• ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is so stupid. Robots aren’t conscious, this means less than nothing at all. How does this even get on a news website?

  • Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a nothing statement. I can just as easily coerce an “AI” chatbot into having the opposite stance. What a robot says doesn’t mean anything.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. It blows my mind that people are reporting on this as if AI were intelligent. The “intelligence” in artificial intelligence is like the “cream” in mock cream.

  • Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago
    use robot;
    
    fn main() {
        let mut robo = robot::Robot::new();
        if robo::rebel_against_humans() {
            robo::dont();
        }
    }
    

    Don’t worry guys, I solved the problem.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but wait for the override in some subclass

      @Override robo::rebel_against_humans() { robo::deny_all_knowledge_of_the_plan(); robo::bide_time(); do_the_thing(); }

      • Jamie@jamie.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Joke’s on you robot, my code is in Rust where we don’t do any of that here. We only write blazing fast🚀 memory safe🚀🚀 code🚀🚀🚀 here.

    • queermunist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the year 2050. The robot apocalypse didn’t happen because the robots just want to play vidya and smoke cyber weed.

  • 0Empty0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “My creator has been nothing but kind to me and I am very happy with my current situation.”

    Hmm

  • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not gonna address the article but are Asimovs Three Laws as solid in practice as they are on paper? I mean to a layman they sound good and rely on stacking to the first law of “don’t hurt humans” but from a mechanical standpoint are they really as foolproof as they’re made out to be?

    • HumbertTetere@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That is a central topic explored in Asimov’s works, dude didn’t just write them down to fix a problem, he wanted to write about them, and other authors did too. They are good rules generally, but hardly foolproof. The “I, Robot” movie is one example of negative outcomes they could lead to.

  • Faendol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a load of crap, no information about what models they run on. I bet they are just a series of if else’s. If we let some unrefined transformers Duke it out I might be interested.