Knowledge

Talk:Three Laws of Robotics/Archive 3

Source šŸ“

31: 743: 678: 641: 572: 491: 461: 415: 402: 389: 376: 363: 330: 313: 276: 769:
The line, "Giskard is telepathic, like the robot Herbie in the short story Liar!, and to apply the Zeroth Law through his understanding of a more subtle concept of "harm" than most robots can grasp," is not only grammatically incorrect, but is flagged as having no citation. I believe this line should
515:
The "citation needed" tags get a bit annoying when the text reads something like "In the story 'Liar!'the protagonist references the third law. . . " In those cases, no citation is needed because the citation is right there--it's in the story, "Liar." I propose removing all those types of citation
204:
It isn't 'unclear' what Bogert means. Any system requires axioms at its foundation--look at Goedel's work--from which theorems are derived. In the case of humans, we rely on assumptions like "Our sense data is accurate," et cetra. A positronic brain relies on its own set of assumptions, of which the
212:
sort of breakdown. Calvin's incredulity that the First Law could be weakened indicates her skepticism as to whether a comprehensive set of behavior rules could exist with the weakened First Law. That is, whether a robot could act for more than five seconds without a does not compute error, without
196:
However, in "Little Lost Robot", Susan Calvin asks the Mathematical Director of U.S. Robots, Peter Bogert, if he knows what removal of the first law would entail, and he replies, "I know what removal would mean. I'm not a child. It would mean complete instability, with no nonimaginary solutions to
197:
the positronic Field Equations." Earlier in the story, Calvin also expresses skepticism that it was possible to even weaken the first law in a positronic brain. It is unclear what exactly Bogert means by this, but many infer that he means the Three Laws are, in fact, laws of physics.
770:
be removed until such time that a reference is found. Or, at the very least, someone could decode it. I just can't tell what was the original intent of the line. I get stuck after "to apply" - perhaps someone smarter then me can reorganize it to something understandable?
112:
I have read articles on the subject - according to The Telegraph they have implemented a robotic fixed sentry system that is non-automated. It detects and reports and a human operator gives the go ahead to fire. It sounds similar to the US CROWS
259:
I have not read the article in fine detail but will do so tomorrow and copyedit it as it stands. I am about to do an AWB quick scan before I go off for the night and hopefully these two processes should identify most of the easy-to-fix stuff.
542:
actually have that in itĀ ? surely the point of cites is to prove those very things. It is of no matter though as I have now completed those refs after locating the various texts and ebooks necessary and included quotes where necessary.
179:
Someone wrote Hallo, deutsches Wikipedians! WĆ¼rdest du mir zum Du Arschloch alle herauf den Arsch zugestehen? in this article, which means something along the lines of "Hello, German Wikipedians! Can you stop being assholes?"
249:
Normally an article that is delisted from FA receives an automatic A class assessment but, due to the amount of ref needed tags I have had to place amongst other things, I have decided that it only merits a B class.
188:
There is a section on the page discussing what exactly, the nature of the robotic 'laws' are--whether they are, in fact, as inviolate as the laws of physics. To quote the article, and its relevant Asimov reference:
254: 216:
The existance of non three laws robots are thus possible... IF the three laws are replaced by other behavioral guides, which Asimov, in stories involving such robots, is scrupulous to provide.
149:
For the three laws of robotics, what will be happening when we have two or more groups of robots using the different machine languages and there is no common ground for these groups of robots?
227:, but it seemed obvious to me that that's what the story meant... and at the time, I didn't even know what a 'nonimaginary solution' was, aside from its obvious meanings as a plot device. 223:. I read it for myself five years later, and have read most of Asimov's other science fiction. Perhaps I read Asimov this way because I've always been a math geek since watching 238:
The article was delisted from FA six months ago and has not improved much since then. There are many large chunks of unreferenced text and some areas where it may be true that
538:
In reality to claim that the story says that without giving a ref for the book or short story would be fairly against policy. After all does the story
624:
The first two points are from the FAR archive, the third from the above points - All are listed in order of importance most important at the top:
208:
That is, the Laws create a rational framework in which a robot can act. Without the guidance of the Laws, a robot would not know how to act--a
64: 59: 97: 821: 792:
I think it should read "..and tries to apply ..." or "and seeks to apply...". If there are no other suggestions I will amend it as such
777: 648:
section is perhaps not necessary as mostly covered in individual sections or in the ending section concerning contemporary usage
303: 297: 47: 17: 604:
Peer review request added at page and asked HJ Mitchell if he can give it a quick second look over for copy-editing
38: 101: 781: 701:
Improperly formatted refs (foreign language refs not specifying the language, book refs lacking page numbers)
825: 521: 224: 116:
Unfortunately this is not related to the Three Laws but should perhaps be included in another article.
817: 797: 773: 755: 712: 689: 653: 609: 588: 548: 502: 472: 448: 429: 344: 121: 93: 579:
One or two were not really necessary and I removed them (such as for the three laws in the film
829: 801: 785: 759: 716: 693: 657: 613: 592: 552: 525: 506: 476: 452: 433: 348: 125: 105: 517: 209: 793: 751: 708: 685: 649: 605: 584: 544: 498: 468: 444: 425: 340: 117: 323:
Sections should be checked to ensure that text more relevant to other sections is moved
87: 243: 633:
How to structure the section and refer to the already included material, or move it
239: 812: 46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
628:
Section required to discuss secondary source commentary, critique and analysis
487:
Add at least one per para excpet those which are descriptive or introductory
220: 158:
E. & O. E., + E. = (Errors and Omissions Exempted, plus Estimation)
90:
maybe someone who reads korean can confirm thuis and add to article
235:
I have re-assessed the article as part of the RObotics cleanups.
294: 25: 669:
Quotes and statements of what various people thought or felt
729:
Anything not connected to the Three laws should be removed
289:
Anything not connected to the Three laws should be removed
205:
relevant nontrivial/obvious ones are the Three Laws.
442:*Completed to the start of 2.1.4 "Three laws removed" 723:
Removal of material not relevant to the article etc.
283:- changed all "three laws" or "laws" to "Three Laws" 88:
http://wn.com/South_Korea_using_robot_border_guards
583:where the picture provides the necessary detail) 269:Each paragraph should have at least one reference 253:The delisting comments are pretty damning also - 813:http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2000/fc01927.htm 8: 663:References or removal of unreferenced text 568:find refs for those citations necessary 184:"Are violations of the Laws impossible?" 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 272:Prose and style should be consistent 231:Robotics assessment and work required 7: 286:Article needs checking for structure 213:the guidance of the full First Law. 219:I was seven when my mother read me 808:Other Links to 3 law related sites 24: 741: 676: 639: 570: 489: 459: 413: 400: 387: 374: 361: 328: 311: 274: 152:Will the three laws still hold? 29: 1: 760:04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 750:removed spurious and cquotes 717:04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 707:checked and added where can 694:04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 658:04:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 614:22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 593:22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 553:22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 126:13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 526:19:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 354:Preliminary checks and fixes 301:These are a little overused 106:21:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 830:23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 802:14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 786:08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 735:These are a little overused 457:Complete first run through 18:Talk:Three Laws of Robotics 846: 507:18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 477:01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 453:04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 434:02:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 349:01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 83:South Korea breaking laws 620:Addressing the problems 599:Put up for peer-review 411:Section header check 326:Redlinks need fixing 225:Square One Television 42:of past discussions. 385:Peer review script 820:comment added by 776:comment added by 308: 307: 96:comment added by 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 837: 832: 788: 749: 745: 744: 684: 680: 679: 647: 643: 642: 581:Bicentennial Man 578: 574: 573: 497: 493: 492: 467: 463: 462: 421: 417: 416: 408: 404: 403: 395: 391: 390: 382: 378: 377: 369: 365: 364: 336: 332: 331: 319: 315: 314: 295: 282: 278: 277: 210:does not compute 175:German Vandalism 132:Groups of Robots 108: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 845: 844: 840: 839: 838: 836: 835: 834: 815: 810: 771: 767: 742: 740: 725: 677: 675: 665: 640: 638: 630: 622: 571: 569: 490: 488: 460: 458: 414: 412: 401: 399: 398:FAC checktools 388: 386: 375: 373: 362: 360: 329: 327: 312: 310: 275: 273: 246:have crept in. 233: 186: 177: 134: 91: 85: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 843: 841: 809: 806: 805: 804: 766: 763: 738: 737: 731: 724: 721: 720: 719: 704: 703: 697: 696: 672: 671: 664: 661: 629: 626: 621: 618: 617: 616: 596: 595: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 531: 530: 529: 528: 510: 509: 423: 422: 409: 396: 383: 372:Dashes script 370: 338: 337: 324: 306: 305: 302: 299: 293: 292: 290: 287: 284: 270: 232: 229: 203: 192: 185: 182: 176: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 142: 133: 130: 129: 128: 114: 98:84.231.178.239 84: 81: 79: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 842: 833: 831: 827: 823: 822:173.58.187.35 819: 814: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790: 789: 787: 783: 779: 778:97.126.204.67 775: 764: 762: 761: 757: 753: 748: 736: 732: 730: 727: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705: 702: 699: 698: 695: 691: 687: 683: 674: 673: 670: 667: 666: 662: 660: 659: 655: 651: 646: 636: 634: 627: 625: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 602: 601: 600: 594: 590: 586: 582: 577: 567: 566: 565: 564: 554: 550: 546: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 527: 523: 519: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 504: 500: 496: 486: 485: 484: 483: 479: 478: 474: 470: 466: 455: 454: 450: 446: 443: 440: 436: 435: 431: 427: 420: 410: 407: 397: 394: 384: 381: 371: 368: 358: 357: 356: 355: 351: 350: 346: 342: 335: 325: 322: 321: 320: 318: 300: 296: 291: 288: 285: 281: 271: 268: 267: 266: 265: 261: 257: 256: 251: 247: 245: 241: 236: 230: 228: 226: 222: 217: 214: 211: 206: 201: 198: 194: 190: 183: 181: 174: 165: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 159: 156: 153: 150: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 109: 107: 103: 99: 95: 89: 82: 80: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 811: 768: 746: 739: 734: 728: 700: 681: 668: 644: 637: 632: 631: 623: 598: 597: 580: 575: 562: 561: 539: 518:Grumpy otter 494: 481: 480: 464: 456: 441: 438: 437: 424: 418: 405: 392: 379: 366: 353: 352: 339: 333: 316: 309: 279: 263: 262: 258: 252: 248: 237: 234: 218: 215: 207: 202: 199: 195: 191: 187: 178: 157: 154: 151: 148: 86: 78: 70: 43: 37: 816:ā€”Preceding 772:ā€”Preceding 765:Grammatical 733:{{cquote}} 482:Add cn tags 439:Copyediting 264:Main points 255:FAR details 92:ā€”Preceding 36:This is an 794:Chaosdruid 752:Chaosdruid 709:Chaosdruid 686:Chaosdruid 650:Chaosdruid 606:Chaosdruid 585:Chaosdruid 563:References 545:Chaosdruid 499:Chaosdruid 469:Chaosdruid 445:Chaosdruid 426:Chaosdruid 341:Chaosdruid 155:Xpree @ 118:Chaosdruid 359:AWB scan 141:The Start 71:ArchiveĀ 3 65:ArchiveĀ 2 60:ArchiveĀ 1 818:unsigned 774:unsigned 221:I, Robot 113:systems. 94:unsigned 516:tags. 166:The End 39:archive 244:WP:SYN 540:Liar! 240:WP:OR 16:< 826:talk 798:talk 782:talk 756:talk 747:Done 713:talk 690:talk 682:Done 654:talk 645:Done 610:talk 589:talk 576:Done 549:talk 522:talk 503:talk 495:Done 473:talk 465:Done 449:talk 430:talk 419:Done 406:Done 393:Done 380:Done 367:Done 345:talk 334:Done 317:Done 280:Done 122:talk 102:talk 242:or 828:) 800:) 784:) 758:) 715:) 692:) 656:) 635:? 612:) 591:) 551:) 524:) 505:) 475:) 451:) 432:) 347:) 304:ā€ 298:ā€œ 200:_ 193:_ 124:) 104:) 824:( 796:( 780:( 754:( 711:( 688:( 652:( 608:( 587:( 547:( 520:( 501:( 471:( 447:( 428:( 343:( 120:( 100:( 50:.

Index

Talk:Three Laws of Robotics
archive
current talk page
ArchiveĀ 1
ArchiveĀ 2
ArchiveĀ 3
http://wn.com/South_Korea_using_robot_border_guards
unsigned
84.231.178.239
talk
21:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid
talk
13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
does not compute
I, Robot
Square One Television
WP:OR
WP:SYN
FAR details
Chaosdruid
talk
01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid
talk
02:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid
talk
04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Chaosdruid

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

ā†‘