@monorail @wallhackio @Lucy Asimov stories are great because he was like "here are some rhetorical rules that are interesting to build stories about logical fallacies around" and nerds everywhere were like "this is how robots should actually be forever"

@The_T @monorail @wallhackio @Lucy He called them Laws, how could they be wrong??

@coriander @monorail @wallhackio @Lucy wait till you hear about US laws

@monorail @Lucy i have no idea what this means but i favorited anyway

@wallhackio there's an isaac asimov story where a robot with a modified first law is given the frustrated command to "get lost", so it hides itself among stock robots that look identical. so now they have a dangerous robot that's been given explicit, second-law orders to not reveal itself, and they have to find it

@monorail what is a "first law" and "second law"

@wallhackio @monorail

1. You do not talk about Fight Club
2. You do not--wait no wrong laws

@wallhackio @monorail also ngl generally shocked that anyone who is A. is a programmer or B. is mildly interested in sci-fi wouldn't know about Asimov's laws

@wallhackio @monorail so um: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

do not actually build robots with these principals

@monorail how do robots handle conflicting instructions? if I tell the robot "go left forever" and then I tell it "go right" what does it do

@wallhackio @monorail takes a screenshot

@wallhackio @monorail depending on it's programming, it will either: accept the new input as the new primary input, or: explode

@wallhackio @monorail but that is kind of the whole point of the stories; they're about how the robots interpret the laws in ways that aren't immediately intuitive to humans

that's why they're not programmatically sound