Pax Robotica.
--------------------

  Just reread Isaac Asimovs "Robots
and Empire" in order to refresh Asimovs
ideas on where and how the three laws of robotics fails.
  I must confess that I still find the issue 
less than crystal clear. 
What did master Asimov really think?

  ----

  Almost every human activity carries
some risk. Consequently, conscience stricken 
robots like R.Daneel and R.Giscard 
could not permit most of them, according 
to the three laws of robotics:

>1. A robot may not injure a human being or,
>through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
>2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human
>beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
>3. A robot must protect its own existence
>as long as such protection does not conflict

As Stephan H.M.J. Houben (stephanh@wsan03.win.tue.nl)
wrote in a previous post:
>  Any group of Asimovian robots worth their salt would 
>immediately round up all humans and put them in a 
>Matrix-like computer simulation.
>Of course, when you "die" in this simulation, you wouldn't die
>in reality (that would violate the First Law), 
>you just get a mind wipe and be reborn. 

  R.Giscard puts the same idea slightly different to his friend
R.Daneel in Robots and Empire: "It is not sufficient
to choose (between different evolutions
of human society), Friend Daneel. We must shape
a desirable species and then protect it, rather than
finding ourselves forced to select among two or more
undesirabilities .... When we think of humanity,
we must save, we think of Earth people and the Settlers.
They are vigorous, more expansive. They show more initiative
bacause they are less dependent on robots. They have
a greater potential for biological and social evolution,
because they are short lived, though long lived enough
to contribute great things individually".    

  So in the end of "Robots and Empire" R.Giscard
destroys the Earth in order to create a Galactic 
human civilisation. Working under his own
Giskardian Reformation, the zero law:
>0. A robot must act in the long-range interest of humanity 
>as a whole,and may overrule all other laws,
>whenever it seems necesary for that ultimate goal. 

   -----

   So, Asimovs balances between two views:
   I.e. on the one hand the three laws of robotics 
have effectively turned humanity into pets under robot control.
(human) Free will - an illusion, only working under
boundaries R.Daneel and friends think safe.
  On the other hand it is still important that
humanity is creative and shows initiative. 
I.e. robots are only helpers, they are not actually running
the show.
   
   But, certainly you can become so gifted in
helping that you are in reality taking everything
away from the ones you help? And then we are left with
robots running the show.

  In Asimovs "Caves of Steel" R. Daneel has
built-in cerebroanalysis. This lets him do basic empathy and a 
bit more.  And in "Robots and Empire" R. Giskard supposedly 
gives R. Daneel the ability to read minds. 
Actually, later in the Foundation series R. Daneel has 
the ability to "write minds" and change human emotions.
Certainly, such qualities kind of confuse the roles of master 
and servant.
   And whereas humans are shortlived, R.Daneel
ends up being at least 20.000 years old
(how old exactly?)
   Actually there is an interesting issue
on Daneel's lack of continuity : "Even my positronic brain 
has been replaced on five different occasions." he told Trevise
(In the Foundation series)  
"My present brain ...is but six hundred years old..."
So is R.Daneel in reality many robots? I am not quite sure
what Asimov actually meant here - certainly Asimov hints
that an intelligent entity can't go on for 20.000 years. Why? 
And if it is better for humans to be short lived - 
why doesn't same hold true for robots?

   One thing is for sure though, as intelligent
robots entered the equation, humanity started living
under the Pax Robotica. And Asimov was a genious to
have forseen it all.

February 8th 2003,

-Simon 

Simon Laub
www.silanian.subnet.dk