Three Laws of Robotics
The Three Laws of Robotics
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
There were 2 Mathematicians on board a spacecraft Travelling to attend a Mathematical conference. “Dr. Humbug is one of the top three mathematicians, by long-established repute, in the galaxy and has been working for the past 27 decades in this feild. Dr. Drake, on the other hand, is quite young, not yet fifty, but he has already established himself as the most remarkable new talent in the most abstruse branches of mathematics.”
“Dr. Humbug tells the story clearly. Shortly before he boarded the starship, he had an insight into a possible method for analyzing neural pathways from changes in microwave absorption patterns of local cortical areas. The insight was a purely mathematical technique of extraordinary subtlety. These do not, however, matter. Dr. Humbug considered the matter and was more convinced each hour that he had something revolutionary on hand, something that would dwarf all his previous accomplishments in mathematics. Then he discovered that Dr. Drake was on board.”
The two had met at professional meetings before and knew each other thoroughly by reputation. Humboldt went into it with Drake in great detail. Drake backed Humbug’s analysis completely and was unstinting in his praise of the importance of the discovery and of the ingenuity of the discoverer. Heartened and reassured by this, Humbug prepared a paper outlining, in summary, his work and, two days later, prepared to have it forwarded subetherically to the co-chairmen of the conference, in order that he might officially establish his priority and arrange for possible discussion before the sessions were closed. To his surprise, he found that Drake was ready with a paper of his own, essentially the same as Humbug's and Drake was also preparing to have it subetherized.”
“Except for the mirror-image exchange of names. According to Drake, it was he who had the insight, and he who consulted Humbug; it was Humbug who agreed with the analysis and praised it. But there are 2 Robots who witnessed it all. The personal servants of Dr humbug and Dr Drake But both of the robots confirm the stories of their masters(Robots cant lie according to the 3 laws unless to save the life of a human Being). So They are both Interrogated The transcript Follows”
“Greetings, R. Idda.”
“Greetings, sir,” said R. Idda,
“You are the personal servant of Gennao Drake, are you not?”
“I am sir.”
“For how long, boy?”
“For twenty-two years, sir.”
“And your master’s reputation is valuable to you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Would you consider it of importance to protect that reputation?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as his physical life?”
“No, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as the reputation of another.”
R. Idda hesitated. He said, “Such cases must be decided on their individual merit, sir. There is no way of establishing a general rule.”
He said, “If you decided that the reputation of your master were more important than that of another, say, that of Alfred Barr Humbug, would you lie to protect your master’s reputation?”
“I would, sir.”
“Did you lie in your testimony concerning your master in his controversy with Dr. Humbug?”
“No, sir.”
“But if you were lying, you would deny you were lying in order to protect that lie, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, then, let’s consider this. Your master, Gennao Drake, is a young man of great reputation in mathematics, but he is a young man. If, in this controversy with Dr. Humbug, he had succumbed to temptation and had acted unethically, he would suffer a certain eclipse of reputation, but he is young and would have ample time to recover. He would have many intellectual triumphs ahead of him and men would eventually look upon this plagiaristic attempt as the mistake of a hot-blooded youth, deficient in judgment. It would be something that would be made up for in the future.
“If, on the other hand, it were Dr. Humbug who succumbed to temptation, the matter would be much more serious. He is an old man whose great deeds have spread over centuries. His reputation has been unblemished hitherto. All of that, however, would be forgotten in the light of this one crime of his later years, and he would have no opportunity to make up for it in the comparatively short time remaining to him. There would be little more that he could accomplish. There would be so many more years of work ruined in Humbug’s case than in that of your master and so much less opportunity to win back his position. You see, don’t you, that Humbug faces the worse situation and deserves the greater consideration?”
There was a long pause. Then R. Idda said, with unmoved voice, “My evidence was a lie. It was Dr. Humbug whose work it was, and my master has attempted, wrongfully, to appropriate the credit.”
“Good. Now for the other.”
“But is there any point to that in view of what R. Idda has confessed?”
“Of course there is. R. Idda’s confession means nothing.”
“Nothing?”
“Nothing at all. I pointed out that Dr. Humbug's position was the worse. Naturally, if he were lying to protect Drake, he would switch to the truth as, in fact, he claimed to have done. On the other hand, if he were telling the truth, he would switch to a lie to protect Humbug. It’s still mirror-image and we haven’t gained anything.”
“But then what will we gain by questioning R. Preston?”
“Nothing, if the minor-image were perfect--but it is not. After all, one of the robots is telling the truth to begin with, and one is lying to begin with, and that is a point of asymmetry. Let me see R. Preston
“Greetings, R. Preston.”
“Greetings, sir,” said R. Preston.
“You are the personal servant of Alfred Ban Humbug are you not?”
“I am, sir.”
“For how long, boy?”
“For twenty-two years, sir.”
“And your master’s reputation is valuable to you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Would you consider it of importance to protect that reputation?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as his physical life?”
“No, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as the reputation of another?”
R. Preston hesitated. He said, “Such cases must be decided on their individual merit, sir. There is no way of establishing a general rule.”
“If you decided that the reputation of your master were more important than that of another, say, that of Gennao Drake, would you lie to protect your master’s reputation?”
“I would, sir.”
“Did you lie in your testimony concerning your master in his controversy with Dr. Drake?”
“No, sir.”
“But if you were lying, you would deny you were lying, in order to protect that lie, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, then, let’s consider this. Your master, Alfred Barr Humbug, is an old man of great reputation in mathematics, but he is an old man. If, in this controversy with Dr. Drake, he had succumbed to temptation and had acted unethically, he would suffer a certain eclipse of reputation, but his great age and his centuries of accomplishments would stand against that and would win out. Men would look upon this plagiaristic attempt as the mistake of a perhaps-sick old man, no longer certain in judgment.
“If, on the other hand, it were Dr. Drake who had succumbed to temptation, the matter would be much more serious. He is a young man, with a far less secure reputation. He would ordinarily have centuries ahead of him in which he might accumulate knowledge and achieve great things. This will be closed to him, now, obscured by one mistake of his youth. He has a much longer future to lose than your master has. You see, don’t you, that Drake faces the worse situation and deserves the greater consideration?”
There was a long pause. Then R. Preston said, with unmoved voice, “My evidence was as I--”
At that point, he broke off and said nothing more.
“Please continue, R. Preston.”
There was no response.
“I am afraid, that R. Preston is in stasis. He is out of commission.”
“Well, then, we have finally produced an asymmetry. From this, we can see who the guilty person is.”
So who is the guilty Person... ?
-- Jyani vishav
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
There were 2 Mathematicians on board a spacecraft Travelling to attend a Mathematical conference. “Dr. Humbug is one of the top three mathematicians, by long-established repute, in the galaxy and has been working for the past 27 decades in this feild. Dr. Drake, on the other hand, is quite young, not yet fifty, but he has already established himself as the most remarkable new talent in the most abstruse branches of mathematics.”
“Dr. Humbug tells the story clearly. Shortly before he boarded the starship, he had an insight into a possible method for analyzing neural pathways from changes in microwave absorption patterns of local cortical areas. The insight was a purely mathematical technique of extraordinary subtlety. These do not, however, matter. Dr. Humbug considered the matter and was more convinced each hour that he had something revolutionary on hand, something that would dwarf all his previous accomplishments in mathematics. Then he discovered that Dr. Drake was on board.”
The two had met at professional meetings before and knew each other thoroughly by reputation. Humboldt went into it with Drake in great detail. Drake backed Humbug’s analysis completely and was unstinting in his praise of the importance of the discovery and of the ingenuity of the discoverer. Heartened and reassured by this, Humbug prepared a paper outlining, in summary, his work and, two days later, prepared to have it forwarded subetherically to the co-chairmen of the conference, in order that he might officially establish his priority and arrange for possible discussion before the sessions were closed. To his surprise, he found that Drake was ready with a paper of his own, essentially the same as Humbug's and Drake was also preparing to have it subetherized.”
“Except for the mirror-image exchange of names. According to Drake, it was he who had the insight, and he who consulted Humbug; it was Humbug who agreed with the analysis and praised it. But there are 2 Robots who witnessed it all. The personal servants of Dr humbug and Dr Drake But both of the robots confirm the stories of their masters(Robots cant lie according to the 3 laws unless to save the life of a human Being). So They are both Interrogated The transcript Follows”
“Greetings, R. Idda.”
“Greetings, sir,” said R. Idda,
“You are the personal servant of Gennao Drake, are you not?”
“I am sir.”
“For how long, boy?”
“For twenty-two years, sir.”
“And your master’s reputation is valuable to you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Would you consider it of importance to protect that reputation?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as his physical life?”
“No, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as the reputation of another.”
R. Idda hesitated. He said, “Such cases must be decided on their individual merit, sir. There is no way of establishing a general rule.”
He said, “If you decided that the reputation of your master were more important than that of another, say, that of Alfred Barr Humbug, would you lie to protect your master’s reputation?”
“I would, sir.”
“Did you lie in your testimony concerning your master in his controversy with Dr. Humbug?”
“No, sir.”
“But if you were lying, you would deny you were lying in order to protect that lie, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, then, let’s consider this. Your master, Gennao Drake, is a young man of great reputation in mathematics, but he is a young man. If, in this controversy with Dr. Humbug, he had succumbed to temptation and had acted unethically, he would suffer a certain eclipse of reputation, but he is young and would have ample time to recover. He would have many intellectual triumphs ahead of him and men would eventually look upon this plagiaristic attempt as the mistake of a hot-blooded youth, deficient in judgment. It would be something that would be made up for in the future.
“If, on the other hand, it were Dr. Humbug who succumbed to temptation, the matter would be much more serious. He is an old man whose great deeds have spread over centuries. His reputation has been unblemished hitherto. All of that, however, would be forgotten in the light of this one crime of his later years, and he would have no opportunity to make up for it in the comparatively short time remaining to him. There would be little more that he could accomplish. There would be so many more years of work ruined in Humbug’s case than in that of your master and so much less opportunity to win back his position. You see, don’t you, that Humbug faces the worse situation and deserves the greater consideration?”
There was a long pause. Then R. Idda said, with unmoved voice, “My evidence was a lie. It was Dr. Humbug whose work it was, and my master has attempted, wrongfully, to appropriate the credit.”
“Good. Now for the other.”
“But is there any point to that in view of what R. Idda has confessed?”
“Of course there is. R. Idda’s confession means nothing.”
“Nothing?”
“Nothing at all. I pointed out that Dr. Humbug's position was the worse. Naturally, if he were lying to protect Drake, he would switch to the truth as, in fact, he claimed to have done. On the other hand, if he were telling the truth, he would switch to a lie to protect Humbug. It’s still mirror-image and we haven’t gained anything.”
“But then what will we gain by questioning R. Preston?”
“Nothing, if the minor-image were perfect--but it is not. After all, one of the robots is telling the truth to begin with, and one is lying to begin with, and that is a point of asymmetry. Let me see R. Preston
“Greetings, R. Preston.”
“Greetings, sir,” said R. Preston.
“You are the personal servant of Alfred Ban Humbug are you not?”
“I am, sir.”
“For how long, boy?”
“For twenty-two years, sir.”
“And your master’s reputation is valuable to you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Would you consider it of importance to protect that reputation?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as his physical life?”
“No, sir.”
“As important to protect his reputation as the reputation of another?”
R. Preston hesitated. He said, “Such cases must be decided on their individual merit, sir. There is no way of establishing a general rule.”
“If you decided that the reputation of your master were more important than that of another, say, that of Gennao Drake, would you lie to protect your master’s reputation?”
“I would, sir.”
“Did you lie in your testimony concerning your master in his controversy with Dr. Drake?”
“No, sir.”
“But if you were lying, you would deny you were lying, in order to protect that lie, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, then, let’s consider this. Your master, Alfred Barr Humbug, is an old man of great reputation in mathematics, but he is an old man. If, in this controversy with Dr. Drake, he had succumbed to temptation and had acted unethically, he would suffer a certain eclipse of reputation, but his great age and his centuries of accomplishments would stand against that and would win out. Men would look upon this plagiaristic attempt as the mistake of a perhaps-sick old man, no longer certain in judgment.
“If, on the other hand, it were Dr. Drake who had succumbed to temptation, the matter would be much more serious. He is a young man, with a far less secure reputation. He would ordinarily have centuries ahead of him in which he might accumulate knowledge and achieve great things. This will be closed to him, now, obscured by one mistake of his youth. He has a much longer future to lose than your master has. You see, don’t you, that Drake faces the worse situation and deserves the greater consideration?”
There was a long pause. Then R. Preston said, with unmoved voice, “My evidence was as I--”
At that point, he broke off and said nothing more.
“Please continue, R. Preston.”
There was no response.
“I am afraid, that R. Preston is in stasis. He is out of commission.”
“Well, then, we have finally produced an asymmetry. From this, we can see who the guilty person is.”
So who is the guilty Person... ?
-- Jyani vishav
Labels: SharedPuzzle
posted by ToM at
9:01 PM
23 Comments:
I don't really see a riddle, here. The interrogator created an (almost) identical situation for both robots where Drake's robot changed his testimony and Humbug's didn't. If telling the truth is preferable, all other alike, that means that Humbug's robot was the one telling the truth from the start -- which we already knew, 'cause the story tells us so.
I notice that it was Dr. Humbug who had told the story, so it could be a lie.
It's not clear whether or not Preston heard the first interview. That may be very relevant.
The consequence chain of however he responded was an insoluble problem for Preston. I'm not sure if Idda would also blow a gasket if he was then presented with the other scenario.
I can't quite complete the logical argument. My guts say that Humbug is the liar.
Hi mo. I've responded to your "Cash cows" comment. Greetz.
Some Insight:
Both Dr humbug and Dr drake Gave the exact same testimony (Dr drake said he had discovered the theorum and that Dr humbug was trying to steal it and vice verse... )
Robots Can lie only to save a human being from harm(1st law) or if ordered to do so(second law)
If a robot tries to violate the three laws It goes into statis
Hope this helps...
Chris, you're right. I hadn't noticed that it was Humbug that told the story in the first place, it kind of smells like the whole thing is a set-up and Humbug is the liar. But I can't figure out how that could be... my argument above remains: the robot that started out lying is, under equal circumstances, more likely to change his testimony, since truth is preferable.
I'm guessing the solution is this: in order to get his robot to lie in the first place, the lying mathematician must have told his robot that he (the mathematician) will come to more harm that his opponent if the truth is told (a simple order to lie would be nullified by the Interrogator's order to tell the truth). Presuming Humbug's is the lying robot, that would explain why it deadlocked after the interrogator tells him the exact opposite. Drake's robot would not have the same conflict, since Drake will not have needed to tell it anything for it to tell truth -- only at the perspective that someone may come to (greater) harm does it start lying.
But somehow I feel that the theory is flawed. In the described scenario, Humbug's robot would not deadlock. There is a strict hierarchy of priorities, and since the foremost priority is nullified by it's master's and the interrogator's versions of what would happen, it would fall back to the second priority, which would be to obey the interrogator and tell the truth. Unless Humbug ADDITIONALLY ordered it to lie, just in case. Hm, I guess that must be it.
Still, somehow I'm not happy. It may be possible to reconstruct a situation were the truth-telling robot deadlocks due to what was told to him before, in which case no information can be drawn from the interrogation.
Oh, I missed Vishav's last post. Well, that changes everything (that last piece of information is rather vital), but I haven't got time to go into it right now.
Hi mo. Good point about the liar telling the robot that he be worse off reputation wise, I hadn't thought of that.
I had analysed it further before I posted, but didn't write it up as it was inconclusive. I really posted because of noticing that Humbug was the story teller (at first only I presume).
I'll accept that as Vishav_011 posted the problem, that he's allowed to define/refine the rules, especially if it makes the problem soluble.
lmao, is this a story or a riddle?
just kicking the can...
nothing new
my robot lies to me all the time.
... but only when it's inflated
Vishav, I have a problem with your additional information:
"If a robot tries to violate the three laws It goes into statis"
To my understanding the robots don't have a free will, they can't "try to violate the three laws". They can only try to follow them, and only if that is not possible would they fall into stasis.
Here's another unclear piece of information: "Robots Can lie only [...] if ordered to do so(second law)".
To my understanding it is the second law that forbids them to lie in the first place: "(Robots cant lie according to the 3 laws unless to save the life of a human Being)". That implies that they interpret a request to make a statement as an "order", and there is no mentioning in the laws of the robots prioritizing their owners' orders over those of other human beings. But if they do, then the only thing that could put them in stasis is if they can't carry out an order by their owner without disobeying another order by their owner.
I can't help having the feeling that the solution will be dissatisfying and flawed in detail.
Hi mo, I've updated the cash cows - ta for spotting.
A penny is dropping. I also always believed that 3 law robots had to tell the truth. They cannot lie unless it is to save the life of a human being, not just his reputation. So the baddy had presumably threatened to kill someone and possibly a robot as well to force the robot to lie. Not sure though if the robot should be telling the feds about the contemplated murder. Maybe the baddy had a wrinkle on that too. Remember, these guys are clever and might know how to manipulate the robots better than most people.
Yay, "I,Robot!"
... possibly a suicide threat was involved.
Hey Guys... Im really sorry i was out of town nd thus could not post... Anyways First of all I congratulate Mo For getting the answer in his second post itself... Conrats for you are right No resonable deduction can be formed from the interrogation .... But Dr Humbug is the one who is lying... And the reason in included in the post below ( You are right this was an extract from a story )...
Also mo its amazing that u could arrive at the problem of priorities of orders to robots(such a problem has been discussed in the robotics novels) but i was able to see the problem only after i had finished about 2 books and you are right of course(but then you may have read the books)... :)
The continuation of the story...
The reason why the robot broke down... Suppose you were a person who had committed no crime and that your personal robot were a witness to that. There would be nothing you need do. Your robot would tell the truth and bear you out. If, however, you were a person who had committed the crime, you would have to depend on your robot to lie. That would be a somewhat riskier position, for although the robot would lie, if necessary, the greater inclination would be to tell the truth, so that the lie would be less firm than the truth would be. To prevent that, the crime-committing person would very likely have to order the robot to lie. In this way, First Law would be strengthened by Second Law; perhaps very substantially strengthened.
Suppose we have one robot of each type. One robot would switch from truth, unreinforced, to the lie, and could do so after some hesitation, without serious trouble. The other robot would switch from the lie, strongly reinforced, to the truth, but could do so only at the risk of burning out various positronic-track-ways in his brain and falling into stasis.”
But that is not all...
Meanwhile, I have a question--Was it not possible to suppose that passage from a lie to the truth was easy, while passage from the truth to a lie was difficult? And in that case, would not the robot in stasis have been going from a truth to a lie, and since R. Preston was in stasis, might one not have drawn the conclusion that it was Dr. Humboldt who was innocent and Dr. Sabbat who was guilty?”
"But with arguments possible in both directions, how could you, so quickly pick the correct one?”
“Because, I took into account human reactions, not robotic ones. I know more about human beings than about robots. In other words, I had an idea as to which mathematician was guilty before I ever interviewed the robots. Once I provoked an asymmetric response in them, I simply interpreted it in such a way as to place the guilt on the one I already believed to be guilty. The robotic response was dramatic enough to break down the guilty man; my own analysis of human behavior might not have been sufficient to do so.”
“I am curious to know what your analysis of human behavior was?”
“ think, and you won’t have to ask. There is another point of asymmetry in this tale of mirror-image besides the matter of true-and-false. There is the matter of the age of the two mathematicians; one is quite old and one is quite young.”
“Yes, of course, but what then?”
“Why, this. I can see a young man, flushed with a sudden, startling and revolutionary idea, consulting in the matter an old man whom he has, from his early student days, thought of as a demigod in the field. I can not see an old man, rich in honors and used to triumphs, coming up with a sudden, startling and revolutionary idea, consulting a man centuries his junior whom he is bound to think of as a young whippersnapper. Then, too, if a young man had the chance, would he try to steal the idea of a revered demigod? It would be unthinkable. On the other hand, an old man, conscious of declining powers, might well snatch at one last chance of fame and consider a baby in the field to have no rights he was bound to observe. In short, it was not conceivable that Sabbat steal Humboldt’s idea; and from both angles, Dr. Humboldt was guilty.”
I Changed the names in the orignal question(or should i say forgot to change them in the above post).... Dr Humboldt is Of course Dr Humbug ND Dr sabbat is Dr Drake.... Also The writer of the story is Isaac Asimov in case you would like to pursue the story(Mirror Image)... (Isaac Asimov's stories are a huge collection and very stimulating for the mind )... :)
And Chris if a sucide threat had been involved then i suppose dr humbug's robot would not have even tried to switch to truth since it would have caused the death of a human being and nothing would have caused him to change his statment or even consider changing it unless telling a lie would also have caused death to 2 or more people.... (just my reasoning i may be wrong of course) :)
Hi Vishav. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the murder/suicide ideas weren't too clever.
I've read the original story now - tricky!
Hi Vishav, thanks for the explanation. I think I've read a collection of short stories by Asimov, but this particular problem wasn't in it, nor anything about robot priorities. I do like reading science fiction now and again, but Stanislaw Lem is more up my street.
Credits to Chris for noticing that it was Dr. Humbug telling the story.
Would the robot fall into stasis because he has to obey his master AND his interrogator, causing some confilct with the laws 'must obey the orders given by human beings unless it conflicts with law 1' since he was going to switch and tell the truth (witch can not really happen because he is not saving someone from harm, just thier reputation) but yet have to lie to follow his orders.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home