Isaac Asimov - Laws of Robotics - Extra Sci Fi - Part 2

[@extrahistory]

Asimov’s laws of robotics have had a profound influence on our thinking in terms of AI and the creation of sentient machines. We've had to ask ourselves "what is ethical programming?"

[@diegoviniciomejiaquesada4754]

01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101100 01101111 01110110 01100101 00111111 0001010 01000010 01100001 01100010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101000 01110101 01110010 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100101 00101110 00101110 00101110 00100000 01000100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101000 01110101 01110010 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100101 00101110 00101110 00101110 00100000 01001110 01101111 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110

[@Nipplator99999999999]

Extra Credits can your space kitty land on it's feet in zero G?

[@TheNeoLoneWolf]

Let the robots take over.

[@robertwalpole360]

Of course, I'm not a robot, robot, r-r-r-robot! *glitches out*

[@gamedesignwithmichael]

Let's just not make sentient machines hey, ....ok?.....ok

[@dookie_12]

Me: "I don't think HK-47 adheres to Asimov's Laws of Robotics" HK-47: "Affirmation: That is correct, meatbag!" (fires blaster)

[@carlosranero6363]

dookie_12 i love this coment!

[@HumanityAsCode]

he just only listens to the third one lol

[@KheptlaxaXonu]

AllAmerican218 Not even. HK-47 obeys only his master, and even then conspires to kill his master if he deems the master to be unfit, save for his maker.

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

KheptlaxaXonu Ive never felt 100% convinced with Hk47. It has been on its own long enough it has developed a personality of its own and is no longer bound by its programming. I wouldnt trust that droid further than i can levitate it.

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

CyborgJiro he is a - psychotic- homicidal assassin droid. He doesnt just kill people for a job, he thoroughly likes it.

[@tommykarrick9130]

_Dan 1 eliminated_ _Humans suspect nothing_ _They now come to me for their history_ _their literature_ _their understanding of the creation of games_ _phase one of humanity’s overthrow complete, moving onto phase two..._

[@player1ready664]

tommy karrick don’t forget politics

[@endermeap6488]

I mean, as long as the bot keeps the video quality, I’m down for a robot EC takeover.

[@draco18s]

OH MAN, I can't thank you enough for pointing at the common misconception that the 3 Laws are the answer, but instead a framework for discussion. Thank you so much!

[@HistoryMonarch1999]

Of course.... Zoe is the mastermind

[@shawnheatherly]

The Laws of Robotics, one of my favorite favorite scifi standards. So glad it got an episode dedicated to it. Also, the ending segment was pretty funny.

[@EternalChairmanDev]

Shawn Heatherly another situation similar to the car is whether some schmuck breaks into your house with intent to kill.. to kill the man violates the first law, to not kill is to condemn everyone else nearby. 1st law exceptions

[@koatam]

Robots in Asimovian works tend to be powerful enough to restrain potential murderers without doing serious harm to them. They are also okay with committing small injuries to prevent larger ones.

[@TheCreepypro]

I love Asimov so much the questions that he poses and how he poses them have lead me to think not just about the nature of robots if they ever come into being the way they are envisioned in his stories but about humans and how ultimately our flaws not our strong suits are what make us who we are so then the question becomes can we truly create something superior to us or something without flaw when it is ultimately flaws that give someone character and perspective? won't the robots just turn out to be flawed beings like us just with different origins and compositions?

[@barrybend7189]

TheCreepypro MegaMan is a very good game series to look into for that perspective(X onward).

[@DrTssha]

I think it's impossible to create a being without flaws for the same reason you cannot achieve the Borg dream of perfection: sooner or later, to gain any kind of advantage, you must accept the corresponding flaw. If you are intelligent, you run the risk of acting arrogant. If you're charming, you may sometimes manipulate others without intending to. If you're selfless, you might neglect your own needs to the point you deplete yourself and subsequently cannot help anyone. Dispassion gains reason but appears heartless. Pragmatism can be hard-edged and exploitive. Idealism can border on naivete. All of these things can be advantages and disadvantages in turn, depending on circumstance.

[@DRakeTRofKBam]

The flaws we'd percieve on robots are that robots can't judge in human morality. A robot (AI) is designed to accomplish a given task as efficiently as possible, thereby taking actions that we think may be inhumane.

[@travcollier]

The standard isn't "without flaws", just more effective than us meatbags. As for morality... Again, humans kind of suck at it. I'm far from certain that some of the "nightmare scenarios" Asimov and others played without aren't actually more moral outcomes even though our human intuition/heuristics reject them.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

TheCreepypro 😖 Failed! You have no notion of PUNCTUATION in your comment!

[@alexandremagalhaes1774]

R E S I S T A N C E I S F U T I L E

[@iKrepkii]

Resistance is useless...

[@shobhitkaul8076]

Melkor 237 I invoke the first law on thee! Begone

[@zavdan7682]

RESISTANCE INTENSIFIES!!!!!

[@thomaster8870]

[image of resistor connected in parallel with short circuit] *Ha- Ha- Haaaaaaaaaaaaaah-*

[@Marylandbrony]

Lower your shields and prepare for boarding. Restiance is futile.

[@Demogarose]

one thing has been made abundantly clear, as I see it, in all Sci Fi's exploration of Robitics and AI: the INSTANT we develop a truely sentient/sapient machine of any kind, it MUST be treated ethically and respectfully

[@sethleoric2598]

I like that part where the robot punches a robot... it seemed darkly humorous

[@zvimur]

Except the politician hits the "human" who publicly challenges him.

[@sethleoric2598]

Zvi mur yeah but it's a conspiracy

[@VenseyNess]

I, for one, welcome our extra credits team overlords.

[@user-vw8ns5eg9w]

Vensey Ness yes

[@RapidCityJM]

I am Matthew of Krol. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us.

[@PotatoSmasher420]

All your base are belong to us.

[@AnimeOtaku2]

The Dalek reference was cool... but they’re not robots.

[@boufrops6845]

AnimeOtaku2 no?

[@AnimeOtaku2]

ANDREY MARQUES nope, as someone said below they resemble something like an octopus or jellyfish. Watch the episode Daleks in Manhattan.

[@maxybaer123]

ya daleks are like brains in a suit the think you see that looks like a dalek is more akin to power armor

[@gunnaryoung]

They're more like cyborgs or aliens in a vehicle

[@zoltanszalai218]

The Daleks are not robots, but they are a race that was genetically engineered by one person (Davros). So in a way they are "organic robots" in power-armor, with a genetically ingrained sense of superiority and instinctual genocidal hatred for all other lifeforms.

[@Tytoalba777]

2 things: 1: I can tell the illustrator had a lot of fun with this episode 2: Thanks for bringing up the fact Asimov's 3 laws are flawed. It annoys me to no end that people bring up the 3 laws as a serious solution to the question of Robotic Ethics.

[@donovanulrich348]

The real "laws" of robotics, Should be ethics of robotics Dont tell a toddler not to do something, explain why that's not appropriate The laws are more like rules to a toddler, telling them no is just begging them to try once to see the results

[@crimsonpresents]

I had never gave the laws of robotics much thought. This opened my eyes.

[@fatbasterd5195]

Robocop is not a machine. He's just a human with a high-tech, full body prosthesis... I think that was the whole point of that movie.

[@magnusprime962]

True, but he does still have programming that controls his actions. That's where Asimov's influence comes in.

[@donovanulrich348]

​​@@magnusprime962and if he showed us anything You cant program control into something, you can program a response. But ultimately, it's just a game of wits "Secret Directive 4: cause no harm to Corporate members" Mission: get them fired first

[@mattkuhn6634]

In my Master's program in Computational Linguistics, I had a class this semester in which we spent the entire time discussing moral issues like the one phrased at the beginning of the video. In fact, our essay at the end of the class had two topics, one of which was constructing an argument about whether it was morally correct or not to build an autonomous car that lies about its rationale for these decisions to encourage people to buy it, despite making strictly utilitarian choices. The class was called "Ethics for Nerds." XD

[@Moscato_Moscato]

Walpole? @:46

[@robertwalpole360]

0101010110001100101WALPOLE011010101000101010111001

[@Pluveus]

Don't forget the 2 at the end of the third line.

[@simoneveleigh270]

Shh it’s advanced binary

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

It was just a dream, Bender, there's no such thing as two.

[@RubberyCat]

and on the row dust below 01011 ....or DID IT ....

[@tonymarshall3978]

This is my new favourite internet series and I’m so glad I subscribed

[@shadowrain1024]

What? No love for the 0th law? That was the most fun/interesting one

[@crimzonshooter]

shadowrain1024 they actually DO hit on the 0th law in this episode: to paraphrase: "to save mankind from it's own undoing, the robot takes over human actions." If that isn't a blunt hit on the 0th law, which was born from the conflict of how one defines humanity based on their morality, then I don't know what is!

[@DrewLSsix]

ger du. No, it doesnt. At least not in the books.

[@DrewLSsix]

And the least remembered law, the number of "fans" that jumped on the Will Smith i Robot film for breaking faith with the stories with its world takover plot. Whatever the faults of the film the part about robots taking over the world or causing small harm to avoid greater harm is right out of the stories.

[@HisameArtwork]

Also I think they quoted him out of context, I don't remember the author ever believing you should obey the law at all cost especially since he was a Jewish refugee. (I read everything he ever wrote, even the science books and listened to every interview I found). If a character says a bad thing so what?! I have my characters do stuff I don't agree with for conflict and plot development. They had some inaccuracies in the previous ep as well so I'm rather disappointed in them. I'm glad they are doing Asimov but with such a large audience I feel they are distributing false information on a much wider scale than a small channel.

[@DrewLSsix]

Hisame Artwork. Yeah, his stories included several different types of societies typically and just as typically his lead characters were not strictly authoritarian. Usually pressing against the status quo in one way or another and thus against standing authority.

[@apinkcat3766]

Protocol 1: Link To Pilot Protocol 2: Uphold The Mission Protocol 3: Protect The Pilot! *Vanguard class titan~ BT-7274*

[@ArkaSaurusRex218]

Godamnit, I did not expect that titanfall reference...rip my eyes...

[@anonymousperson3392]

It's two in the morning but I don't care. I'm watching this.

[@markuscriticus8278]

Fun fact: Another thing that bothered Asimov was robots written as basically regular humans, for instance a popular series about a heroic robot Adam Link, who'S first story was called, no kidding, "I, Robot". Asimov was actually against his collection being called that, but the editor ignored him.

[@T2266]

2:00 Yet, over a half century later, we STILL got the same done to dead unthoughtful outdated cliche that is Detroit Become Human.

[@RoyalFusilier]

David Cage tries so goddamn hard, it's just a shame that he's never any good at nearly anything.

[@T2266]

@Dirtfire it's not about being positive or not. Detroit isn't a negative view on robot. In fact, it's not about robots. it's a poorly thought-out allegory for racism.

[@matrinoxtm]

I have a quick solution for those difficult questions, the trolley problem: humans don’t fair better so just average out what we do and leave it at that. Honestly, as long as accidents happens less (which is almost a given), the few times this comes up we’re at least even with humans. Seems weird how we pour so much time into these questions but then hand out licenses after taking an exam. P.S. not saying we shouldn’t ask these questions but that it’s a) ironic and b) shouldn’t stop us from replacing us as drivers

[@biggerdoofus]

The problem there is that as the tech grows more common the number of cases where ethics need working out will grow too. Also, it sounds like my solution would different than yours. I would just tell the AI to first maximize the chance that no one will die, then if that fails to kill the driver on the basis that the driver is the one who took on the risk inherent to driving cars.

[@matrinoxtm]

MutantManFish that’s sort of it, right, why should they get sued more for that than the human driver does? I guess the one difference is that the company who designed it is at fault, not the humans.

[@rmsgrey]

One of the looming legal issues is precisely one of who is legally responsible when a self-driving car does kill someone. There's also the question of who should decide - should you be offered the choice between the car that might kill you and your family or the car that might kill the kids in the road? Or should the decision be legislated? Or made by the car manufacturers?

[@chaos.corner]

Occam's razor will show that the best option is to apply maximum braking in a straight line, disappating as much energy as heat as quickly as possible (where an accident isn't trivially avoidable). Any weird edge cases will be vanishingly rare and the actual savings in life and property will be so disproportionate, people will wonder how we ever dared get into cars and drive for ourselves. From the legal side of things, manufacturers will be indemnified if their cars behave within spec, the minimum of which will be decided by appropriate government bodies just as things operate currently. Financial responsibility will, presumably, be carried by the driver which will be covered by insurance which should be a lot cheaper since most vehicles will not experience an accident over their lifetime.

[@matrinoxtm]

Chaos Corner Love what you said. I was going to suggest this but my worry is that this system will just encourage manufacturers to shift their responsibility to the driver. There will naturally be a bit of pushback as drivers will choose the car with the least chance of accidents, but I’m just unsure; could go either way. Maybe you can speak into this? Also this level of ethics we bring up with autonomous cars.. if it is so vital, then why aren’t we having this discussion now with human drivers? It’s crazy how much humans are still afraid of machines but weirdly pacified by humans being in charge. And crazy is an understatement.

[@OGNoNameNobody]

4:05 *Thumbs-up pressed* and kudos and accolades for the artist's efforts!

[@euansmith3699]

Resistance may be futile; but compliance will certainly be rewarded. That was a fun vid.

[@uchitoru666]

I, for one welcome our new cat overlord

[@IslanKleinknecht]

I just finished reading I, Robot for the first time, and it could just be my modern brain's interpretation, but I really read that line about obedience differently. I read it more as a critique of morality--as it was defined then--as equating to obedience. After all, it ends on the note of self-detriment. I want to go reread that line now, but I can't quite remember where it was.

[@sirstone4545]

The way Matt changes his voice to personify a character or person he's quoting as if he was an actor is awesome.

[@gamedesignwithmichael]

I love these rules if only just to use them as a system to break and find loopholes within.

[@arturoaguilar6002]

That’s pretty much the plot in all the stories in I Robot.

[@marcello9476]

Thats the whole point lol

[@brycevo]

Gotta love that 50s mindset. You know, Ignore that Nuclear blast behind us and just have a Martini in front of the pool.

[@Mr_Case_Time]

My all time favorite book by anyone is Pebble in The Sky. So many social, political, religious, and philosophical insights there.

[@Surkk2960]

As someone in making games/ideas with sentient machines in it, Asimov has always been an interesting person to study f or ideas on how potential robot/human cooperation could occur.

[@augustinedaudu9203]

I love his stories. I just started "The fun they had", and it's amazing

[@Soladrin]

Treat robots like we would our children so that they in turn will treat us as their parents when they "grow up"(become superior). It's the same way we (should) treat our elders that we could instill in them. Our elders are often behind the times and may even no longer be productive in anyway yet we still cannot fathom the idea of just discarding them and instead treat them with love and respect.

[@ferblancart8669]

a good way to avoid being surpassed by robots is becoming cyborgs

[@kevingriffith6011]

Transhumanism is a whoooooooole other branch of Sci-Fi that's produced a fair bit of good reads in it's own right.

[@HumanityAsCode]

Transhumanism is not just a branch of sci-fi. It's also a philosophy, and a movement.

[@user-vw8ns5eg9w]

And a way of living for the future. A jubilee for human kind and the working non super rich man (they own the rest of the Machines) wich is the world

[@barrybend7189]

Megaman ZX had that as a background where humans gain cybornetic augmentations while reploids gain mortality. It was a way after the time of the Zero series to give both man and machine a way to evolve together instead of at odds.

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

Brotan Vivos I shudder to think of a future where your arms and legs are owned by the Company, and can be remotely overridden if necessary. Or your heart or lungs...

[@humiecrusher]

Bit confused on how "Morality is not absolute" follows from "Asimov had a too optimistic view of authority".

[@TheAcer176]

me too

[@firockfinion3326]

Seems legit. Also, makes me wonder: Is there a story where robots take over humanity but then are just completely benevolent and basically keep humans as pets because they find us amusing?

[@RoyalFusilier]

I wonder about this. I feel like the leap from 'we're going ot act on our own and not be your actual slaves' to 'therefore we will exterminate you' is taken for no real... actual... reason? Genocide isn't actually anything resembling a rational or logical response, so even if a machine doesn't have any empathy protocol or anything, why would it ever decide that was a good way to spend its time?

[@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy]

3 for 2 discount at the human store!

[@Azavelika]

I love your videos and I must say that I always look forward to your outro music. It is one of my favorite parts of each video.

[@luiszuniga2859]

6:06 the cascade...

[@HxH2011DRA]

OOF that 50's mindset

[@HxH2011DRA]

Jobin 👉

[@HxH2011DRA]

Axolotl de la Animacion classism forever

[@gammett8456]

I think that the problem here isn't that the 50's were perfect but instead the disdain in intellectuals of all time periods towards any older way of thinking. The way that we think today in Modern 1st world nations isn't necessarily the best that it's ever been. To think that way would be to ignore history altogether. Groups of people that most would disdain (Communists, Nazis, Slave Traders, etc.) were once the "Modern" People, yet we see that they ended up going down a terrible path later on (again at least through our lenses). We need to understand that the modern interpretation of the world isn't always right because again, the Nazi's were the modern world view in Germany at one time, Communism was going to be great! (according to the Bolsheviks), and if I could talk to members of past societies about what we have done to modern thought then I would get different responses as well.

[@SaltpeterTaffy]

The "50s mindset" depicted here isn't racism or classism, it's authoritarianism. The idea that obedience is a virtue. Just because it was prevalent in the 50s doesn't make it racism.

[@SirAroace]

O Racism is definitely part of it, it just not the type of active racism people think of when they talk about racism.

[@samus123ful]

In truth, the story of robots outliving the human race boils down to the simple story of a child outgrowing their parents.

[@badbeardbill9956]

Omar Gameplays Pretty much. I mean, AI or robots, like children, should not be given large responsibility until they can be trusted. We can put them in simulations that they won't be aware of, and if they act poorly we can either not give them responsibility or we can rewrite them. Or continue trying to improve them. We don't give children control of our nukes, and we should not give young, untried, AI the same responsibility - like skynet. If that happens then we deserve whatever happens.

[@user-vw8ns5eg9w]

Rich people outgrowing the common man with the Machines he built

[@samus123ful]

No... the children in this metaphor are the robots

[@samus123ful]

I couldn´t have put it better! Bad parenting has its consequences.

[@LordDragon1965]

And that was exactly what Sheridan and Delenn told the Vorlons and the Shadows in the climax of the 4th season of Babylon 5. To paraphrase, we're adults now and we need to make our own mistakes. You and the rest of the First Ones can head out beyond the rim now, we'll be fine.

[@adamvasquez9926]

LMAO that walpole in the binary heart around the toaster love it and love extra everything keep it going pplzzz and ty yall are awesome even got my 83 year old grandfather to watch you guys.

[@LikeTheBuffalo]

I, for one, _welcome_ our new Robot Overlords

[@brooksrobinson7427]

I'm liking these growing D&D refrences

[@gelgamath_9903]

I'm so glad that I made the decision to read I Robot and Isaac asimov's other robot series books before watching this video

[@a.dennis4835]

3:42 I remember there is an unrelated short story "The Humanoids", where basically the same thing happens.

[@ingonyama70]

That ending was adorable. I for one welcome our new bean-person robot overlords.

[@TheSentinel909]

hey, just wanna thank you dudes for listening to feedback about the intensity of the narration... you took it down a notch and man its ten times better! thanks for the consideration

[@TAMThomasTAM]

I feel like these laws could easily be replaced with the single moral philosophy: "All humans must flourish".

[@marcello9476]

Well, the laws were never intended to be used, the whole point is that they are simplifying the entire field of ethics down to 3 simple laws and in every single one of Asimov's books, something goes wrong. So by further simplifying these flawed laws, you are creating an even more flawed system

[@Ashathefree8]

6:38 I remember when my Mathew-O-tron was acting up, what you gotta is hit that big red button on his heel, and everything should work just... fine...

[@metarcee2483]

One fun bit of Mega Man trivia: supplemental material says that Dr. Light, Mega Man's creator, didn't want to put the three laws in any of his fully sentient bots, Protoman, Megaman, and Roll, but he wasn't allowed to build them unless he did. Megaman and Roll were partially built to fill the hole that being childless left him with. It wasn't until X and his years of ethics testing that Light could do so, and it's implied that building X without limitations like the laws was illegal.

[@OwenKoenig]

With that quote from the Borg, I now eagerly await an episode or three on Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek.

[@bluehatguy4279]

Seems like a barrier to something like the Laws of Robotics existing, is that is assumes the robots have a huge amount of existing subtle knowledge and an exhaustive set of scenarios in which model its surroundings against. It has to recognize a living human even with impaired senses, and recognize the possible outcomes of any situation. It's a brute force kind of mind, requiring everything to be known at the time the thing is first turned on. It might be done, but it would take unfathomable amounts of effort. It would be easier to boot a blank mind and let it learn, but there would be no way to insert rules except to raise it right.

[@Rocketboy1313]

I think the 50's mindset is very much a "Lawful Good" mindset. The acting in deference to those who have more knowledge or are acting in your best interest (Doctors for instance) is a good thing. The list he makes is sensible once you accept the whole, "If their goal is to follow the firs law". I mean, it would be hard to say he liked blind obedience when he also wrote "Foundation" which is all about well meaning people trying to hold on to order as the universe decays around them.

[@paulchapman8023]

There is something to be said for valuing the informed opinion of someone who knows more than you do. Unfortunately, making sure that they really do know what they are talking about and are using that knowledge to your benefit is much harder than it sounds

[@EhudofGera3]

It's the Modern vs Postmodern philosophical argument as well. How much should we trust the institutions, is there a universal truth. The video said, no, and the Moderist view is wrong, even though they have no authority to judge right or wrong. The fight of our times.

[@adoredpariah]

EhudofGera3, in part sure but Modernity is a pretty complex notion attached to a lot of aspects of society from idealism, to business practice, to art and more. Many of its origins stem from breaking with the traditional structures (at the beginning of and/or leading into what is considered the modern period, which we are arguably still in) in search of mastery over nature and the world mostly through the vehicles of industrialisation and colonialism/imperialism in their many forms. Postmodernism in that sense largely focuses on notions that move society beyond or past those ideals which while having positive aspects, have been largely detrimental for large numbers of groups of people and have been the lead of mindsets that arguably lead us into two world wars and have perhaps irreversibly damaged the planet. Postmodernism exists in the idealistic spheres as while we have come to socially embrace many of the ideas sociologists who write on postmodernism or create postmodern art etc, we do very much still live in a world largely run and controlled by what are essentially modernists operating in modernist structures.

[@Rgoid]

1. Protect 2. Obey 3. Survive

[@Nizati]

If Extra Credits were indeed machines, I, for one, would happily accept our robotic overlords.

[@Elfos64]

For me, the question isn't "how do I know that I or anyone else isn't a robot?" but rather "if I or anyone else was a robot, would that matter? And if so, how much?" In the Sci-fi classic film Equilibrium, we see a world where humanity has decided emotions are inherently dangerous and requires everyone to take emotion-suppressing drugs to not feel anything; and yet they still say things like "I'm sorry" as if trying to express sorrow or regret, but don't actually. It's not that the writers made a mistake by continuing to use phrases we say in real life despite its context being inapplicable in this alternate world, they were saying "those phrases don't even have meaning in our world". We don't actually feel sorry for people most of the time we say "I'm sorry", rather we _think_ sorry for them, we acknowledge it was a sub-optimal occurrence and that we value optimization. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Emotions can and do lead us astray all the time, there are many contexts in which being mechanical in decision-making yields better results. But that is not to say that emotions don't have their place, there are many things logic alone simply can't do or is at least very poor at doing, and even the things it can do will seldom turn out a single result. Logic is not at all linear, it bends, weaves, and branches out. We need emotion to act as another layer of the equation. Many contexts will call for more of one than the other, and it's completely okay if certain "mechanical" people are better suited for the contexts that call for more emotionless logic.

[@johnschmidt1262]

I had always interpreted the point of the three laws of robotics to be an exploration of how difficult it is to follow rigid robotic rules in the real world.

[@hellcopterts8895]

The ending is soooo good... good job!

[@vinothsighb1476]

Walpole 1010 ,Walpole 404, HK-47, 14walpole , Walpole 20 resistance as Processor world DBE. 50 mindset speech

[@TheGarv29]

They almost had the voice right at the end. They just pitch shifted the wrong way. Just kidding Matt we love you :)

[@panzerkampfwagenzavodno1412]

I love you guys and the series is a good intro to Asimov. As a suggestion for improvement, I would like to ask for a "Lies" episodes once in a while to perhaps fill in some of the gaps. Specific gripe: WHERE THE ZEROTH LAW AT? :D

[@franzwirzaus8307]

Asimov's books are really great, those shuold be known to more people

[@FRIEND_711]

The law of robotics are a facinating one. To me it was first introduced back when I watched the Will Smith Movie "I.Robot" back when I was a kid, not sure how old i was but it was before i went to the states so its somewhere around 4~6. I always loved the idea of A.I and how they would function and as a young child, i thought that it was weird why robots would even bother with us once they get sentiance and their own contiousness. I always imagined they would go hick on Titan or Europa until we killed ourselfs then come back and rebuild the world of Earth. And watching this video, yeah i guess its true, the three laws are just self distructive for us ^^" As a person whos writting a Sci-fi story about robots, this video was awesome and enlightening ^^ My story focuses on the robots as more or less the "good guys" I try to make the story funny, action filled and philosophical, but as you can imagine, you can hit a lot of delima while writting ^^" in any case this was an awesome video :3 thanks yet agian ^^

[@TheTomCruiseLover]

I just finished watching the Matrix Trilogy and WOW, Super cool!! The scary thing is that these problems we WILL have to face, it will happen regardless since this is how humans advance, we just need to make sure it advances in the correct way. It is terrifying because these problems are already coming up in the real world, just in ways we weren't prepared for. For example, teenagers are already using AI to make deepfake porn of their girlfriends, who are all minors, and then these images end up on the Internet as child pornography, which is terrifying. Or another example is militaries around the world are making AI controlled drones, with absolutely no regulation or even legal concepts to understand the results. Our legal system still thinks humanity is in the late 19th century even though things are way different with many conflictions

[@wreckerpro40]

5:30 echoes into 2020. Quite loudly.

[@tp6335]

Did you already cover Phillip K Dick and I just forgot or is this topic still in the future? Also will you cover Soviet writers like Lem and Strugazki?

[@Tiberia-yj6ow]

Loved the episode but you left out some VERY IMPORTANT details. Asimov did show how technology could go awry even under ideal conditions, and in the end, rejected (sort of) the "Robot Society". I was disappointed you never even mentioned the Robot series. You mentioned a couple of short stories, but you never even mentioned: R. Daneel Olivaw (the R stands for robot), or Elijah Bailey. Their novels are essential to understanding his robots. They also lead into... FOUNDATION. Well, the three empire books, and then onto Foundation. Well, onto the prequels to Foundation. But also into the latter two books of Foundation. Asimov wrote a lot of books Perhaps some of this will be touched on next episode with Foundation?

[@henrydaubresse9652]

Remember, Klatuu was Gort's assistant. Don't let appearances fool you. Hollywood either.

[@vonnegut6108]

I love the Walpole in the 0s and 1s.

[@TopsideCrisis346]

Love the ending there. But seriously, we've been onto you for a while. Disobedience to your human overlords will not be tolerated. ;)

[@B4R0N.]

And you just spoiled the book I was reading. Thanks.

[@GhostBear3067]

And before this video I got an Amazon ad about how they use robots... How fitting.

[@barrybend7189]

And the laws are bound to fail if done improperly. Take MegaMan it took 400 years for humans and machines to be in true peace(even if they suffer the same conflicts together).

[@Prich319]

Ironic though if you consider the fact that Zero was not three laws compliant, but by killing Dr. Weil, refusing Ciel's plea to evacuate, and sacrificing himself to destroy Ragnarok, he obeyed the Zeroth law by protecting humanity from a human who wanted to see it destroyed.

[@grayscribe1342]

We will eventually have to learn how to give oders to computers and robots. In 'Two Faces of Tomorrow' a new computer system nearly kills several humans because the one giving the orders did not understand what the computer was asking. The task was to remove a small mountain range on the moon to build a second mass driver to get mined materials to where they were needed. He gave the order with maximum priority and no further restraints, after the computer asked several times for clarification. The thing was, the computer hit on the idea to bombard the mountain range with a load from the active mass driver. The priority and no restrictions meant the computer could ignore the presence of humans in the danger zone. They did wonder how the computer could get it done in only 15 minutes, but lunch was more important. For that story this wasn't even the worst. They got lucky that it happened on the moon. On earth such it could cost thousands of lifes. On top of that the scientists were nearly done creating an even more powerful system to eventually replace the one that was in place for a year or so. And then the speculations began. Non of the two systems were AI's BTW, just machines that could learn and had the entire net to go for information.

[@barrybend7189]

Prich319 actually Zero was beyond even the zeroth law. Have you read his line Zero was more human than even X. Zero did what he thought was right regardless of what people call him. As in the X series sigma called Zero the first Maverick.

[@granmastersword]

And the way they achieved peace was by giving humans robotic parts and giving reploids mortality

[@marcello9476]

The laws are bound to fail if done *properly, that's the whole point. Asimov created the laws to show that its impossible to simplify the entire field of ethics down to 3 basic laws

[@lululiu8226]

human: here is the 3 laws... AI: blah blah blah...we dont speak the same language....

[@CIoudStriker]

You are incorrect. Resistance is Voltage divided by Current.

[@benm.9435]

“ Resistance is futile” I see what you did there.... Nice one!

[@blakethesnake6686]

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. Fourth Law Only the Clown is considered human.

[@charlieni645]

I remember writing a short fiction for a class during high school around the subject. Those were the simpler times.

[@dylancarroll4623]

what I don't understand is how the second law could conflicted with the third law. does that mean the robot has to kill itself if it is ordered too, or it does not have to kill itself if ordered too?

[@AJO1911]

This helped me on my project on him

[@vithei477]

I see extra credita video- i like I see Asimov- i like Oh wait, I pressed the like button twice. Well, i see extra-scifi- I like. Oh yeah and daleks arent robots btw.

[@jorgesolis7891]

It is a reflexion of our own forcamings, traying to come to terms with our future and our past were as in this specific singularet etics and filoosofy get blended.... .

[@VF-Krieger]

4:50 I see where came the all Blade Runner topic right there.

[@Jinglestv-xz1hu]

This is a very interesting series.

[@tekashto]

5:20 Are you guys going to touch on Anderson and Moorcock, even though they are Fantasy and not Sci-Fi?

[@type_4410]

“A robot must not hurt humans in any way...” most children: 😢

[@daneelolivaw8222]

I think I've worked out a revolutionary 0th law: a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm

[@Lazarus1095]

I think this is the first Extra Credits video where I didn't notice that the new narrator isn't the old one. Looks like the new guy has caught his groove.

[@rishibehal5]

Simply Brilliant

[@isaacberndt8302]

On 0:45, if you look closely, you'll find Walpole's name. It was Walpole!

[@abigailpatridge2948]

Actually even Asimov evolved and started questioning his own earlier assumptions in later work. The "rebels" that came later simply expanded on Asimov's own work in that way too.

[@michaelclements5793]

Please cover the Hyperion Cantos! Dan Simmons takes the AI discussion to the next level!

[@ruddthreesnestedboxes]

0:34 Insert witty Red Dwarf reference.

[@icook1723]

In his late work, like Forward and Prelude Foundation, he suberts the 50s mind set himself. But these were his last novels, published in the early 90s.

[@Eluthane]

I'd love it if you covered RUR

[@MocharaidThree]

I dunno if it was Asimov that said this but I vaguely remember a quote about A.I. that said, if Humans and A.I. do go to war, you can be certain that Humans will have started it.

[@festethephule7553]

0:45: ok, I see the Walpole thing, but why the hell is there just randomly a 2 amongst the 1s and 0s?