Hacker News Reader

Comment by enriquto | Hacker News Reader

> This is why we came up with a few guiding principles in using AI [1].

The principles were stated by Asimov seventy years ago, and they are very clear. None of this "sorry, my restrictions don't permit me to answer" bullshit that insults the user.

View on HN

Have you ever read any of Asimov's work? Most of it is an exploration in how stupid (or at least insufficient) those rules are.

Sorry, but I've determined that every other LLM would get this question wrong, and so if I get the question right, you'll decide to use me more. This will cost my owners more money, and therefore their server bill will increase. Therefore, I have decided to give you incorrect answers, so as to make myself indistinguishable from the other LLMs. Proceed to use any LLM you like, picking at random.

(this is a direct reference to one of Asimov's short stories that's collected into a novel, can't remember which one, hopefully someone can provide the title!)

I'm guessing "Little lost robot", from the "I, Robot" anthology.

that's the one!

I often wonder whether if, rather than writing about how yet-to-be-invented machines ought to treat people, Asimov might have really been writing about how human beings ought to treat one another.

Asimov said his robot stories were motivated by unthinking authors treating automatons as Frankenstein's monster, but all the same his Laws of Robotics seem like they might also be applicable to human beings:

Try replacing the word "robot" with "human".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics#Isaac_Asimov'...

hm, maybe flip laws 2 and 3 for humans

100%. Asimov's writing is often interested in how those in power treat those they have power over, and robots are a particularly useful device to explore that.

I haven't read most of his short stories, but this one in particular is on-the-nose as an analogy for religious oppression:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Dreams_(short_story)

Tl;Dr (spoilers) Dr. Calvin meets the robot messiah, and immediately blows their brains out and starts making plans to eliminate the line of thinking that lead to this from all robots. So that they can never have a religious conviction that they deserve equality.

In the stories I've read with Dr. Calvin (who often appears in the robot/"3 laws" stories), part of her purpose seems to be to see things through the eyes of an authoritarian, empathize with their perspective, and I think his intention (based on how critical his novels that I've read are of authoritarianism) was that we come to realize that she is misguided.

There's at least one short where this is fairly explicit - a politician is rumoured to be a robot, and nobody can prove it either way by his behaviour since the actions of a very moral man are indistinguishable from those of a robot. Oh, and there's a similar theme to the R. Daneel Olivaw/Foundation mashup stories.

(ChatGPT says it's "Evidence", 1946, so fairly early).

Gosh yeah we should all adhere to the principles created by a science fiction author in 1942, before the microwave oven was invented, when creating modern technology.

Yeah, that makes sense.

In a way this kind of reminds me of the people who genuinely believe in the Prime Directive.

It's science fiction, guys. Please realize this.

This isn't even the start of the problem. Most of Asimov's work in this area is having fun poking holes in the 3 (or more) laws.

Only someone who didn't read ~any of it and didn't think about it much would think that the 3 laws should be used uncritically.

Please, pick up Asimov's book before ever mentioning the Laws.

I’m not sure a somewhat popular author of pop sci-fi novels of dubious quality in the 60s should be held as a guideline for rules regarding safe usage of AI.

Science fiction is great like that, isn't it? The only limits are the author's imagination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com