*Chuckles* Yes, it is fun. She's so shy, actually, which surprises me. She's been around people a lot and has been held by any number of people, and interacting with a bunch of different kids.
Ah, you did comment. Thanks. =) Yeah, that's precisely what I was talking about. The idea comes from Isaac Asimov, as you probably could guess. I'm not saying that this is an ideal set of rules, but only something that I think a totalitarian government might possibly adopt. Let's see...
Your first problem I've got covered quite well, I think. The whole system of government in the story has been determined. It's basically like one giant world state (rather than a federation of states like the US initially), where the national congress/judiciary has the ultimate say in everything. Rule A simply makes a robot a perfectly law-abiding machine. (The story takes place ~200 years in the future, so I'm assuming quite advanced AI to interpret the laws.) The gov. runs simulations of how the robots would act after a law is passed, and can immediately determine if the AI will consider one law as conflicting with another. A law is some legislation that has been passed by the congress and ratified by the president. As to how it gets handled... the robots must decide like humans how to act in order to abide by them, but the gov. knows ahead of time what will happen, and so they are controlling everything.
The second problem is more worrisome. "An abolished law is immediately abolished for the robots." My thinking was probably that it should be easier to deregulate than to regulate the robots. Anyway, the "established law" clause prevents any radical legislation from immediately affecting the robots in a bad way, and gives the public time to stop any oppressive laws from taking hold of the robots.
The problem is that it is only a lip service form of check. The established law Clause prevents the government from implementing a new law over an old law, if that old law were still a law. However, to circumvent this, the government simply abolishes a law, and then, in the next bill, approves a new law which might have been considered to be in conflict with that older law, if the old law were not abolished. :-)
Hmm... I'm not sure that I see the problem here. You are saying that law can change with this set of rules? True, but that's not bad. There is also a constitution that is harder to change that is established law. *Thinks*
The biggest problem I see here is that it would take at least 3 months to change some old legislation. Revoking a law is immediate, but to inact some replacement law would take 3 months.
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you meant in that comment... =/
I think there is something that I am not seeing here. At any rate, here's what happens. The constitution, which was never mentioned, is still changeable. And even so, who's to say that the constitution or any other law is easily interpreted? Even humans cannot properly interpret the law to an exact degree. Now add the following scenario.
Let's say that the government wants to wipe out all people that say Z at home. Let's say that at the moment, the law states that a person cannot be executed for saying Z, because it is protected under some law. For the government to change this, you simply secretly work to enact a new law, and don't publicize it too much, or slip it through on the coat tails of some other form of legislation. This rule then sits dormant where no one will see it, because there is a conflicting law which will not permit this law to go into effect. Next, all the government has to do is wait those three months in patient silence, and no one will suspect anything. Then, abolish the first law protecting Z, and suddenly, all the robots now have a new law, established through time, which has no previous law to supercede it, as that law is immediately abolished. As this is a law, there is nothing the people can do to avoid it, and they will, in an instant, be wiped out. No time for revolt or challenge, and the people are none the wiser for it.
The only thing I can say is that it'd seem highly improbable that a law that devistating would remain unknown over a 3 month time period. Remember the law must be publicized for the robots to consider it actual law. Plus, you have the pre-enactment period for the law where the bill is being written and people could find out about it.
Ah, the constitution should have been mentioned. ... Though, I certainly don't know exactly what it would include. It would cover basic rights and probably would prevent the interesting scenario you brought up.
Again, though, this isn't supposed to be the ideal set of rules. It definitely gives too much unchecked power to the government.
Indeed, the only problem is that it is far too easy to conceal the truth from the public. Let's say for example, that 50 bills are passed in a session, each containing 100 laws, and each publicized readily and openly to the world. The government has nothing to hide after all. ;-) The mundane nature of these laws will easily turn off the people to reading them, and the general public will easily believe that they are all doing some good. This law could even be hidden amongst a wonderful law designed to ensure any number of good things happen, or bad things are prevented.
People always have the ability to stop tyranny, but they rarely do, because they don't want to bother with it until it is staring them right in the face, and then it is too late. Then of course, we have the instance of scaring the people into submission, which is the best way to get a good constitutional amendment passed.
But yes, I think we agree in general. Where did these set of laws come from, anyways?
Yes, that's true that the truth today can be so easily kept from the public. I guess I'm imagining that there will be a nifty requirement that prevents legislation from being excessively long or that prevents tacked on laws. (More unspoken stuff -- I know. =P)
Right, I agree about what you said of stopping tyranny.
The set of rules came from my head. Lol. It's something I came up with for my sci-fi story and the human colony that exists on another planet 200+ years from now. I didn't like Asimov's laws since he himself showed how flawed they were.
Ah, you did comment. Thanks. =) Yeah, that's precisely what I was talking about. The idea comes from Isaac Asimov, as you probably could guess. I'm not saying that this is an ideal set of rules, but only something that I think a totalitarian government might possibly adopt. Let's see...
Your first problem I've got covered quite well, I think. The whole system of government in the story has been determined. It's basically like one giant world state (rather than a federation of states like the US initially), where the national congress/judiciary has the ultimate say in everything. Rule A simply makes a robot a perfectly law-abiding machine. (The story takes place ~200 years in the future, so I'm assuming quite advanced AI to interpret the laws.) The gov. runs simulations of how the robots would act after a law is passed, and can immediately determine if the AI will consider one law as conflicting with another. A law is some legislation that has been passed by the congress and ratified by the president. As to how it gets handled... the robots must decide like humans how to act in order to abide by them, but the gov. knows ahead of time what will happen, and so they are controlling everything.
The second problem is more worrisome. "An abolished law is immediately abolished for the robots." My thinking was probably that it should be easier to deregulate than to regulate the robots. Anyway, the "established law" clause prevents any radical legislation from immediately affecting the robots in a bad way, and gives the public time to stop any oppressive laws from taking hold of the robots.
Reply
Reply
The biggest problem I see here is that it would take at least 3 months to change some old legislation. Revoking a law is immediate, but to inact some replacement law would take 3 months.
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you meant in that comment... =/
Reply
Let's say that the government wants to wipe out all people that say Z at home. Let's say that at the moment, the law states that a person cannot be executed for saying Z, because it is protected under some law. For the government to change this, you simply secretly work to enact a new law, and don't publicize it too much, or slip it through on the coat tails of some other form of legislation. This rule then sits dormant where no one will see it, because there is a conflicting law which will not permit this law to go into effect. Next, all the government has to do is wait those three months in patient silence, and no one will suspect anything. Then, abolish the first law protecting Z, and suddenly, all the robots now have a new law, established through time, which has no previous law to supercede it, as that law is immediately abolished. As this is a law, there is nothing the people can do to avoid it, and they will, in an instant, be wiped out. No time for revolt or challenge, and the people are none the wiser for it.
Reply
The only thing I can say is that it'd seem highly improbable that a law that devistating would remain unknown over a 3 month time period. Remember the law must be publicized for the robots to consider it actual law. Plus, you have the pre-enactment period for the law where the bill is being written and people could find out about it.
Ah, the constitution should have been mentioned. ... Though, I certainly don't know exactly what it would include. It would cover basic rights and probably would prevent the interesting scenario you brought up.
Again, though, this isn't supposed to be the ideal set of rules. It definitely gives too much unchecked power to the government.
Those are great thoughts you gave to consider.
Reply
People always have the ability to stop tyranny, but they rarely do, because they don't want to bother with it until it is staring them right in the face, and then it is too late. Then of course, we have the instance of scaring the people into submission, which is the best way to get a good constitutional amendment passed.
But yes, I think we agree in general. Where did these set of laws come from, anyways?
Reply
Right, I agree about what you said of stopping tyranny.
The set of rules came from my head. Lol. It's something I came up with for my sci-fi story and the human colony that exists on another planet 200+ years from now. I didn't like Asimov's laws since he himself showed how flawed they were.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment