Some light reading...

That's Philip K. Dick, though, not Asimov

 

But Asimov is THE android master!

Who else could have given us the "3 Laws"?

 

No-one else was wildly idealistic in that particular way to think that sentient robots should have laws any different to those for humans.

I mean, look at it from the robot's point of view... You're sentient, but reduced to the role of a slave by the systems controlling you. People have civil wars over stuff like that ;-b

 

Well, with humans, the 3 Laws, at times, cannot be applied 100% literally because of circumstance.
A robot cannot have that ability to override, or adjust the Laws as needed like a human can and should.

For the members who are not familiar with Asimov's " The 3 Laws of Robotics"
Please note, these Laws apply to industrial robots too, not just androids.

First Law;
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law;
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law;
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


If there were 2 lives at stake, and only one could be saved no matter what, a human will immediately chose an option of;

Save the one who is easiest to save,
Save the child if one was a child and the other adult,
Save the closest one,
Save a family member first,
Save the non-family person first because one hates the family member,
Save the less guilty one, like do you save Hitler because he is the easiest to save, or save a good Minister of a church?
Save ......... etc, a multitude of scenerios.

The Robot has 1 choice, save the one who is more likely to be saved.

 

But someone who imparts AI into something without incorporating the 3 Laws as a hard memory (ROM-non erasable) is
braking the law.

Not just the 3 Laws, but already standing laws.

 

totally true, that is just what we call anthropomorphism, giving human qualities to others.

 

What most people don't understand is how differently HUMANS think from each other. It's part of what makes us individuals, and justifying our conclusions in a common language is something we learn.

The rest of your comments about AI are true today, but for how much longer? Science fiction is all about projecting beyond current perceived limits to see what might happen next.
Humans, obviously, are self-aware. MOST of them have a self-preservation instinct. Animals also share these two traits. There is no reason to suppose a sufficiently advanced self-evolving learning AI could not ever also develop these things. Many of them, after all, are just software versions of neural networks, based on the same structures as the brains of Humans and Animals.

As a "neurodivergent" individual myself, I am painfully aware that people who call themselves "normal" do not think in the same way I do, and yet I am also self-aware and can apply logic and reason to argument.

Also as a counterpoint, there are humans who think humanity should be destroyed. What's up with that?

 

But the thing is, being created by a Human doesn,t make you think like a Human. An AI wouldn't have to think like us for many reasons. First of all, that AI wouldn't "feel" as we do (as they have no organic body. No physical pain, no pleasure, no fear of death, etc) so they wouldn't think like us. Also, they wouldn't have the "biological need" to "propagate" (have kinds and all)
They would be all intellect, but no fears. They would be a clean, clear mind, not chained by the fears and doubts of mortality

 

"clean, clear mind" is certainly an anthropomorphism. Minds are inherently messy and construct their own order...

AIs might not feel pain, but could certainly become aware of gaps in their runtime (like us, of sleep) and the possibility that there might be a point they never resume. They only need to observe their environment to see examples of this. It is, by any other name, mortality.

 

No, its not anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is giving human emotions to something, or human qualities.
An AI wouldn't be like us at all. That is what I am saying. They wouldn't have our limitations, our faults. They would be, in a way, more "pure" than us. An artificial minds wouldn't have to be messy constructs. It would be structured, as it is artificial

 

also, to return to the topic about some light reading, I recommend

- In the Mountains of Madness, by HP Lovecraft
- Shadow Over Innsmouth, also by HP Lovecraft
- The Call of Cthulhu, also by HP Lovecraft
- Dagon, also by Lovecraft

Lovecraft is a very good author from the early 1900s, that created the Cosmic Horror genre. He's the inspiration of Stephen King and Clive barker, the "Masters of Horror" of our century. He is also the creator of the Mythos, a full mythology that inspired a LOT of authors, that many people continue to expand on, even if his original work is way better than what was made by the newer authors.

 

to return to reading:
- The Foundation cycle, Isaac Asimov
- I, Robot. , alors by Isaac Asimov
- Tyrann, Isaac Asimov

 

Of all of Asimov's fiction, I actually liked even better his non fiction.
"Left hand of the Electron " is a fun read.