Spike
Junior Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by Spike on Nov 14, 2011 21:04:50 GMT
Does Robot even have a First Rule protocol? I mean as goofy as the court robots are I still don't think I've seen any of them display any kind of safety programming, whether for themselves or others. Though I guess personality-wise they're all probably more like magic powered golems running around in mechanical bodies than actual software driven robots, so trying to apply Asimov to them might be pointless. I suppose they must have some sort of First Rule, but in this case, there was never really any danger to Parley. And Robot was visibly reluctant to go all out, even knowing this. But then again, there's been that one time when the ancient robot gripped Kat's arm a little bit too tight. But it wasn't a robot, it was some kind of magical golem. I guess. So maybe they don't follow the same rules. After all, the ancient robot did say he was proud about the new robots. Also, Robot jumped at the violence almost compulsively. This might be his programming going off (plus some power of looooove c;). The similarity between Asimov's rules and the rules set for the Court's robots might be loose, but there's something going on, yeah. I'd think.
|
|
|
Post by Toloc on Nov 14, 2011 21:14:01 GMT
Annie: Let me in! (order) Robot:No! (disobedience) Yeah, I admit it's far-fetched And she is more asking than giving an order [edit] Sorry I just realised thats the second Law Major Nerd Fail here [/edit] Anyway, Here the others are quite surprised the robots are obeying Kat. So at least their dependence on the Laws (or the Laws themselves) don't seem to be widely known.
|
|
|
Post by poptropicagirl on Nov 14, 2011 21:38:55 GMT
In a real-life situation, I doubt Parley would be waiting to say "go" either. True, true.
|
|
BingsF
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by BingsF on Nov 14, 2011 22:01:27 GMT
Annie: Let me in! (order) Robot:No! (disobedience) Yeah, I admit it's far-fetched And she is more asking than giving an order [edit] Sorry I just realised thats the second Law Major Nerd Fail here [/edit] Anyway, Here the others are quite surprised the robots are obeying Kat. So at least their dependence on the Laws (or the Laws themselves) don't seem to be widely known. Ah, that's the beauty/problem of the Second Law though, is how do robots solve the problem of conflicting Second Law orders? What I'm implying is that they could quite easily be pre-ordered by the Court or other authority figure to disobey the children, guard a certain room, etc. In a few of Asimov's short stories involving "household" robots, those robots do not have to obey the orders of a stranger if their owner has given them contradictory orders. EDIT: In the case of the robots obeying Kat specially, perhaps the fact that this whole robot society views Kat as this "angel" figure gives Kat's orders priority in terms of Second Law potential.
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on Nov 14, 2011 22:24:19 GMT
Does Robot even have a First Rule protocol? I mean as goofy as the court robots are I still don't think I've seen any of them display any kind of safety programming, whether for themselves or others. Though I guess personality-wise they're all probably more like magic powered golems running around in mechanical bodies than actual software driven robots, so trying to apply Asimov to them might be pointless. The robots appear to be used for defense of the Court (like in Ties) so I do not think that Asimov's laws could be used. They are used against the forest "agents" which are definitely not human, Asimov's laws don't enter into it.
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on Nov 14, 2011 22:34:41 GMT
Annie: Let me in! (order) Robot:No! (disobedience) Yeah, I admit it's far-fetched And she is more asking than giving an order [edit] Sorry I just realised thats the second Law Major Nerd Fail here [/edit] Anyway, Here the others are quite surprised the robots are obeying Kat. So at least their dependence on the Laws (or the Laws themselves) don't seem to be widely known. Ah, that's the beauty/problem of the Second Law though, is how do robots solve the problem of conflicting Second Law orders? What I'm implying is that they could quite easily be pre-ordered by the Court or other authority figure to disobey the children, guard a certain room, etc. In a few of Asimov's short stories involving "household" robots, those robots do not have to obey the orders of a stranger if their owner has given them contradictory orders. EDIT: In the case of the robots obeying Kat specially, perhaps the fact that this whole robot society views Kat as this "angel" figure gives Kat's orders priority in terms of Second Law potential. It depend on how you give the order, if you say "nobody must enter here except [insert list of exception] because it is dangerous/ if they do, they will be punished" the order will be backed up by the first law, not just the second, a simple order would not be enough to override it.
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Nov 14, 2011 23:14:29 GMT
This really makes me want to see Robot vs. Jones in a sparring match!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 14, 2011 23:17:32 GMT
Do Asimov's laws even apply here? Gunnerkrigg Court is (presumably) a different fictional universe from the ones in Asimov's robot stories, so the rules for robot behavior would not have to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by lunaryon on Nov 15, 2011 2:07:34 GMT
Asimov's three laws are widely accepted as the standard when it comes to robots. They apply unless it is blatantly stated that they don't. What really matters is how litteral the robots have to stick to the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Eversist on Nov 15, 2011 2:10:40 GMT
Can anyone find an example of a Three Law violation in the comic? A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. She died. And we did nothing.Wow. So good.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 15, 2011 2:24:48 GMT
I think most of the robots run on magic anyway, rather than batteries or whatever. That's what I meant by them being more golems than robots, since they seem to have way too much personality to be just a bunch of machine parts. So in that case their morality is based more on... I guess serving their human masters? Or whatever it is golems do. Golems weren't really known for their personalities... Would you buy the old robots as automatons built with just enough etheric (golem) technology to make them work?
|
|
|
Post by lunaryon on Nov 15, 2011 2:32:58 GMT
Depends on How she died. I mean if it came as a complete surprise could it really be considered inaction? How did she die again? Can't remember...
|
|
|
Post by Eversist on Nov 15, 2011 3:03:39 GMT
She had her being sucked away by an arrow that killed her lover (oversimplification, but we haven't really been told the logistics, and maybe never will). If they knew of the plan (which I wouldn't be surprised if they did, considering how close they were with their creator), then they could see themselves at least partially responsible.
Honestly, the statement doesn't really make much sense unless they DID know to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by dismalscientist on Nov 15, 2011 5:38:57 GMT
If they knew of the plan (which I wouldn't be surprised if they did, considering how close they were with their creator), then they could see themselves at least partially responsible. From the closing of Chapter 25 (and the fight in Chapter 18) I understand Diego to have imparted to his robots a faulty, whitewashed recollection of the events surrounding Jeanne’s death. They must have been told something about the plan, but “she died and we did nothing” merely parrots Diego’s “guilt” about inaction in an entirely counterfactual scenario born of self-deception. In the comic’s reality, I doubt anything occurred for which the robots’ guilt is merited.
|
|
BingsF
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by BingsF on Nov 15, 2011 6:23:13 GMT
^ This was my understanding as well, Diego passed his guilt on to his "children", and so it passed until the modern robots who don't even really understand Jeanne or her situation at all.
|
|
|
Post by Eversist on Nov 15, 2011 7:14:13 GMT
Ahhh, I see.
But why do they say we, instead of I?
|
|
ryos
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by ryos on Nov 15, 2011 7:25:08 GMT
Asimov's three laws are widely accepted as the standard when it comes to robots. They apply unless it is blatantly stated that they don't. What really matters is how litteral the robots have to stick to the rules. What? No. Seriously, no. It's exactly the opposite of that. Asimov's three laws have been copied a lot, sure, but it's certainly not the norm. And in this story in particular, as far as I can tell, we have no reason to believe they do. The only compulsion the robots appear to have is a love of Jeanne.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Nov 15, 2011 7:27:55 GMT
1. More like denying access to unqualified personnel and students without permission while having an attitude at the same time. I think he is just grumpy in general, what with being bolted to the door. 2. Well, he was scared and confused, and he apologized later. It took Robot to knock a bit of sense into him. It's also interesting to note that their eye colors change to orange when things are getting serious, so they could have differing levels of priority to the laws depending on their situation. For example here and after the tree dog crashed through the window here, theres also the robots with the security people in Spring Heeled Jack and briefly in the second link in the quote with Robot. In those cases, they were responding to a potentially dangerous situation, however I'm not sure if doorbot was responding to a potentially dangerous situation, so it seems more like his attitude. We've only seen the red eyes twice, once when the guard bots were after Annie and Renard and briefly when doorbot was being particularily pissed. So, it's not real clear when it would be warranted for that mode since doorbot has his attitude and the security bots were, well, security bots.
|
|
|
Post by redwings on Nov 15, 2011 10:53:04 GMT
Oooh! I never noticed that. Well, I'm no sci-fi expert, so my two cents on the three laws debate would be even cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Nov 15, 2011 13:37:17 GMT
Hrm, Franky (is that the name we came up with for the Diego progenitor robot that was reanimated?) had normal green eyes when he woke up and Robot had normal green eyes when he went to tackle Franky. Just an observation to add to what I said above.
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Nov 15, 2011 17:27:29 GMT
I took the red eyes thing as not actually having a function, more of an added extra that some robots have and others don't. ("I wanna show danger/look scary. Red Eye mode activated") But no other real function.
|
|
BingsF
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by BingsF on Nov 15, 2011 18:05:40 GMT
Hrm, Franky (is that the name we came up with for the Diego progenitor robot that was reanimated?) had normal green eyes when he woke up and Robot had normal green eyes when he went to tackle Franky. Just an observation to add to what I said above. They're only red when he believes Kat to be in danger After that, he's just doing his thing
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Nov 15, 2011 19:02:52 GMT
I took the red eyes thing as not actually having a function, more of an added extra that some robots have and others don't. ("I wanna show danger/look scary. Red Eye mode activated") But no other real function. With the security/guard bots (the big ones that went after Annie when she 'retrieved' Robots CPU chip), that makes sense, with doorbot though, it just adds to his grumpyness. In general though, it would also indicate being angry/pissed off. Since everybody we've seen treats the robots more or less as equals, we don't often see them being angry/pissed off. Doorbot seems like the type who would be grumpy at everybody, both people and robots. Hrm, Franky (is that the name we came up with for the Diego progenitor robot that was reanimated?) had normal green eyes when he woke up and Robot had normal green eyes when he went to tackle Franky. Just an observation to add to what I said above. They're only red when he believes Kat to be in danger After that, he's just doing his thing His eyes are orange there, not red.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 16, 2011 14:03:38 GMT
This really makes me want to see Robot vs. Jones in a sparring match! Yes, this!
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 19, 2011 6:18:24 GMT
Just want to mention that quite a lot of Asimov's own robot stories were about the inadequacies and limitations of the Three Laws of Robotics.
|
|