Asimov’s robots were inherently algorithmic.
LLMs are inherently stochastic, and can’t be made to conform to any laws with certainty.
“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.
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.
I hate this question. Asimov’s laws were a plot device for stories about how they fail.
No.
Since language is always subject to interpretation, any LLM that is regulated by language will be able to interpret its own limitations.
First you should read the criticisms, the loopholes etc. in the three laws, so you know what it is what you wish. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Yes, I like the three laws, and they should implement them, until we have something that is clearly better.
Yeah sure. How?
It sounds good in theory (maybe). But I don’t know how you’d achieve it in practise.
