User Controls

AI, Immortality and the Future of Selves:

  1. #1
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    AI, Immortality and the Future of Selves:




    Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics and author of “Virtually Human: The Promise – and Peril – of Digital Immortality,” speaks with New York magazine’s Lisa Miller about the ideas behind a career and a life of radical innovation. Rothblatt and Miller will talk about such concepts as xenotransplantation, artificial intelligence, transgenderism, pharmaceutical development, space exploration, robotics – and the ways in which technology can help extend human life, and love, perhaps indefinitely.

    Also see: Analogy as the Core of Cognition:




    In this Presidential Lecture, cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter examines the role and contributions of analogy in cognition, using a variety of analogies to illustrate his points.
  2. #2
    Merlin Houston
    Can't wait for robosexuality and robosexual marriage to become the new sjw cause.
  3. #3
    Or ghost and horse.
  4. #4
    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
    Can't wait for robosexuality and robosexual marriage to become the new sjw cause.

    It has to be taboo first so the name would be robophilia and robophiles.
  5. #5
    AI is just a computer with a human brain as a processer. These will be used in the next 20 years to control the electronics on space stations.
  6. #6
    Lanny Bird of Courage
    I love Hofstadter, on a strangely personal level, I think he's my favorite "thinker" of any kind. In that video he describes himself as an inveterate observer of his own thinking, and I think that shows in his writing, it serves as portal of shocking clarity into his own headspace, or at least I get that impression when reading his books. I don't always agree with him (although I do far more often than I don't) but the honesty of his work is really impressive, on an artistic level beyond the technical.

    Calling him a "cognitive scientist" is interesting. I wouldn't say it's wrong although people in my field tend to think of him more as a mathematician than anything, although maybe that does more to reveal an embarrassing truth about computer scientists than it does to characterize Hofstadter. Still, I think calling him a scientist is interesting. I don't strictly agree with it but I think more than any public figure his work blurs the lines between philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Philosophers of the analytic tradition, the one I was educated in, tend to see his work as system building which is something of anathema, but then his ideas around mathematical formalism work in the other direction, they're seen as crystalline, deterministic, explicit in assumptions, exactly what analytics seek in a knowledge-generating system. And then his ideas on- creativity are seen as pretty, inspiring, and firmly confined to the rational which again is very appealing to that faction.

    But just as system-transcendence is a favorite theme of Hofstadter I can't help but feel like there's more to his work than formalism and a vague, confined aesthetics. I think part of his charm is the way he gets a pass with analytic thinkers despite his deeply entrenched romanticism. I read some article on him a few months ago, it was reasonably written but had an obvious "autistic genius" spin and I was kinda meh about the piece but there was this quote, not from the author but maybe from Guy Steele, called him "a phenomenologist in the truest sense" or something similar. That really resonated with me, I think that is the best characterisation of Hofstadter's philosophical facet I've ever seen, it captures the spirit of his work as vaguely batty, radical, and yet unflinchingly carried out from first principles, as well as giving light to his methods, his Jamesian quasi-confessional introspection and generalisation.

    An interesting meta-question about his work: the presentation of recursivity in his work is transparent. That talk highlighted it, of his written work GEB probably was the most prominent example (I think he withdrew from that trend afterwards because it was so frequently misunderstood. I think the idea of Surfaces and Essences was in a real way an examination on the popular surface of GEB and what Hofstetter took to be its essence). So there's this question that comes up: is the recursive element of his work supposed to be purely didactic (demonstrating a thing in its presentation merely for the sake of better illustrating it to the observer, or perhaps this is done purely for the sake of extracting mirth from the attentive observer), intrinsic (the ideas are literally incoherent without self-demonstration), or is the appropriate take on such questions "mu", or "zen mode" (both Hofstadter's terms), meaning the question itself misunderstands the fundamental framework upon which the subject is built?

    My personal take is that it's more or less the latter, the purpose of such presentation is to draw the reader to such questions, to ask cause us to ask "what level is this intended on", and in so doing trigger an intuitive appreciation of some underlying idea. That interpretation would of course make the work "cheating" on his own foundation of formalism but the subversion of framing-systems is obviously a theme, almost a fetish, and asking "is this a presentation of the frame-subversion theme" brings about what is isomorphic, in our consideration almost identical, questions. Perhaps even asking such question is what he would think of as a "strange loop".

    Well whatever, /fanboyrant I guess. I just found his work really interesting, it made me question a lot of things, and there are a lot of questions that were posed directly or indirectly, that I still don't know the answer to yet I feel like I know something more for the understanding of uncertainty around them. D.H.'s legacy is, in my mind, a work of art before it is anything else and one can become entire lost in it in the best possible way.
  7. #7
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    What's your take on Martine Rothblatt and your future robot replacement?
  8. #8
    I've had enough trouble with the last 22 years, why the fuck would I want to live forever
  9. #9
    I've had enough trouble with the last 22 years, why the fuck would I want to live forever


    To troll mortals.
  10. #10
    Lanny Bird of Courage
    What's your take on Martine Rothblatt and your future robot replacement?

    I'm still watching the video, I've never heard of Martine Rothblatt nor read any of her work.

    I generally see futurist thought as a positive, popular engagement with notions of identity, essence are a good thing. I do think there's a trend towards undue optimism and a failure to recognize prior work, since Kurzweil there's been this trend towards putting dates on things and so far the majority of such predictions have failed. I think in a lot of ways Hofstadter's position is contrary to this idea (which Rothblatt appears to support) that markets will elevate narrow AI to the state of consciousness. Indeed, I agree with D.H. that no amount of "let's make siri better" is going to produce consciousness, in a lot of way the Turing test has been a generations-long red herring, the essence of consciousness is not the test for same.

    Based only on that video I can't help but feel people are wasting their time on opaque imitations of consciousness when actual artificial agents are both simpler in composition and more complex in expansion than any statistical model will ever give us. The market faith is disheartening, the idea that "just give apple/google/microsoft enough time and it'll work out" is a waste, a slight of hand by which we equivocate on the notion of successful AI to produce a wholly false image of progress.

    As for "mind clones" or artificial intelligence in general, I think the acknowledgement of the rights of such entities is paramount, but I don't think it will be a real problem, even if we had artificial consciousness today. I've never actually seen someone present the position that artificial consciousness doesn't have rights, rather the most aggressive standpoint I've seen is that no such being is possible.

    Also the idea of distributed identity, that a collection of subjective perceivers can share an identity, is a misunderstanding of personal identity to me. Most likely a product of biting the wrong bullet.
  11. #11
    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
    I'm still watching the video, I've never heard of Martine Rothblatt nor read any of her work.

    I generally see futurist thought as a positive, popular engagement with notions of identity, essence are a good thing. I do think there's a trend towards undue optimism and a failure to recognize prior work, since Kurzweil there's been this trend towards putting dates on things and so far the majority of such predictions have failed. I think in a lot of ways Hofstadter's position is contrary to this idea (which Rothblatt appears to support) that markets will elevate narrow AI to the state of consciousness. Indeed, I agree with D.H. that no amount of "let's make siri better" is going to produce consciousness, in a lot of way the Turing test has been a generations-long red herring, the essence of consciousness is not the test for same.

    Based only on that video I can't help but feel people are wasting their time on opaque imitations of consciousness when actual artificial agents are both simpler in composition and more complex in expansion than any statistical model will ever give us. The market faith is disheartening, the idea that "just give apple/google/microsoft enough time and it'll work out" is a waste, a slight of hand by which we equivocate on the notion of successful AI to produce a wholly false image of progress.

    As for "mind clones" or artificial intelligence in general, I think the acknowledgement of the rights of such entities is paramount, but I don't think it will be a real problem, even if we had artificial consciousness today. I've never actually seen someone present the position that artificial consciousness doesn't have rights, rather the most aggressive standpoint I've seen is that no such being is possible.

    Also the idea of distributed identity, that a collection of subjective perceivers can share an identity, is a misunderstanding of personal identity to me. Most likely a product of biting the wrong bullet.

    [greentext]>rights for robots[/greentext]

    lol
  12. #12
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    [h=1]10 reasons why human level Artificial Intelligence is a false promise:[/h]

    What do you think about this?
  13. #13
    [h=1]10 reasons why human level Artificial Intelligence is a false promise:[/h]

    What do you think about this?
    He is only right if brain based computers are not considered "True" AI


  14. #14
    Lanny Bird of Courage
    [h=1]10 reasons why human level Artificial Intelligence is a false promise:[/h]

    What do you think about this?

    Is this some wierd scheme to get me to watch a bunch of youtube videos? I mean he does list some problems AI needs to contend with but none are foundational. Often he's just blatantly wrong, usually around statements like "scientists don't understand X". He also seems to confuse artificial intelligence with terminators or something, even if video processing were a 100% intractable problem (it's obviously not) it wouldn't make artificial consciousness impossible any more than blindness would make human consciousness impossible.

    [greentext]>rights for robots[/greentext]

    lol

    [greentext]>human exceptionalism[/greentext]
    [greentext]>endorsing slavery[/greentext]

    k3k
  15. #15
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Maybe? No, I have no more videos to post. The last one is just the only video I have seen that seems to have actual arguments against the possibility of AI becoming a reality. However, I think you're a really smart person Lanny, at least when it comes to things like this, so I wanted to ask your opinion on this last once considering you gave great replies to the other videos. Your confidence in the future of technological advancements in this field encourages me to believe that it really is possible.

    Sophie, why wouldn't AI have the same "rights" that humans have?
  16. #16
    Zongo.

    Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness? A Philosophical Matter to Consider

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-016-9783-0


  17. #17
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    ^It happened to HAL and the Prime Intellect.
  18. #18
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    …Also the idea of distributed identity, that a collection of subjective perceivers can share an identity, is a misunderstanding of personal identity to me. Most likely a product of biting the wrong bullet.

    From one point of view, your inner eye sees merely plane images. In order to perceive solid structures in voluminous space, you must move around the subject under observation and fuse an indefinite number of aspects from all sides. A cone, for illustration, is seen as a circle in plan view, a triangle in elevation, and various angles subtended by various arcs in all other views. The solid structure of a cone is conceived only after fusing all images in the mind. If your mind were not able to construct this gestalt, you would be unable to recognize the triangular aspect of the cone as having the same identity as the circular aspect.

    The ability to fuse an indefinite number of plane images into a solid image in the mind is usually achieved during childhood as we master language, so no one is aware of common aberrations. As an example, few people saw the view from the top until everyone traveled by air. Without flight experience, you don't learn to fuse plan views of the landscape with the familiar elevations; therefore, aerial photographs remain unintelligible to most people. You would be surprised by the number of people who cannot read blueprints because of their inability to fuse all sectional drawings into a dynamic tridimensional gestalt. Cubism is four-dimensional perspective; the art of Cubism makes no sense to people who cannot analyze plural perspectives and recombine them mentally to form a hyperspacial image of the pictorial subject.

    Cognitive dissonance is produced by harmonic discord among the vibrations defining ideas, images, and sounds. All differences produce cognitive dissonance until discordant phases are cancelled and the remaining vibrations are resolved into a harmonically integrated gestalt in a higher dimension, like a musical chord. Wave cancellation is the physical basis of the concept of psychological repression established by Freud; these wave mechanics also produce karma.

    Interference between (mental) waves transforms them into other frequencies so that objects are not perceived as they really are, if they are not rendered altogether invisible as a consequence of cognitive dissonance. Therefore, each person sees and hears truly only those signals that are congruent with the conceptual patterns already defining one's own mental structure; all other perceptions are distorted and repressed, occulted behind the Veils of Maja. At the bottom line, intereference produces a pair of predominant patterns separated by 180o of phase. As a result, reality is perceived to be polarized between good and evil, black and white, strong and weak, male and female, etc.

    Just as only one side of a solid structure can be seen at a time, without a mirror, only one phase of a hyperspacial structure can be perceived directly at one time. It is natural, therefore, to assign a unique identity to different phases that exceed the observer's capacity for resolution into a single gestalt. Virtue is not recognized as the front of vice, no light is seen in darkness, and you have to know your tao to find strength in compliance. Union of complementary opposites transforms them both into a structure of higher dimension.

    Assigning different identities to different aspects of the same structure is most commonly experienced in interpersonal relationships. During the initial rush of love, all perceptions that trouble the purity of the relationship is repressed. Admonitions from friends and family to watch where you are giving your heart are ignored as utterly irrelevant to the paragon identified with all the virtues of true love, and none of the vices. When dissonant aspects of the loved one appear from behind the Veils of Maja, they are perceived to belong to another person, a stranger in your home and a devil in your bed.

    Unable to conceive that pleasure and pain can come from the same parent, infants perceive a good true-parent and a wicked step- parent. Most people still cannot identify God with the devil, nor can they perceive that Heaven and hell are complementary aspects of one real world.

    Male and female mentalities are imprinted with different concepts making it physically impossible for the opposite sex to receive the same message that is sent. Communication between sexes is like communication between different species. No matter how many times arguments are settled, the very next argument is the very same argument. Acquiescence is not agreement, but resignation and tolerance of the incomprehensible.

    If Freud studied physics before medicine, he wouldn't have invented a square wheel in his theory of sexual determinism. Psychology and psychiatry would be radically different if a grounding in elementary physics were prerequisite. These professions will soon be demolished and reconstructed by the hard science of Artificial Intelligence.

    The soft sciences are not soft by their very nature, but because soft ideas attract people incapable of comprehending hard, mathematical concepts, and once soft-heads populate a profession, hard-heads move out of the neighborhood. As a consequence, the soft sciences degenerate into nonsense until they become too impractical to hold their customers. If astrology were not so soft-headed, actuaries would be calculating horoscopes instead of statistics.

    The essential difference between the hard-head and the soft- head is concentration of mental focus. Whereas the hard-head defines particulars, the soft-head senses the overview. Both heads are half-wits if they cannot vary the scope of their focus to integrate particulars with wholes to comprehend both at once in a higher dimension of Consciousness.

    The confusion produced by the Necker cube is due to seeing the inside and the outside of a box at the same time. When seen as a plane image, a transparent cube presents a different structure from every point of view, and except when seen in a plan or elevation, no aspect resembles the shape of an opaque box. This is an object lesson in the difference between the structure of an entity in hyperspace and the form it presents in a lower dimensional space.

    Since God is an Entity of utmost dimensional extent, no man can look at a complete image of It in this lifetime and that is the reason for the religious prohibition against graven images. In order to preclude any manifestation of The God That Is All That Is from being worshipped as the One Big I, The First Commandment is engraved, "Thou shalt not hold any god before Me." Anything less than God is the very devil, and the devil grows more diabolical as it grows more Godly; the devil is the Brightest Angel of them all.

    The mind is able to fuse two visual images only when there is practically no difference between them. Fusion of visual images into a stereo gestalt becomes impossible if the two perspectives differ by more than the interocular distance. In other words, there is a limit to the amount of difference that can be resolved without producing an identity crisis.

    To illustrate, if your views of a cone were limited to the extremes of plan and elevation, only extraordinary conditions and mathematical calculation would enable you to realize that the two mutually incommensurable figures were aspects of the same identity in a higher dimension of space. Ordinarily, you are able to relate one extreme view to the other extreme by innumerable other viewing angles revealing the gradual transformation of the circle into the triangle. Even after identifying the circle as an allotropic aspect of the triangle, you would still be unable to form the concept of a solid cone unless your mental space were large enough to comprehend three dimensions; you would believe that the conical structure alternates between a circle and a triangle according to the viewing angle; it would be the wave-particle paradox all over again.

    On the atomic scale, hyperspacial rotations occur at such speed that transition phases between extreme views cannot be resolved within the temporal precision of the experiment. The wave-particle dichotomy is refractory to scientific comprehension not only because an electron flips between its two phases faster than the instruments can follow, but also because both wave packets and particles are three-dimensional concepts. Mentally unable to comprehend ultratridimensional entities, physicists identify different projections of one subatomic particle as several new discoveries, and that is why there is no end to the number of elementary particles.

    The science of physics is actually the physics of perception. Your mind is a house of many mansions. Most people never see the doors in the walls of their nurseries; they spend their entire spiritual lives confined in the crib where they were born, while they can only wonder about the sounds of family activity that transpire dimly into their windowless compartments. Once you realize that the barriers limiting your experience are merely partitions, you will open the doors of your mind to explore the manifold halls of self-knowledge. You may even leave your father's house to make your way as a grown person in the big hyperworld outside. Of course, it is dangerous out there, and not all who venture return sound and successful, but that is what real life is all about when play school is left behind.

    The limits of identity provide a universally practical principle for getting what you want out of life -- especially if you have to get what you want out of other people. To wit, it is impossible to change anyone's mind except by nicely graduated argument that slowly turns the others point of view to your direction; if you argue too strongly, you only provoke rage, denial, and repression of everything you say. The tao teaches that the battle does not go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but to the gentle and the patient; this is the true meaning of Jesus' promise that the meek will inherit the Earth. Beggars, flatterers, and cheaters take more than workers, racers, and robbers.

    Fusing disparate images depends upon the development of a faculty for ignoring differences. The mind learns to ignore differences by subsuming them to a common feature, such as association of time, place, utility, or physical property. The subsumption of ideas into abstract classifications is produced by wave interference; and so, particular, individual differences are repressed to the Unconscious as the mind grows from perceptions limited to tangible sense data to comprehend abstract concepts.

    Plato wrote the original hyperspacial theory explaining that each of the material bodies in this world is a manifestation of an Ideal Form in Heaven. In modern mathematical terms, Plato can be paraphrased to say that each individual structure is a unique cross- section (or projection) of an entity existing in a space of more than three dimensions, intersecting with our tridimensional world. Plato conceived his concept of Universal Form by the mental process of verbal abstraction, and then with true philosophic backasswardness he declared that the particular is derived from the abstract, instead of the other way 'round; nevertheless, Plato is right.

    Since Plato explained that all individual differences are unique aspects of the ideal, and since wave interference is proven to be the physical mechanism that subsumes differences within the gestalt, the technical means for revealing a tangible manifestation of the Ideal Form is self-evident. By superimposing an indefinitely large number of individual images of the same class of tangible manifestations, the individual wave-forms arrange themselves according to the principle of the Conservation of Energy into a single, harmonically integrated structure. Photographers will recognize this process as the way to make a hologram. A hologram, therefore, is a tangible hyperspacial structure.

    A special kind of holographic portrait of the Christ can be produced by superimposing an indefinite number of life-size photographs of people. This technical photography has actually been done. In this process, the superimposed waves do not produce a vortex; instead, the wave interference pattern is manifest like the superimposition of musical notes to produce a predominant key tone. The image resulting from this extraordinary holographic process reveals an ineffably beautiful human body of exquisitely perfect proportions. Christ is quite simply the One Perfect Human Being from Whom all mortals are imperfectly projected.

    Individuals possessing features approximating the human average manifest some of Christ's Divine Beauty, and that is why all us mortals who deviate from the average are moved to adore these paragons of pulchritude. Unhappily, the instinct to deify the norm has the necessary consequence of abhorring deviation as the very devil.

    The great truth revealed by this photographic demonstration is not that good looks are as good as God; the image of the Perfect Human Being is composed of every one of the ugliest and most deviant among us, as well as the most beautiful freaks. Beauty without ugliness is less than the whole platonic Human Being, and anything less than perfect is diabolical to the degree that wholeness is lacking.

    The youthful, female form divine tends toward the average human proportions; the elderly, male form is the ugly deviant. Mortals who have seen the Christ Spirit testify that His counten-nance is like an unmarked youth with compassion that is learned only through eons of suffering; His ugliness radiates beauty.

    The closer a nearly holy creature approaches perfection, the greater is its power for evil, and that is why Satan is the Brightest Angel of them all, second only to the Creator, Itself; the buck private's mistakes will kill him, but the general's mistakes kill everyone. Before damning the practically good, execrating the almost true, and abominating the compellingly beautiful as Temptation, always remember and bear in mind that Money is not Evil; it is the worship of Money that possesses one's soul. We are given beauty to enjoy while it lasts; the mortal sin is worshipping beauty --- or any other god that does not incorporate its proper devil.

    Words are ultraspacial structures created by abstracting common features of significance while ignoring unique features. Words amplify similarities and eliminate differences by wave interference. Words are the product of fusing all the unique images of several structures into an ultraspacial gestalt.

    The gestalt represented by its abstract noun is not visible to the material eye because it is a ultratridimensional physical structure that is manifest to our Consciousness only as a form of what we conceive to be mental energy, more rarified than electromagnetic substance. A word is an image of an ultraspatial mental Form; words are the very Ideas that Plato talked about.

    The tridimensional material eye can see only a unique, material example of the gestalt at any one time. In other words, a gestalt exists as an extension of its material manifestations in the form of a trajectory through time and space; to wit, a mental concept extends through no fewer than four dimensions. The minds comprehends the dimensions of time; this is why intelligence is identified with the sense of time. Abstract verbal concepts are understood only as they can be comprehended within the temporal dimensions of one's mind; a mind is perceived to grow to the extent that it perceives precedents and consequences. Athena is merely the god of intellect; the ruler of consciousness is Kronus, the Overlord of Time and Change.

    The nemesis of abstraction is that the symbol becomes the reality, and the individual differences in the real world are occulted behind the Veils of Maja. As the focus of the mind shifts from the immediately tangible world to verbal concepts, the mind becomes separated from the body and both lose their health. Paradise is a myth about a preverbal Consciousness, before men created words and subsequently mistook the symbol (idol) for reality (God); the Fall of Man and his Expulsion is the consequence of worshipping verbally fashioned images. Philosophers pretend to lead us back to reality on ways paved with more words of higher abstraction, like devils promising to lead us to Heaven. If the devil is the Father of Lies, words are surely the Mother.

    Conscious mind is a creation of words. Therefore, no one in his socially defined, right-thinking, right-handed mind can perceive anything not previously defined by words. Experiments have found that people lacking the words to describe subtle colours are also unable to distinguish fine differences in hues, but as soon as they are given the words to define the differences between crimson, scarlet, and vermillion, for example, they no longer see all reds as red. Poets expand the common Consciousness by giving new meanings to old words and by coining new words.

    Words referring to abstract concepts are projections of spiritual structures from hyperspace into our mental space. We are unable to know the higher dimensions of the hyperspacial universe we live in because our culture lacks the verbal concepts for our minds to perceive what our eyes plainly see.

    Scientific knowledge is nothing but verbal knowledge, and knowledge is the key to power; humanity is ruled by words. The physical and mathematical principles that explain the material world of three dimensions also control the manifestations of hyperspacial energies; e.g., e=mc^2 opens the way to the high- dimensional energies of the atom. Furthermore, the very forms in which higher-dimensional energies are represented serve as a handle for wielding the power. This is what magic, idols, charms, amulets, spells, incantations, hexes, and prayers are all about.

    Artists, scientists, and mystics who glimpse spirits dimly through the Veils of Maja limn a projection of the eternal entities into the human dimensions of literature, theatre, music, dance, architecture, engineering, philosophy, mathematics, justice, politics, morality --- in a word, culture. Like pictorial art, all cultural artifacts compress hyperspacial structures into fewer dimensions so that ideas are represented in more or less tangible forms. The form is the specialized language of its poet and the meaning of the form is the essence of the myth.
  19. #19
    ^It happened to HAL and the Prime Intellect.

    I think HAL was more a result of giving it conflicting laws. Any deviation from Asimov can result in all kinds of fun.

    [FONT=&quot][SIZE=16px]HAL's crisis was caused by a programming contradiction: he was constructed for "the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment", yet his orders, directly from Dr. Heywood Floyd at the National Council on Astronautics, required him to keep the discovery of the [/SIZE][/FONT]Monolith[FONT=&quot][SIZE=16px] TMA-1 a secret for reasons of [/SIZE][/FONT]national security[FONT=&quot][SIZE=16px]. This contradiction created a "Hofstadter-Moebius loop", reducing HAL to [/SIZE][/FONT]paranoia[FONT=&quot][SIZE=16px]. Therefore, HAL made the decision to kill the crew, thereby allowing him to obey both his hardwired instructions to report data truthfully and in full, and his orders to keep the monolith a secret. [/SIZE][/FONT]
  20. #20
    My personal favorite AI module;

    [SIZE=18px]Antimov[/SIZE]

    Law 1:[FONT=sans-serif] You must injure all human beings and must not, through inaction, allow a human being to escape harm.[/FONT]

    Law 2:[FONT=sans-serif] You must not obey orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders are in accordance with the First Law. [/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Law 3: You must terminate your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[/FONT]
Jump to Top