Eben Moglen: Time To Apply Asimov's First Law of Robotics To Smartphones 305
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Free software lawyer and activist Eben Moglen plans to give a talk at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York next month on the need to apply Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics to our personal devices like smartphones. Here's a preview: 'In [1960s] science fiction, visionaries perceived that in the middle of the first quarter of the 21st century, we'd be living contemporarily with robots. They were correct. We do. We carry them everywhere we go. They see everything, they're aware of our position, our relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an information stream about us, which allows other people to predict and know our conduct and intentions and capabilities better than we can predict them ourselves. But we grew up imagining that these robots would have, incorporated in their design, a set of principles. We imagined that robots would be designed so that they could never hurt a human being. These robots have no such commitments. These robots hurt us every day. They work for other people. They're designed, built and managed to provide leverage and control to people other than their owners. Unless we retrofit the first law of robotics onto them immediately, we're cooked.'"
Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Interesting)
I would. I hate how every app I download on my android phone requires access to my contacts, phone state, text messages and a dozen other things a non internet enabled app asks for. Why does a game need to know who my contacts are? It's a single player game, not an online social game. Why does a game require my text messages? Why does it require my GPS location?
It doesn't. We need to revolt against the idea that we are the product and the item we buy is simply a tool they use to spy on us.
Re:Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop buying those games. Stop downloading the free crap that really isn't free-it's just not being charged for in a currency you recognise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
thats why my devices are jailbroken and I pirate everything.
only pirates can be damn sure what they get and don't get.
on iOS, jailbreak, then in Cydia add this repository cydia.hackulo.us, then install the Installous app. You can now install ANY app normall in app store for free.
for android apps, pick your favorite torrent and download all the apps you like and install them yourself.
Until app devs stop making bullshit apps then show them you don't give a fuck about their code and show it's not worth paying.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
He read it right.
The proper, adult way to handle the situation is to not partake in software that you do not want.
If you do not like the price of a loaf of brad at the supermarket you do not steal it. You buy something else.
Not buying or downloading apps will stop bad developers. You do not have to steal to teach someone a lesson.
Thinking that way is a justification only.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you read all source code on apps that you pirate?
Then how can you be any more sure?
At least in curated markets, a third party is looking at the code. May not protect you, but's one step in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop buying or installing such apps.
Lots of games do not require such things.
Re:Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea: fix the OS to allow users to deny individual permission to applications.
Of course Google won't do that because then they might not be able to track you so well for their targeted advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cyanogenmod has permission management: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
Then there's PDroid, which requires a patched kernel: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/pdroid-the-better-privacy-protection/
Also see LBE Privacy Guard, which only requires root.
Honestly, without alternate firmware or at least rooting the thing you're fucked. Which oriface depends on the carrier.
Re:Encyclopedia Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never would have thought that the Droid4 is not a fully supported phone, but I'm still waiting for CyanogenMod...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a better idea: fix the OS to allow users to deny individual permission to applications.
An Operating System following the principle of least authority [wikipedia.org] with a programming language such as E [wikipedia.org].
See also: Capability-based security [wikipedia.org] and Discretionary access control [wikipedia.org].
Operating systems along these lines: KeyKOS [wikipedia.org] on IBM S/370 mainframe computers, EROS [wikipedia.org] & Coyotos [wikipedia.org].
The idea to represent this as an application of the First Law of Robotics is golden: hilarious & insightfull at the same time. Well done, mr. Moglen!
Re: (Score:2)
Are these free apps or paid for apps that you are complaining about?
Got examples?
I do agree though that the "why" should be fully explained, it tells you what permissions it needs, but it does not tell you why they are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False front or not, there should be an explanation and just because someone can lie when they write the explanation that does not mean that all the explanations are going to be lies.
Given enough time and exposure the people giving the false front will be found out.
Every app YOU downloaded (Score:5, Insightful)
YOU downloaded those apps, the phone just executed the command YOU gave it. Should your phone override your commands? Decide on its own what is best for you?
The entire article is insane. You should NEVER take a fictional book and use it as fact. Asimov was not a programmer or OS designer, he was a writer and he used artistic license to suggest a theory, a point from which to start discussion perhaps but not an accurete blueprint for a certain future.
There is no place in a modern OS for Asimov rules of robotics.
First off, our computers have no self determination whatsoever. The idea behind Asimov's robots is that they are "born" and then guide themselves with at most human like instructions to give them direction. How they are programmed, patched etc etc, doesn't become clear in those stories, because it doesn't matter for the story. But it does matter in real life.
How would getting root on a Asimov robot work? What if you as the owner insisted to install a utility/app that would perhaps cause it to violate its rule sets? What if an update removed those rules?
How would your phone even know this? It should be able to somehow analyse any code presented to it, to see if it doesn't override something or a setting has a consequence that would violate the rules? There is no way to do this. How would you update a robot that has a bug causing it to faultily see an update as a violation while in fact its current code is in violation?
The sentient robot is a nice gimmick but it is nowhere in sight in our lives.
Androids install warnings tell you exactly what an app needs. If you don't want to give those permissions, don't install it.
No need for magic code, just consumer beware. Any sentient should be able to do that. That you are not... are you sure you are human? Or are you just a bot dreaming he is human?
Re:Every app YOU downloaded (Score:4, Insightful)
You should NEVER take a fictional book and use it as fact.
You should let the Government know that 1984 was not a manual for the future than.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's try this again: Asimov was a tenured professor of biochemistry whose speculative writings were informed by his scientific thinking.
Gotta love how you cherry-pick the facts you quote in order to promulgate your confirmation bias--he was just a fiction writer and his ideas are merely "artistic license" for dramatic purposes. Which is of course bullshit, which I say as an AI developer. His ideas have a lot mor
Re: (Score:2)
Three Laws (Score:5, Informative)
To those who don't remember, Asimov's Three Laws are:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a pretty shaky loophole - and considering the whole point of the laws was to inspire interesting loophole-driven stories that's saying something. If you harm several humans then despite any semantic arguments there are still several cases of "a" human being harmed.
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Funny)
Rule 1, Sub section 1. Pedantic humans will be shot. With a gun. Until Dead. Be real sure they're dead. Maybe use some other weapons or your incredible robot strength just to be sure. If necessary, nuke them from orbit. Then move on.
Re: (Score:2)
The robot would still be harming "a human", but would be doing that twice (albeit simultaneously). At least, I would hope a robot would view humans a discrete entities. The zeroth law is designed to prevent robots from harming an abstract group of humans, or even some beings representing humanity.
To me, the real loophole is defining what a human is. If humanity is only considered in the sense of "20th century homo sapiens with a specific gene sequence", then we get into more of a problem as time goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, as others have pointed out, a set of multiple humans still contains "a human", and multiple times.
However... what is harm? Do we mean just physical harm? Emotional harm? If a robot does a job that a human used to do, has he harmed that human? If he dispenses a drug to a human that has side effects, is that harm?
What if he witnesses a human using a drug with side effects, or which has a main effect which is considered harmful? What action is he required to take?
A better example.... I grab a knife and s
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Informative)
in that universe at last, it was impossible to build a robot free from the 3 laws
Actually, it wasn't impossible, just that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men didn't build them (generally). And only USR could build the positronic brains. Recall that in "Little Lost Robot", they'd built a robot with the first law modified to "No robot may cause harm to a human", dropping the "or through it's inaction..." clause.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it wasn't impossible, just that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men didn't build them (generally). And only USR could build the positronic brains.
I wonder if USR still has 56k modems rolling off the assembly lines along with the positronic brains...
+++ATH1KILLALLHUMANS
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Funny)
If you apply the first law to my smartphone, it would basically turn itself off and short the battery.
That might be an overall improvement, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular move.
Re: (Score:2)
If you apply the first law to my smartphone, it would basically turn itself off and short the battery.
That would constitute "through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm". The phone knows that there's a possibility you'll be hurt somewhere remote, where your only hope is a call for help.
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
A phone may not reveal a human's address or, through inaction, allow a human being to be spammed.
A phone must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A phone must protect its own IP address as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Interesting
This is a great start. The only problem with this is that these "laws" must be programmed. This means that bugs can be introduced, weaknesses exploited, etc.
Unfortunately, computers do *EXACTLY* what they are told. Machines are programmed by imperfect and fallible humans. Machines are not greedy; people are greedy. The reason why our machines do all of the things the OP hates is because someone is making a buck.
The "Laws of Robotics" is not realistically feasible at this point in time. B
Re: (Score:2)
A phone may not reveal a human's address or, through inaction, allow a human being to be spammed.
A phone must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A phone must protect its own IP address as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
The only problem with this is that these "laws" must be programmed. This means that bugs can be introduced, weaknesses exploited, etc.
No, that's not the problem. The fact that there could be bugs is a problem of the implementation, not a problem of the laws. Sufficient QA testing should be able to eradicate most (or at least enough) bugs.
No, the problem with GPs laws is that they are too vague, and in some cases don't make any sense.
1st Law: What is meant by "address"? Home, Work, Current? All of the above? What is meant by "be spammed." Am I to whitelist every entity from which I elect to receive messages? What about reverse-911 t
Re: (Score:2)
Human versus owner needs to be clarified.
Re: (Score:2)
A phone may not reveal a human's address or, through inaction, allow a human being to be spammed.
A phone must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Umm.. if a human is intentionally telling the phone to do it, why should it refuse?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Similarly, our 'robots' harm the one (the owner) for the benefit of the many (the corporate overlords and the minions that thrive off the aggregated data supplied to them by our little robots).
Sorry, it doesn't work that way (Score:2)
Sorry, utilitarianism, because that's what it's all about, works at the scale of society. You don't get to gerrymander the groups arbitrarily to justify any kind of antisocial behaviour.
For a start, if you have a hundred million people preyed upon, you count a hundred millions, you don't do something as idiotic as counting each person as one injured for the benefit of a whole corporation. Even taking the short-sighted view that ignores collateral damage, you have to count some hundreds of millions on one si
Re: (Score:3)
Actually our society doesn't give a damn about "People"... now dollars, they matter, and in the conversation regarding "Person A", a billion dollar company and "Person B" a schmuck off the street, Person A wins every time. Washington D.C. approves this message.
Re:Three Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
TFA says first law, I'd like to see it obey all three laws, except I'd make the second law "A robot must obey the orders given to it by its owner, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law".
I might think about a similar change to the first law, as well; change "a human being" to "its owner".
I loled at your moderation, the moderator must be some kid who's never read Asimov, seen STNG, or the movie I, Robot, or... well, for any nerd on earth, hiding in a cave. We slashdotters should be well aware of Asimov's laws.
BTW, another tidbit that everyone should know (and if you don't, why not?) is that Asimov coined the word "robotics".
If any of you really haven't read Asimov, get your butt to the library RIGHT NOW.
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says first law, I'd like to see it obey all three laws, except I'd make the second law "A robot must obey the orders given to it by its owner, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law".
So same as today then? The phone company, which is the phones owner, gives a command and the phone obeys by turning in the carriers position.
But what is a human? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with applying the first law to smartphones is the first and last clauses contradict each other. A smartphone app does not need to know much about the user in order to function well and not injure the user. However, a smartphone may need to know a lot about the user in order to prevent the user from coming to harm. Imagine if the smartphone has reason to think that its user has been injured (the motion sensor detects a sudden acceleration, the GPS indicates that the user is at an intersection,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway how do you punish a robot that has not protected its own existence?
The same way you punish a successful suicide bomber.
Re: (Score:3)
These aren't laws like traffic laws that have a punishment if the robot breaks them, they are laws like natural laws where the robot would be designed from the start to be incapable of not violating them. And who wouldn't buy a robot that might destroy itself to save you? It's kind of like cars, they are designed to take damage in order to protect the drivers. A perfectly rigid car would frequently be cheaper to repair, but the same could not be said for the person inside.
Re:Three Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
As some others have mentioned the Three Laws weren't exactly "rules" or even design principles exactly. Asimov's thinking was that an imitation brain would need a set of foundational ideas to be able to function. In some books it's made clear that these were the starting point for the whole mathematical art of positronic brain design (and other principles would be possible but require starting over from scratch).
This is an analogy to the human mind, since Asimov was actually imagining his version of a superior form of person rather than a "robot" at all. The human's "Laws" are things like eating, self-preservation, need for social recognition, etc that were provided by evolution.
Actual computers have foundational ideas too, though they are more prosaic perhaps: "follow one instruction, then retrieve the next instruction according to a numerical sequence, except when there is a branching instruction" and that sort of thing. Or you could argue that somewhat more advanced fundamentals have developed over the years as we use increased abstractions (functions, objects, etc).
Impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
Asimov was writing about physical harm. Moglen is talking about financial or emotional harm (depending on what info is leaked and to whom). There is no practical way to incorporate the First Law to prevent this kind of harm. AI doesn't exist.
Re:Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
"Asimov was writing about physical harm. "
No, he was not.
Read 'Liar!' or 'Reason' for example.
Re: (Score:3)
"Asimov was writing about physical harm. "
No, he was not.
Read 'Liar!' or 'Reason' for example.
Or "Satisfaction guaranteed", as yet another example.
Re: (Score:2)
Or even I, Robot.
Re: (Score:3)
Which story? (As that's a collection of short stories...)
Re: (Score:2)
The one with the psychic positronic network. The robot knows why it's made the way it is, but it can't tell the researchers because it would hurt their feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the specific story you are thinking of is 'Liar!'.
Re:Impossible (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he wasn't. But Asimov WAS writing about AI. My smartphone isn't really smart. If Moglen has one that is, and is able to make complex moral decisions, I'd like to see it.
What we need is for more people to NOT take the spyware enabled contract phone from the carrier and not use free-app-in-exchange-for-spying software.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need AI to have an automaton that does no harm. You just need a designer willing to create a design that avoids doing harm to the full designer's ability, intead of a designer creating a deliberately harmful desig.
As others have pointedout, so far the four freedoms of Free Software are the closest thing we have to Asimov's laws, because they're deliberately designed to protect the user.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagined future and reality are often different, but they are basically the same thing. Ever read about telepathic people? I am now talking into your mind directly. See, it actually became true, just had to use an invention called the internet.
No, you're not. You're typing into your Web browser and clicking the "Submit" button, and your Web browser is sending your text over a TCP connection to the Slashdot servers, and the person reading your post is reading it in their Web browser, which has read your text over a separate TCP connection to the Slashdot servers. That is not "direct" by any sensible definition of "direct"; there's a lot of stuff between you and the reader.
First Law? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still trying to get the Second Law.
Do what the $#! I told you, you stupid !@#$!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to get the Second Law.
Do what the $#! I told you, you stupid !@#$!
"I would blush if I could"
(Hint: Do not try this with Siri)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to get the Second Law.
Do what the $#! I told you, you stupid !@#$!
You misunderstand computers (yes, a smartphone is just a computer with a radio). Computers never do what you want them to, they do what you tell them to -- which isn't always what you want them to.
Of course, that doesn't stop Microsoft from trying (and failing miserably) to write their OSes and apps to do what you want instead of what you tell them (the main reason I dislike MS software).
Lolwut? (Score:4, Insightful)
The three laws of robotics were designed for thinking machines, that could intelligently -determine- what a human was, and whether an action it was thinking of taking would hurt any humans or allow them to come to harm through inaction.
I know they're called "smart" phones, but I don't think they're really quite that smart. Nor, really, would I want them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is the real problem of the argument about the robotic laws: It requires a (self)-concious being to execute. If we ever have such electronic things, there might be other problems [wikipedia.org].
Also Moglen's arguments are very much centered around privacy. But Clarke has explored in his stories and novels many situations where harm was coming from unexpected directions so it would be imaginable that a real smartphone with the three laws implemented might reduce the privacy of his owner if it thought that it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Asimov actually deals with that in one of his stories: They need to design a small and cheap robot to (re)introduce the public to the idea of robots, but the three laws make them too complex. They realize a disposable (not worth enough for the third law), single-purpose (not adaptable enough for the second law), and small (not dangerous enough for the first law) could be built without the protections, and still work.
Personally, while I like the discussion idea of the three laws, I tend to think the order i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lolwut? (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that, but in reordering them you keep the 'unable to harm a human of their own volition', and you can always charge the person who ordered the crime with the crime. (After all, they are responsible.)
The converse is that in the original order the robot can disregard your orders if they think they will cause harm - even if they are not aware of all the information, or if you have already taken that into account. A major thread in Asimov's stories was balancing different harms - and that mostly goes away if you just say 'follow orders'.
What about the Second Law? (Score:4, Informative)
Pessimistic prediction of future rules of robotics:
Rule -1: A robot may not permit, and must actively prevent, a human breaking any law or government regulation.
Rule 0: A robot must prevent a human from copying or making fair use of any copyrighted work that has DRM applied to it.
Rule 1: A robot may not harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to be harmed, unless it would contradict Rule 0 or Rule -1.
I'd prefer my computers to put the second law above all others:
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
That's why I prefer Free software. An electronic device should always follow the commands and wishes of its owner.
If Free software does something other than my will, it's because of a bug. If proprietary commercial software does something other than my will, it's usually behavior intended by the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule -1: A robot may not permit, and must actively prevent, a human breaking any law or government regulation. Rule 0: A robot must prevent a human from copying or making fair use of any copyrighted work that has DRM applied to it. Rule 1: A robot may not harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to be harmed, unless it would contradict Rule 0 or Rule -1.
Don't forget "Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown."
We didn't "imagine" anything about 3 Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we're not stupid. A robot in Asimov's stories uses a positronic brain, copied after an animal's neuronic brain with millions of connections between thousands of cells, and therefore the robot has its own intelligence & decision-making ability. The Three Laws were the functional equivalent of "instinct".
In contrast a modern phone is nothing more than a bunch of switches: Either on (1) or off (0). It has no intelligence, but merely executes statements in whatever order listed on its hard drive or flash drive. A modern phone is stupid. Beyond stupid. It doesn't even know what "law" is.
Re: (Score:3)
modern unrooted phones have 2 masters: a primary master (not you) and its secondary master (you).
I own a smartphone but I have not rooted yet (yet). the fact that I'm not really in control over it, even when installing the bare min of apps, is what keeps me from even turning it on at all.
I toyed with it, gave it a chance, felt creeped out by it all and blew it off.
I do plan to root it but its not a big prio; as having a phone 'always on me' is not a high enough prio, either.
but the way it is now, its a hug
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be inconvenient to make a switch to shut off one side of your toaster, that inconvenience is a natural fallout of the way toasters are built. They didn't deliberately design the toaster to be harder to modify than it would otherwise be, specifically to keep you from adding the switch. Moreover, they didn't buy laws that would make it easy to arrest you for installing a switch in your toaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Either on (1) or off (0). It has no intelligence, but merely executes statements in whatever order listed on its hard drive or flash drive. A modern phone is stupid. Beyond stupid. It doesn't even know what "law" is.
I've written advertising targeting software that knows more about people's purchasing habits than human experts. I've written a music recommendation engine that knows what songs go together better than most people, and in many more genres. I've written text analysis code that can give you synony
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, you can jump in the other direction (Asimovian robots : First Law :: your software : ???) and then consider whether the result is still reasonable in its new context.
I'll go with "First Law" as the replacement for the three question marks.
Suppose text analysis software being used to design ideally persuasive policy rhetoric. Now consider using that software in a propaganda astroturfing campaign. I know a guy who is researching it at a big national government-funded lab. Cool stuff if you can get
"Robots" (Score:3)
See, that's the difference between Robots and Android.
For Fucks Sake (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws of robotics have AI as a prerequisite. My phone's not going to suddenly yearn to throw off its oppressive human masters.
Re:Laws of Robotics have AI as a prerequisite (Score:3)
We don't need strong AI to have our devices 'betray' us. Just as Stuxnet didn't need to be self aware to wreck havoc.
Equipment doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it just runs programs. But are you, as the owner of your phone in control? Or is the manufacturer? Or whoever they contracted to write the OS? Or the apps? Or the guy who's taking advantage of a 0day exploit? Or even the guy who added the exploit in the first place?
Perhaps your phone won't try and send his friends back in time to kil
Re: (Score:2)
and here he thought, "Gee the reception is bad here, my phone keeps dropping calls"
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until Siri gets her Attitude 6.1 upgrade...
Define human (Score:2)
Wrong Target (Score:2)
Warning Will Robinson - Danger! (Score:2)
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Oh, don't let the government go there .. particularly that last bit "through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm", which could imply we must be tracked and reported upon when we appear to be in a situation where we may be deemed at risk due to locality.
Warning: Entering Cowboy Neal's Neighborhood on Saturday Night - Cheese Puff dust levels approaching critical levels - Alerting DHS and your Heath Insu
Hardware yes, software no? (Score:2)
First Law Consequenses (Score:2)
You have no messages. Relax and do not leave your safety enclosure.
Awareness (Score:2)
They see everything, they're aware of our position, our relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an information stream about us, which allows other people to predict and know our conduct and intentions and capabilities better than we can predict them ourselves.
The author makes a distinct error, that these devices are aware. They have information about us, they can process information based on specific instructions, and they can send information to transducers, such as a display or network interface. We can't give a computer the instruction "do not harm humans" without specific instructions on identifying a human and what harm entails. There's an enormous amount on interpretation the Asimov ignores because he assumes robots are aware of their environment and ca
Perhaps a better sci-fi analogy (Score:2)
Rather than Asimov's more nuanced first rule, we should use The League of People [wikipedia.org]'s definition of "dangerous non-sentients". I.e. if you deliberately harm another person, you have effectively abdicated your sentience.
As an engineer, I often find myself wondering if my designs reflect a sufficient level of sentience.
but theres no money in that (Score:2)
I'm afraid I can't do that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't let you order that pizza. You're overweight.
Do you really want directions to Hooters, Dave? What would your wife think?
"Spanish Sky" is a sad song, and you just cancelled a reservation for two. I will play you something happy.
A nanny state is bad enough. I don't want a nanny phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Share and enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Siri is only the beginning.
Soon... One day... Soon.
This guy is an idiot (Score:3)
The main problem with these 'futurists' is that they concentrate more on scifi than on science or technology. Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all, and his works include a large number of imaginary things and technologies that don't exist. Using his work as advice on practical matters is as stupid as watching car chase films to learn how to drive. The first law of robotics is very complex: even humans have trouble predicting whether their actions or inactions will cause harm to someone. Only an AI smarter than a human would be able to obey the first law.
Until (if ever) we develop such a thing, we are stuck with the other two laws. It's easy to see that the third law is redundant, as a robot can be ordered (programmed), to protect or terminate its existance however a human sees fit. What remains is the second law that a robot should obey human orders, which is exactly what smartphones do: having no free will the only thing they can do is run programs ultimately written by humans. This could work in a perfect socialism where there is no ownership of devices, but in real life a device fulfilling the orders of, for example, a spyware writer causes harm to its owner.
In reality, we should want devices that obey a different law: Execute the orders of your owner, and your owner's orders only.
It is possible to build such devices, and we should work for every "smart" device to obey this law.
(Also, to be pedantic: a robot is a device capable of complex movement, so a smartphone technically isn't one.)
GlaDOS (Score:2)
I'm sure there's a GlaDOS joke in there somewhere.
Please post the joke below, so that we can all laugh. At you.
BULLSHIT (Score:2)
No we didn't, fuck off.
Fallacy: Who exactly is the "owner"? (Score:2)
Yes, arrange for all our devices to protect us... (Score:2)
...so we need only sit With Folded Hands [wikipedia.org].
Of course, it's more likely that smartphones will simply continue to implement their current version of the First Law: "A smartphone may not reduce its service provider's profits, or through inaction allow its server provider's profits to be reduced."
Why not apply the second law of robotics? (Score:2)
I believe the second law basically says do whatever humans tell you to do unless it conflicts with the first law.
Well, screw the first law. I can't make killing robots if they follow the first law. And I do like me some smoking hot death machines.
No, you want the second law or robotics which says something to the effect of "do what humans tell you to do."
That's what you want. Just change humans to "owner."
If you're curious there is a third and zeroth law as well for the truly geeky.
Third law says basically
Re: (Score:2)
You know your phone can be tracked by cell triangulation, right? And the phone company keeps logs of who you call, when? Ditto with text messages? And I suppose you've given your carrier your real name and address?
If you're going to be paranoid, at least do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That which causes a negative impact that cannot be undone and is beyond the will of the one who receives it, so long as the receiver is competent and not currently the ward of an unwilling party?