I studied this question some time ago, in the context of some work in systems science and AI. My conclusion was that there is no way to 'program' (construct an algorithm) to decide any of these three questions, as they are all context dependent. No logical system can account for all the possibilities. In essence they are judgment calls.
For example, if a robot sees someone about to jump out a window. Without knowing what's going on, the robot has no way of determining if preventing the human from jumping is preventing or causing injury to that human, or to other humans.
This problem applies closely to human decision making - we learn by example to make the 'best guess' in any situation, based on available knowledge, and we have a judicial system that applies a more generalized set of ethics and rules to encourage behavior that is generally in line with society's expectations.
It might be possible to build a neural network or equivalent 'brain' that could learn the same things we ourselves learn. But just as with humans, such a 'brain' would also be subject to mistakes, insanity, and even venality.
Therefore, the three laws can only be considered laws in the same sense as judicial laws, not in the sense of mathematical or natural laws. They are ethical/moral rules that a human, or a robot, must learn to apply in context, and do its best to follow or expect to incur some form of negative reinforcement.
Just to throw my hat into the prediction business, in 100 years perhaps we will be able to use antimatter conversion to power spaceships. If so, then the limits to speed in interplanetary or interstellar flight will be to prevent the occupants from being fried by the relatively accelerated particles the ship is continuously running into.
Either that, or society will have collapsed as a result of continuing wars over food, water and space and a failed attempt at global governance. Huge numbers of people (perhaps 1 billion) will be refugees of war and climate change, whether colder or hotter.
Modern kitchens are often furnished in stainless steel - at least the appliances and plumbing, and sometimes the countertops (though that is much more common in restaurants). And my cookware is almost entirely stainless steel (actually they are laminated with aluminum and copper in the bottoms).
Lead blocks, copper wire, heating plants, medical waste, who knows what else? This looks like a potential Superfund toxic waste cleanup candidate. Interesting story.
Fascinating article. It seems to say that the French way of putting adjectives after the noun fits better with the way our minds work.
I was also amused by the complete lack of understanding of the point of the research expressed by many of the commenters (as typified by those on the first page of comments). Sheesh!
Out west along the Columbia river in Oregon there are 250,000 HP (as I was told, anyway) irrigation pumps - one I'm aware of raises water 300 feet and pumps it six miles across the land through a pair of six foot diameter pipes. I wonder how this compares. Guess I'll have to work out the flow capacity of six foot pipes.
For example, if a robot sees someone about to jump out a window. Without knowing what's going on, the robot has no way of determining if preventing the human from jumping is preventing or causing injury to that human, or to other humans.
This problem applies closely to human decision making - we learn by example to make the 'best guess' in any situation, based on available knowledge, and we have a judicial system that applies a more generalized set of ethics and rules to encourage behavior that is generally in line with society's expectations.
It might be possible to build a neural network or equivalent 'brain' that could learn the same things we ourselves learn. But just as with humans, such a 'brain' would also be subject to mistakes, insanity, and even venality.
Therefore, the three laws can only be considered laws in the same sense as judicial laws, not in the sense of mathematical or natural laws. They are ethical/moral rules that a human, or a robot, must learn to apply in context, and do its best to follow or expect to incur some form of negative reinforcement.
Either that, or society will have collapsed as a result of continuing wars over food, water and space and a failed attempt at global governance. Huge numbers of people (perhaps 1 billion) will be refugees of war and climate change, whether colder or hotter.
I was also amused by the complete lack of understanding of the point of the research expressed by many of the commenters (as typified by those on the first page of comments). Sheesh!