that they’re portrayed as entirely positive and complete. They’re ultimately flawed, resulting in many unintended consequences and ethical dilemmas. To that extent it is a refutation of the idea there are perfectly constructed maxims, and should serve as a real warning to people pursuing safety and alignment in AI. I know a fair number of them personally and they are often very young, generally inexperienced, highly intelligent, but with a hefty dose of hubris. This is a pretty dangerous combination IMO, but I also recognize their goals are generally unattainable in the broad sense, are useful in a narrow practical sense for people and enterprises who want a generally on guard rails solution, and they’re developing the technical techniques we might be able to use once some time has passed, we understand the domain better, and the companies hire a few grown ups.

> but it’s also not the case that they’re portrayed as entirely positive and complete.

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)