The Fourth Law Of Robotics :: essays research papers

<a href="http//www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknins Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web SitesSigmund Freud said that we have an un trampny reaction to the inanimate. This is probably because we know that - disdain pretensions and layers of philosophizing - we atomic number 18 nothing but recursive, self aware, introspective, conscious machines. Special machines, no doubt, but machines althesame.The series of James bond movies constitutes a decades-spanning g completelyery of human beings paranoia. Villains change communists, neo-nazis, media moguls. But one kind of villain is a fixture in this psychodrama, in this parade of human phobias the machine. James Bond always finds himself confronted with hideous, vicious, vixenish machines and automata.It was precisely to counter this wave of unease, even terror, irrational but all-pervasive, that Isaac Asimov, the late Sci-fi writer (and scientist) invented the Three Laws of RoboticsA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harmA robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First LawA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second LawsMany have noticed the lack of consistency and the virtual inapplicability of these laws put together. First, they are not the derivative of any coherent worldview and background. To be properly implemented and to avoid a potentially dangerous interpretation of them - the robots in which they are infix must be also equipped with a reasonably full model of the physical and of the human spheres of existence. Devoid of such a context, these laws soon bunk to intractable paradoxes (experiences as a nervous breakdown by one of Asimovs robots). Conflicts are ruinous in automata based on recursive functions (Turing machines) as all robots must be. Godel pointed at one such self destructive paradox in the "Principia Mathematica" ostensibly comprehensive and self consistent logical system. It was enough to put down the whole magnificent edifice constructed by Russel and Whitehead over a decade.Some will argue against this and say that robots need not be automata in the classical, Church-Turing, sense. That they could act according to heuristic, probabilistic rules of decision making. There are many other types of functions (non-recursive) that can be incorporated in a robot. True, but then, how can one guarantee full predictability of behaviour? How can one be certain that the robots will fully and always implement the three laws?