• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh, I see, you’re saying they can bypass “injure” and go straight to “kill”. Killing someone still qualifies as injuring them - ever heard the term “fatally injured”? So no, it wouldn’t be within the rules.

    • MystikIncarnate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think he’s referring to the absolutism of the programmatic “or” statement.

      The robot would interpret (cannot cause harm to humanity) or (through inaction allow harm to come to humanity). If either statement is true, then the rule is satisfied.

      By taking action in harming humans to death, the robot made true the second statement satisfying the rule as “followed”.

      While our meat brains can work out the meaning of the phrase, the computer would take it very literally and therefore, death to all humans!

      Furthermore, if a human comes to harm, they may have violated the second half of the first rule, but since the robot didn’t cause harm to the person, the first statement is true, therefore, death to all humans!

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        That works if you ignore the commas after “or” and “through inaction”, which does sound like a robot thing to do. Damn synths!

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            “Nor” would be more grammatically correct and clearer in meaning, too, since they’re actually telling robots what not to do.