Comment by LeoPanthera 2 days ago
Asimov's laws of robotics would not, and cannot, work in real life because terms like "harm," "human being," and "inaction" are highly subjective and context-dependent. There are entire novels about how the interaction between the hierarchical laws have unexpected outcomes.
They're a narrative device. Not practical instructions.
Put it this way: robots will be every bit as susceptible to social engineering attacks as humans are (at BEST!), not due to any flaw in the robots but due to the flaw in ambiguousness of the specification of the laws. An adversary can trick an agent into not classifying a certain being as "human", for example. Or not classifying a certain outcome as a "harm".
It doesn't help that humans have had such a poor track record on those exact same topics for so many centuries, now. "Well they don't count, they're foreigners/a different race/a different gender/a different religion/criminals/barbarians/homeless/deviant/poor/listen to Nickelback etc". "Well, that's not a harm, it's an inconvenience/an earned outcome/a privilege/loss of a privilege/what do they expect, they should toughen up/not as bad as X/it'll heal/not my fault/not my concern etc".
Put another way, impossible to program if you wanted to. These are highly abstract concepts that only manifest at the highest level of cognition. The governance module would need to be programmed at that same level using those tokens, but that doesn't seem to be how things are shaping up to work. Instead we start with low level programming that learns and builds up concepts on top.
Essentially you would need some sort of independent adversarial sidecar mind that monitors the robot's actions at a high level. And that just kicks the can down the road a bit.