Ethics of ASFR

[fmn8k]

<DELETED>

[rs5420]

1- Don't ask stupid question, so you won't get stupid answers.
2- Don't try to look stupid, regarding rule number one.
3- Don't act stupid, regarding laws 1 & 2, and just lay down here and split those legs, would ya.



OK i'm out.

[fmn8k]

<DELETED>

[rs5420]

I truly apologize, I was tired and it was not intended to offend anyone. I should stop trying to do good humor when I'm close to hit the sack.

[fmn8k]

<DELETED>

[jolshefsky]

There also exists a type of (to me distasteful) 'pulp' ASFR writing, where the ASFR element is used in an sensationalist manner, often failing to explore or understand some of the ethical issues involved.

I guess two things.

First, Asimov's rules didn't define any kinds of ethical boundaries for science fiction -- they just provided a groundwork of something to bounce against. But to answer your question directly, the rules Asimov set up still apply -- regardless of whether the machine is shaped like a woman.

Second, the ethics iron themselves out from writing. It's the interplay of conflict that defines the ethical boundaries. A common theme is the ownership of self (although this applies to any sentient creation) -- is it okay for me to reprogram the personality of my android girlfriend?

Several themes are unique to human-looking robots. There's the conflict between those who come to believe in the humanity of a machine versus those who only see the machine. There's also the conflict of a mechanical person who believes they are actually human, only to be revealed otherwise. And what of the sentient artificial person who is duplicated? What is the real person, and what if they are mass-produced to the point that their individuality is irrelevant?

But when you say something like "ethics in writing", I immediately think of a tool to judge whether an author is right or wrong -- and I disagree with that belief. One can agree or disagree with the sentiment of a story, but to claim that it was wrong to write it is despicable.

[keraptis]

I'm not sure I understand the question ... I'm probably just unaware of what other threads are providing the background.

Asimov's rules are supposed to govern the behavior of the robots themselves, whereas I thought all the ethical arguments we see on this board have to do with the behavior of human beings toward robots (or, in the case of transformation fantasies, the behavior of a human "master" toward a human "subject").

I don't know of any code of ethics in SF that would apply to the latter situation (human-to-human interaction) any better than some combination of the law and common sense. In other words, "no means no."

It's only in the former case (human-to-robot) that the ethics are undefined. The law would strictly state that an owner can do anything he/she wants to a robot, at least in private ... but that's because any real robots that might exist have no sentience or rights as such.

In an SF scenario in which a robot could think for itself in some way, then you'd have to come up with a code of ethics (legal and/or moral) about how they deserve to be treated by humans.

Or am I completely off-base in understanding your question?

[dale coba]

Stories about robots can be written:

1. to examine the future ethics of their use(s)
2. as a metaphor for human-to-human interactions
3. to stroke... the libido

These three are entirely different realms, though there will be common themes for some would-be ethicists.

For me:
1. Data is a toaster. I don't believe in the sentience of AI, nor of any need to respect its hypothetical rights. Just don't slide into treating humans badly because of fuzzy conflations with the way you deal with your robots.

2. We need every narrative we can come up with, to thwart man's inhumanity to man in the early 21st century. These are human ethics in disguise, so they are of paramount importance. Of course, writing unethical characters is a fine way to explore ethics.

3. Escapist fantasy should have very few limitations; except again, being mindful that those ethics, unexamined, could easily bleed into one's own thinking about human people.


#1 isn't of any concern to me, because we won't reach the point where we have to confront any substantially "real" AI, because the world's oil economy will collapse within the next 15 years. (sorry to be a bummer, but that's how I read the forecasts).

#2 is the very origin of the word "robot".

R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) is a science fiction play by Karel Čapek.
It premiered in 1921 and is famous for having introduced and popularized the term robot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R._%28 ... _Robots%29

#3 is my only reason for ASFR


I only wish that humans would work harder to follow Laws 0, 1 and 3.
A lot harder.

But then, I'm a dreamer.

- dale coba

[Brytestar]

I truly apologize, I was tired and it was not intended to offend anyone. I should stop trying to do good humor when I'm close to hit the sack.

PENALTY!

[fmn8k]

<DELETED>

[visceralpsyche]

It's a subject near and dear to my heart and one I'll be exploring some more in my upcoming films, starting in 2008. Stay tuned....

[Allenzo]

this sounded like a great board topic, but why has every one of FMN8k's posts been deleted? if anyone wants to revive the board, i personally would be interested.

[keraptis]

this sounded like a great board topic, but why has every one of FMN8k's posts been deleted? if anyone wants to revive the board, i personally would be interested.

It looks like he deleted his own posts? I know of no case where posts have been deleted by the mods, and even if that did happen I'm sure they would let everyone know they did it.