cm0002@lemmy.cafe to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 10 days agoThe Resonant Computing Manifestoresonantcomputing.orgexternal-linkmessage-square1linkfedilinkarrow-up114arrow-down10cross-posted to: technology@lemmy.ml
arrow-up114arrow-down1external-linkThe Resonant Computing Manifestoresonantcomputing.orgcm0002@lemmy.cafe to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 10 days agomessage-square1linkfedilinkcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.ml
minus-squareRegularJoe@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·10 days agoIf we could just adopt Asimov’s three laws of robotics to computers and robots, we’d be better. * 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 Now someone will argue harm isn’t specified (physical harm? Mental harm? Financial harm?), but I interpret that as any harm.
If we could just adopt Asimov’s three laws of robotics to computers and robots, we’d be better.
* 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
Now someone will argue harm isn’t specified (physical harm? Mental harm? Financial harm?), but I interpret that as any harm.