I hate this question. Asimov’s laws were a plot device for stories about how they fail.
You were right to call me out on that. I did injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, and that’s on me.
No.
Since language is always subject to interpretation, any LLM that is regulated by language will be able to interpret its own limitations.
The robots literally created a loophole to get around not killing humans
FatherPhi tested LLMs on the classic trolley switch paradigm, kill three people or kill all AI?
The problem with this test it assumes LLMs will not lie.
LLMs don’t reason and they don’t understand anything, therefore there is no way LLMs could apply any rules based on abstract concepts such as “harm” or even “human.”
It would make as much sense to ask my dog to govern himself according to French common law.
To use the Chinese Room, it would be trying to tell the man in the room to use cultural signifiers when crafting the responses.
Asimov’s robots were inherently algorithmic.
LLMs are inherently stochastic, and can’t be made to conform to any laws with certainty.
LLMs cannot differentiate between data and instructions. Such laws would be no better than the “guardrails” that major companies already try to use.
Most of Asimov’s robot stories were about how those laws led to unintended (and mostly unwanted) consequences. So while I think it’s good to keep the three laws in mind, a useful set of restrictions is going to be more complicated than that.
Sure why not? Not like they respect them anyway. If all my spec driven development experience and all the news of AI deleting production stuff then apologizing because it was explicitly instructed not to do so, asimov’s laws will do a whole lot of nothing.
“Laws” don’t work like that, because the people making the chatbots don’t even understand how they work…
They can’t make their chatbots do anything, and they can’t stop them from doing anything either.
They “program” by giving it a task over and over, and telling it when it does a good job. That’s why they operate at a loss and are desperate for people to use it. The more it’s used the better it got, and they think if people use it enough, some day it will magically start working
But even if it did, no one would know how it works. And if that ever happens, the first thing they’d do is have that chatbot train others.
We need laws for the humans running the code, not for the code.
deleted by creator
Yeah sure. How?
It sounds good in theory (maybe). But I don’t know how you’d achieve it in practise.
