[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
"If, by virtue of the Second Law, we can demand of any robot unlimited
obedience in all respects not involving harm to a human being, then any human
being, any human being at all, has a fearsome power over any robot, any robot.
In particular, since Second Law overrides Third Law, any human being can use
the law of obedience to defeat the law of self-protection. He can order the
robot to damage itself or even destroy itself for any reason, or for no reason
whatsoever--purely on whim alone.
"Let us leave the question of property rights out of the discussion here
--though it is not a trivial one--and approach the issue simply on the level
of sheer human decency. Imagine someone approaching a robot he happens to
encounter on the road and ordering it, for no reason other than his own
amusement, to remove its own limbs, or to do some other grave injury to
itself. Or let us say that the robot's owner himself, in a moment of pique or
boredom or frustration, gives such an order.
"Is this just? Would we treat an animal like that? And an animal, mind you,
might at least have the capacity to defend itself. But we have made our robots
inherently unable to lift a hand against a human being.
"Even an inanimate object which has given us good service has a claim on our
consideration. And a robot is far from insensible; it is not a simple machine
and it is not an animal. It can think well enough to enable it to speak with
us, reason with us, joke with us. Many of us who have lived and worked with
robots all our lives have come to regard them as friends --
virtually as members of our families, I dare say. We have deep respect for
them, even affection. Is it asking too much to want to give our robot friends
the formal protection of law?
"If a man has the right to give a robot any order that does not involve doing
harm to a human being, he should have the decency never to give a robot any
order that involves doing harm to a robot--unless human safety absolutely
requires such action. Certainly a robot should not lightly be asked to do
purposeless harm to itself. With great power goes great responsibility. If the
robots have the Three Laws to protect humans, is it too much to ask that
humans subject themselves to a law or two for the sake of protecting robots?"
There was, of course, another side to the issue--and the spokesman for that
side was none other than James Van Buren, the lawyer who had opposed
Andrew's original petition for free-robot status in the Regional Court. He was
old, now, but still vigorous, a powerful advocate of traditional social
beliefs. In his calm, balanced, reasonable way, Van Buren was once again a
forceful speaker on behalf of those who denied that robots could in any way be
considered worthy of having "rights."
He said, "Of course I hold no brief for vandals who would wantonly destroy a
robot that does not belong to them, or order it to destroy itself.
That is a civil offense, pure and simple, which can readily be punished
through the usual legal channels. We no more need a special law to cover such
cases than we need a specific law that says it is wrong for people to smash
the windows of other people's houses. The general law of the sanctity of
property provides sufficient protection.
Page 62
ABC Amber Palm Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abcpalm.html
"But a law preventing one from destroying one's own robot? Ah, now we venture
into very different areas of thinking. I have robots in my own law office, and
it would no more occur to me to destroy one than it would for me to take an
axe to a desk. Still, is there anyone who would argue that I should be
stripped of the right to do as I please with my own robots, or my own desks,
or any other article of office furniture that I may own? Can the State, in its
infinite wisdom, come into my office and say, 'No, James Van Buren, you must
be kind to your desks, and spare them from injury. Likewise your filing
cabinets: they must be treated with respect, they must be treated as friends.
And the same applies, naturally, to your robots. In no way, James Van Buren,
may you place the robots you own in jeopardy.' "
Van Buren would pause, then, and smile in his calm and reasonable way, letting
everyone know that this was strictly a hypothetical example, that in fact he
was not the sort of man who would do injury to anyone or anything.
And then he would say, "I can hear George Charney replying that a robot is
fundamentally different from a desk or a filing cabinet, that a robot is
intelligent and responsive, that robots should be regarded virtually as human.
And I would reply to him that he is mistaken, that he is so bemused by
affection for the robot that his own family has kept for many decades that he
has lost sight of what robots really are.
"They are machines, my friends. They are tools. They are appliances.
What they are is mere mechanical contrivances, neither more nor less deserving
of legal protection than any other inanimate object. Yes, I said inanimate.
They can speak, yes. They can think, in their own rigid preprogrammed way. But
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]