15 years ago
VIGGO are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.
Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The question is whether the Robots of MegaMan follow those three laws. It is common belief that they do but I don't think so. Here are my examples (some examples stronger than others):
a. Protoman. Proto Man was created by Dr. Light but obeys no human (rule 2). Even when Light wanted him to stay, Proto Man continued to stay in solitary.
b. Bass. Bass was created by Wily either to be stronger than Mega Man or to destroy Mega Man. Regardless of which purpose it is, he should have no reason to repeatedly disobey Wily. Even as he states that he wants to be the one to destroy Mega Man, Wily's orders should override the programming installed (again Rule 2).
c. Mega Man vs. Wily. Mega Man for 10 games (at least) has battled against Wily and shot at him in floating vehicles with the intention of deactivating the vehicle (or saucer). Its simple logic that Wily could be harmed when Mega Man succeeds which is in direct violation of Rule 1. Even if his purpose is to stop Wily from harming others, he's defying the first rule. I'm not even going to bring up the arguement of Mega Man 7's ending again.
d. Protoman's sacrifices. Proto Man has repeatedly sacrificed himself for Mega Man even though he knows that his actions are likely to cause his death. I'd like to say (although I don't remember a certain case) that Mega Man has sacrificed himself as well for Robots. (Need some support on this one)
Thoughts?
"I did battle with ignorance today... and ignorance won."
ShinAkuma215 years ago
It's impossible to know for sure, but it does seem unlikely.
15 years ago
I tryed putting Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics in google translator to japanese then back to english to see if they could have been interpreted differently in japanese but all I ended up with was Yoda's 3 laws of Robotics:
1. Humans and robots, neglect the human being can come to harm can not hurt.
Two. The robot, the first law, such orders, excluding orders for a conflict with a given person must follow.
Three. The robot, the first or second law to protect and prevent conflict, as long as necessary to protect its own existence.
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/.jpg
I see you!
15 years ago
Was this list ever mentioned in any of the Mega Man games? I never really understood the whole "law of robotics" thing, or why people mention it when talking about MM7.
Not changing this sig until Vikings win the Super Bowl
Xbox Live: SuPeRsTyLe_ | Don't mess with the best
15 years ago
People mention it in reference to MM7 because of Wily's line "You forget, Mega Man! A robot cannot harm a human!"
Incidentally... it's pretty clear that the robots in the MM series have free will, making the entire "X was unique because has free will" plot point completely superfluous and baffling.
"There's somethin' wrong with our worm, Earl."
GradyHoover15 years ago
d. Protoman's sacrifices. Proto Man has repeatedly sacrificed himself for Mega Man even though he knows that his actions are likely to cause his death. I'd like to say (although I don't remember a certain case) that Mega Man has sacrificed himself as well for Robots. (
question: When did ProtoMan ever sacrifice himself?
"There's somethin' wrong with our worm, Earl."
OverlordAlik15 years ago
its possible even probable that Wily's bots do not follow these rules. After all whats the point of using a robot to conquer the world if you cant threaten a human with bodily harm with said robot?
Protoman was worked on by both light and wily right? its possible wily tampered with it? or at least made it not adhere to all the laws?
I think we can reasonably infer that mm was not trying to kill or even neccesarily harm Wily when he fights him, his pod is always armored so shooting at him isnt a threat to wily's life, also Wily seems to be no worse for wear after mm destroys the pod. So its probably that mm shoots at the pod to disable it rather than harm wily, but being 2d games its kind of hard to illustrate that fact
lastly i dont think protoman was *trying* to sacrifice himself, he just wanted to bring king down, he knew his big bang would hurt him somewhat, but idk that he knew it would out and out take him down for the count.
as for mm, um im not sure, i think he has been willing to sacrifice himself for bots before but i really cant state when, he seemed to be willing in mm&b as King told him he'd take off after mm to make him leave. Still idk if thats a big issue.
Brawl FC: --
DJShrimpy15 years ago
Are you interested in learning more about robots sweeper? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!
Well, I think it's safe to say that the laws don't effect Concrete Man. :>
Not changing this sig until Vikings win the Super Bowl
Xbox Live: SuPeRsTyLe_ | Don't mess with the best
15 years ago
Sure, it's easy to pick holes at it but the general consensus is that no, they cannot break these rules in the BIGGER PICTURE. For example, we don't ever see any RM's or Proto Man, Mega Man, or Bass harm/kill a human, do we? There are many other holes you are missing such as in MM7 when Dr. Light takes in Bass for repairs, Bass could've easily taken out Dr. Light but instead he wrecks the labs and takes the plans for the Super Adaptor. I would say that if he clearly doesn't follow the "rules of robotics" he would've destroyed Dr. Light.
Mega Man is also shown to deviate a little from the rules as we see that Dr. Wily could've been harmed every time Mega Man blew up his saucer/skull castle/whatever but the game is made so that he survives every time. So this infers a paradox; how could Mega Man ever stop Wily if he escapes every single time? All Mega Man can do is stop him in his every attempt, he can't outright shoot his buster at him because the rules must be obeyed.
The X series clearly defies this and goes beyond the Classic series because of every Reploids ability (including X and Zero) to harm/kill anything they feel like which basically means there are NO rules set for them when it comes to what they can decide to do or not. Example, in the X and Zero series plenty of humans get harm/killed by Reploids. We never see this in the Classic series. The reason why X was considered dangerous in the first place is because rules don't apply to him; do you really think Mega Man and Co. are dangerous to humans? Yes, this is highly debatable, but once again the general consensus is that the "rules of robotics" cannot be broken in the Classic series. Btw, this has already been discussed so many times.
I rest my case.
15 years ago
question: When did ProtoMan ever sacrifice himself?
Mega Man & Bass comes to mind, near the final fight with King, he shoots a shot so powerful that it seriously damages himself in order to remove King's shield.. He's not outright destroyed, but he may as well have been.
If only I could relieve my hunger by vigorously rubbing my belly...
I have been studying the whole range of issues/opportunities in the commercial roll out of robotics for many years now, and I&#;ve spoken at a number of conferences about the best way for us to look at regulating robotics. In the process I&#;ve found that my guidelines most closely match the EPSRC Principles of Robotics, although I provide additional focus on potential solutions. And I&#;m calling it the 5 Laws of Robotics because it&#;s so hard to avoid Asimov&#;s Laws of Robotics in the public perception of what needs to be done.
The first most obvious point about these &#;5 Laws of Robotics&#; should be that I&#;m not suggesting actual laws, and neither actually was Asimov with his famous 3 Laws (technically 4 of them). Asimov proposed something that was hardwired or hardcoded into the existence of robots, and of course that didn&#;t work perfectly, which gave him the material for his books. Interestingly Asimov believed, as did many others at the time (symbolic AI anyone?) that it was going to be possible to define effective yet global behavioral rules for robots. Whereas, I don&#;t.
My 5 Laws of Robotics are:
What exactly does those laws mean?
Firstly, people should not legally able to weaponize robots, although there may be lawful exclusions for use by defense forces or first responders. Some people are completely opposed to Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) in any form, whereas others draw the line at robot weapons being ultimately under human command, with accountability to law. Currently in California there is a proposed legislation to introduce fines for individuals building or modifying weaponized robots, drones or autonomous systems, with the exception of &#;lawful&#; use.
Secondly, robots should be built so that they comply with existing laws, including privacy laws. This implies some form of accountability for companies on compliance in various jurisdictions, and while that is technically very complex, successful companies will be proactive because companies otherwise there will be a lot of court cases and insurance claims keeping lawyers happy but badly impacting the reputation of all robotics companies.
Thirdly, although we are continually developing and adapting standards as our technologies evolve, the core principle is that robots are products, designed to do tasks for people. As such, robots should be safe, reliable and do what they claim to do, in the manner that they claim to operate. Misrepresentation of the capabilities of any product is universally frowned upon.
Fourthly, and this is a fairly unique capability of robots, robots should not lie. Robots have the illusion of emotions and agency, and humans are very susceptible to being &#;digitally nudged&#; or manipulated by artificial agents. Examples include robots or avatars claiming to be your friend, but could be as subtle as robots using a human voice just as if there was a real person listening and speaking. Or not explaining that a conversation that you&#;re having with a robot might have many listeners at other times and locations. Robots are potentially amazingly effective advertizing vehicles, in ways we are not yet expecting.
Finally, and this extends the principles of accountability, transparency and truthfulness, it should be possible to know who is the owner and/or operator of any robot that we interact with, even if we&#;re just sharing a sidewalk with them. Almost every other vehicle has to comply with some registration law or process, allowing ownership to be identified.
What can we do to act on these laws?
There are many organizations releasing guides, principles, and suggested laws. I&#;ve surveyed most of them and looked at the research. Most of them are just ethical hand wringing and accomplish nothing because they don&#;t factor in real world conditions around what the goals are, who would be responsible and how to make progress towards the goals. I wrote about this issue ahead of giving a talk at the ARM Developer Summit in (video included below).
Silicon Valley Robotics announced the first winners of our inaugural Robotics Industry Awards in . The SVR Industry Awards consider the responsible design as well as technological innovation and commercial success. There are also some ethical checkmark or certification initiatives under preparation, but like the development of new standards, these can take a long time to do properly, whereas awards, endorsements and case studies can be available immediately to foster the discussion of what constitutes good robots, and, what are the social challenges that robotics needs to solve.
The Federal Trade Commission recently published &#;The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust&#; describing the
For those not familiar with Isaac Asimov&#;s famous Three Laws of Robotics, they are:
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.
Asimov later added a Fourth (called the Zeroth Law, as in 0, 1, 2, 3)
Zeroth Law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm
Robin R. Murphy and David D. Woods have updated Asimov&#;s laws to be more similar to the laws I proposed above and provide a good analysis for what Asimov&#;s Laws meant and why they&#;ve changed them to deal with modern robotics. Beyond Asimov The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics ()
Some other selections from the hundreds of principles, guidelines and surveys of the ethical landscape that I recommend come from one of the original EPSRC authors, Joanna Bryson.
The Meaning of the EPSRC Principles of Robotics ()
And the / update from the original EPSRC team:
Margaret Boden, Joanna Bryson, Darwin Caldwell, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Lilian Edwards, Sarah Kember, Paul Newman, Vivienne Parry, Geoff Pegman, Tom Rodden, Tom Sorrell, Mick Wallis, Blay Whitby & Alan Winfield Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world, Connection Science, 29:2, 124-129, DOI: 10./..
Another survey worth reading is on the Stanford Plato site: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/
Andra Keay is the Managing Director of Silicon Valley Robotics, founder of Women in Robotics and is a mentor, investor and advisor to startups, accelerators and think tanks, with a strong interest in commercializing socially positive robotics and AI.
Silicon Valley Robotics is an industry association supporting innovation and commercialization of robotics technologies.Silicon Valley Robotics is an industry association supporting innovation and commercialization of robotics technologies.
The company is the world’s best best tile floor scrubber machine supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.