Science isn't all about robots and aliens

Geoff: But the robots are damned cool.

Except Asimo. Damned Honda and their obsession with turning cool things lame.


Where's his guns? Huh?

Corwin: "But the robots are damned cool." -That was exactly what I was going to say!

I wonder when they'll finally make a sexy woman robot.... I could use one of those to tidy up around here and help with the dishes. I'd say to her, "Fembot.... go make me a sandwich!"... we could thank Asimov and his Three Laws for that one. Hmmmm.... but what if my wife said, "Fembot... don't make him a sandwich!".... I wonder if that would cause an unsolvable dispute in her positronic matrix and cause freeze-up.

Geoff: As a female robot, it should know that your command overrides your wife's.

**Ducks in case his joke is heard by any women and wants to be out of the way of the inevitable shitstorm**

Corwin: Good point!! (you have also read Asimov).... If I reinforced her command of sandwich with the right inflection of voice, she would for a time, pause, and then, still make my sandwich... but this would also piss off my wife... because she would realize that my commands supersede hers.

Unless she ALSO read Asimov, or at least became knowledgeable in the workings of the positronic brain, she could never supersede my commands.... would this become an issue??

Well... if it did... let's hope that this Fembot that I purchased, also had Humaniform characteristics? Then the choice between them would be clear.

(also ducking the shitstorm). LOL

Geoff: "All military grade robots have been taught to read and given a copy of the laws of robotics. To share." - Aperture laboratories emergency testing procedures automated disclaimer.

Corwin: Ooohh.... that's new to me... that sounds wrong, Geoff...

NOT bound to the laws?? Military Robots??

What novel is this? I must read this.

OCD_OCD: You two are both clowns.

Corwin: Surely a military robot could only battle another robot... with the intent of preserving human life... with the priority being that the humans THEY are protecting supersedes the orders of the opposing robots of whatever humans THEY are protecting.... or would a robot battlefield crumble under the requirements of the Three Laws.

Would not the battle itself become counterproductive of human existence.... whereas the Zero'ith law comes into place?

Corwin: To those of you who are not familiar with Asimov's Three Laws......

In most literature, most robots always seem to have a mind of their own and go homicide on us.

Asimov created the "Three Laws of Robotics"... which states:

(1) A robot may not harm a Human being... through action... or through inaction allow a Human to come to harm.
(2) A robot must follow any command given by a Human, as long as it doesn't disobey the First Law.
(3) A robot must protect it's own existence... as long as it doesn't disobey the First or Second Laws.

Ironically, doesn't this describe the best of us?... By defining what is required of a robot... he defined the true human condition... these robots would be better than any of us... if only we were confined to these 3 laws.

Aura: Nah, humans are weird to a point that even robots can't reason it away. I mean we could lose one man and injure 3 others in a rescue mission to save a child's life and still consider it a success. A robot would see the odds and reason that one life just isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

On a side note, we women would be way too busy ordering our malebots to take out the trash, fix the dripping sink and rub our feet to give a damn about your sandwich

OCD_OCD: You tell 'em, Zenbot!!!!!

Corwin: @Zen - Actually, an Asimov robot would have no choice but to save a human irregardless of it's own safety... that's the beauty of the Three Laws. The trouble is when more than one human is in danger, then it has to weigh the probabilities of who it is most likely to successfully save. In "I Robot" a robot chooses an adult to save over a child, because the adult was more likely to survive... a human would always try to save the child first, even if the hopes were slim. A character of human instinct that Asimov robots lack... it may seem illogical, but it's a matter of preservation of the species.

Oh, and I would be more than happy to give you a foot rub, and make you a sandwich.... but maybe not in that order.

Magz Rides Again: I just stick with the movie iRobot

notes - a robot would know that the word irregardless does not exist

Corwin: Yes it does. Do you have a dictionary? I know lots of big words.

Magz Rides Again: lol in the context given by you - the correct word is "regardless"

CoIin: Big words? You guys wanna see my floccinaucinihilipilification?

Magz Rides Again: lmfao Col. I have no idea what you said, but whatever you say sounds cos of your accent

CoIin: Cool. I was afraid you might be one of these sesquipedalophobes I've read about

Magz Rides Again: again...it's that burr of yours that does it for me

Aura: Yep, I read 'I-robot' (and the movie wasn't as good).
And now I'm driving myself crazy cause an other story comes to mind, I just can't remember what it was called and who wrote it, but basically they programmed those rules into humans with a toy teddy bear given to all kids that they would tell all their secrets and feelings to, the bear would respond to them and if there was any indication that it was a wrong thought (stealing, killing and such) the bear would say they could never actually do it. It worked, no more crime. Except one guy, his dad had programmed the bear to ignore killing thoughts, so he would be able to kill someone....with the result that as soon as the now grown kid realized what had been done to him, he killed his father

CoIin: Dammit, Zen. I'll be afraid to even talk to my plants from now on

Corwin: @ Zen - Yikes! That sounds like a good read... if you remember what it was let me know.

I liked the I Robot movie... I agree it's not as good as the book, but I liked how they managed to package it in a Hollywood wrapping for the masses, yet kept the spirit of the story intact. It exposed a lot of people to the genius of Asimov who would likely never pick up a book.

Aura: Ah, Harry Harrison, "I always do what teddy says"
It's a short story from the '60. Actually his stories are pretty good, but that one stuck with me

Corwin: I'll look that up on mIRC. Thanks for the heads-up Zen.

You know another Hollywood version of Asimov that wasn't too shabby? "Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams... based on Asimov's "The Positronic Man". They took some liberties with it, and of course Williams added his own zany personality to Andrew... but the spirit of the book was there, especially the tear-jerker ending. Actually, they nailed both heartbreaks in that movie... the other was when Little Miss dies.

Geoff: Bicentennial man was pretty good. It showed Williams off in the same light as "Good poets society" - a comedian who can be funny in a straight role without distracting from the fact that he is a damned good actor when he wants to be.

Which is very much unlike "The Truman Show".

And Asimov's "I, Robot" series should be compulsory reading in all schools as it gives a logical grounding to morality, which is essential in all citizens who live a country with a socially derived justice system.

Corwin: Good bump.

Oh, by the way... my penguin is actually a robot penguin.


The gun is a bluff... he could never actually harm a human with his gun... the Three Laws would prevent it.....

But he COULD harm another robot penguin.... if I gave the order...



But, what if the first robot penguin had orders to save a Human... but the second robot penguin was given orders to stop the first robot penguin from carrying out it's orders in order to save another Human.... hmmmmm..... could this be a new spectator sport?

We could actually have a lot of fun with the Three Laws... place bets now......