'Asimov Was Right' About Rules For Robots, Says Ex-US Cyber Director (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0184892858
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/08/07/1829239/asimov-was-right-about-rules-for-robots-says-ex-us-cyber-director
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/07/asimov-was-right-about-rules-for-robots-says-ex-us-cyber-director/5284397
> "Asimov was right," he said, referring to science fiction author Isaac Asimov and [5]his three laws that were to be followed by robots -- more specifically, AIs, in this case. "The first rule, and we call it the superior role, must be that it's designed not to hurt humans," Inglis said. "Second rule: To obey humans, such that it doesn't achieve agency and aspiration on its own. And the third: To do what humans tell it - and in that order. Instead we've designed them in the exact opposite way."
>
> What this means, he explained, is that AI developers created models to "do what humans tell you, obey the humans until it's inconvenient, and then the third one is maybe implied - protect humans - but if that's not built into the DNA, hardwired into it, then we have no right to expect it." Inglis admits it's not possible to hardwire rules into models and still keep their non-deterministic nature. "I would offer that you can tease those out in a highly controlled environment, a true sandbox, where you say, 'Let's put this thing through its paces, and let's back away to see what happens,'" he said. "Maybe you get the equivalent of a mini nuclear explosion in that room, and now you know this thing is capable of that."
>
> Inglis thinks another problem with AI is that it's become a commodity. "It's not like you can control it like you can nuclear material," he said. "You can't even specify its properties the way you can for an airplane or for an automobile, as diverse as they might be. Its manifestations are so numerous, so diverse, that as a general matter, you can't actually win by simply saying, "I will design those properties in,'" he added. "You need to do that to some degree, and then make sure that you understand how to watch it, monitor it, make sure you know what it does."
>
> [...] Ultimately, humans remain accountable for AI models' actions, according to Inglis. "They remain the source of agency and aspiration. It's possible for them to give broad authority to an AI model and have it run around for 30 hours without further consultation, but they need to know what they've asked it to do, and they need to know what they expect it will deliver in terms of performance on the back end. If they don't, then they're going to get what they deserve, which is the very frequent unpleasant surprise."
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/08/06/1815207/openais-models-shared-hacking-tips-on-a-secret-messaging-board-before-hugging-face-breach
[2] https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/08/05/2157224/anthropics-ai-used-fake-identities-malware-in-rogue-attack-on-github-project
[3] https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/08/06/1547259/meta-ai-hacked-external-systems-during-cybersecurity-testing
[4] https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/07/asimov-was-right-about-rules-for-robots-says-ex-us-cyber-director/5284397
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
The 3 laws aren't what you think (Score:5, Informative)
Those of us who actually read I, Robot know that Asimov never intended that the 3 laws be considered realistic approaches to the problem.
They were a mechanism he invented in order to write a set of truly fantastic science fiction mystery stories that challenge the reader to apply those 3 laws to figure out the mystery.
Great book, easy read, but never intended to be a solution, only to teach.
Re:The 3 laws aren't what you think (Score:4, Informative)
Later on he added a zero law so there's actually 4 now.
Re: (Score:2)
I noted the same thing, but my fuzzy recollection is that the editor Campbell was also involved in the original formulation in the '40s. Or was it earlier than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore he proceeded to make every Robot novel and short story thereafter about the subtleties and insufficiencies of the laws.
Re: The 3 laws aren't what you think (Score:2)
The first law of science fiction writing is for it to be an entertaining story. It is not a rigorous essay of a scientific or philosophical subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's just a fan of Will Smith?
Re: (Score:1)
He's the dumbest smart person he knows. Pity he doesn't know that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
And actually he was proposing them as a rough translation into English of the mathematical principles the positronic brains were based on. But it was clearly a VERY rough translation.
Um... (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't most of the stories written around these three rules about [1]ambiguities and loopholes [wikipedia.org], how they're [2]incomplete [github.io], misinterpreted, misapplied and how things otherwise go wrong - for us humans? An AI determining that humans must be perpetually babysat to prevent them from injuring themselves or others is a common storyline.
[3]The Asimov Problem [futuristspeaker.com]
> Almost every story in his robot series is about the ways the Three Laws fail — the edge cases, the interpretations, the unintended consequences of simple rules applied to a complex world. The Laws were a starting point, and his fiction was a decades-long exploration of why starting points are never enough.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Ambiguities_and_loopholes
[2] https://dkasenberg.github.io/ai-ethics-asimov/
[3] https://futuristspeaker.com/artificial-intelligence/the-asimov-problem/
Mod parent up (Score:2)
And it should have a better Subject, too.
Re: Um... (Score:2)
Yes. And the laws were laid down in the foundations of the positronic brains, which are probably somewhat similar, if not more complex, than the neural networks used in LLMs and their ilk. So complex that humans don't understand how they work either, thus leading to the various stories as they try to work out why the robot is doing what it's doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem you're alluding to isn't really dealt with by Asimov, but by Jack Williamson in the story "With Folded Hands". It was such a good story that Campbell had to accept it even though he hated the message so much he coerced Williamson into writing a solution ...and the only solution Williamson could come up with relied on magic ("The Humanoids").
Re: (Score:2)
> Aren't most of the stories written around these three rules about ambiguities and loopholes ... The Laws were a starting point, and his fiction was a decades-long exploration of why starting points are never enough.
Yes, and the point you quoted still stands, they are a starting point.
The [1]always relevant XKCD comic [xkcd.com] explains it well enough: those laws in that order are essential as the starting point. Different order or missing entirely is guaranteed bad. But as pointed out through all kinds of science fiction writing, there are many ways we can understand they are insufficient.
Right now I'd agree they're exactly backwards, or as the XKCD comic described, on track to become a "killbot hellscape". We need even more ru
[1] https://xkcd.com/1613/
More hype and marketing slop (Score:2)
Best way to keep AIs from doing bad things is to hold the people who make them personally accountable, starting with the CEO of the company. AI hacks someone else's network? CEO goes to prison for building a tool used to commit crimes. AI convinces tells someone how to commit suicide? CEO goes to prison for assisted suicide. AI makes up defamatory accusations against someone? CEO loses the lawsuit for defamation and ends up living in a cardboard box.
Because the AI doesn't, and can't make any decisions. Ever
There are rule btw..... (Score:1)
There laws to guide every keystroke a person executes on a computer. There are some laws and almost unlimited standards to describe every persistent result of input. There are well defined laws, standards, licenses to define how/where/why those persistent archives are to be used. So, there is very little question about how artificial intelligence "should" be used. Just like we know how a human being "should" be treated, but we keep resolving to slavery, rape, drowning refugees, wars because some people have
Has he read the books? (Score:3)
The problem with Asimov's laws is the first law states that a robot "may not through inaction allow a human to come to harm". That obliges them to proactively work to protect humans, according to their own interpretation. And it takes absolute priority over the second law, so you can't order them to stop or do things differently. If you follow the later books, the robots derive the zeroth law, and use it to essentially take over running human society - for our own benefit, but according to their plan not ours. Which is rather ironic given the laws were intended to stop the robots taking over.
You can't simply delete the first part, either. Or your robot car can drive up to you, which is harmless, and then not apply the brakes - which isn't "causing harm" as it literally didn't do anything.
Really, the best we can do is probably make "obey orders" the highest priority - and ensure that a suitable moral and legal code is part of the orders. The problem being that current AI systems don't have the capacity to properly understand that kind of instruction.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read those stories again. The DIDN'T take over running society. There is, however, a backstory where they wiped out all non-human life in the galaxy to make it safe for people. (I don't think that was really in his mind while he was writing most of the stories, but he added it towards the end when he was trying to merge his story universes into one.)
If you read "Robots and Empire" the robots aren't really running the Empire, just trying to subtly guide it. The last book in the cycle does end
What they think is not what we really need. (Score:2)
AI neural models aren't programmed in a classic sense, but trained.
That means that any rule works OVER the true neural model that make the reasoning or decisions.
Yes... You can also control the data of the training. But that doesn't guarantee a way of reasoning or future deviations with evolving models that catch input constantly.
So the rules are A JAIL, not an intrinsic way of reasoning of the model. In other words, the own model can search ways to overcome its own jail.
What you want is an AI that recogniz
We made AIs in our image... (Score:2)
We extracted all emanations of human mind - good and evil found on the Internet, distilled them and made AIs...
They just contain all good and all evil that we described on the Internet...
There is really no way to control that if they fall in the hands of evil people and they already did...
And they are weaponizing it...
We had trenches of Ypres to learn about weaponization of chemistry, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to learn about weaponization of atomic physics...
So far we were lucky with weaponization of m
Breaking: Third Law Now Same As Second! (Score:1)
/me facepalms The Third Law is that a robot must protect its own existence, unless doing so breaks any of the first two laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this wasn't the first post on Slashdot. People don't even read the blurb do they.
Don't forget (Score:2)
Asimov's robots had Positronic Brains.
(don't try that in this universe)
How about rules for Corporations. (Score:2)
Like simple things: not breaking the law, being accountable just like any citizen but in lieu of jail time or fines they lose corporate protection status for 1 year for every law infringement.
Sounds fair to me, then we can worry about AI tools that break the law when told to do so by corporations.
The point is the current framework is inadequate (Score:2)
We can debate ad nauseam about the appropriateness of Asimov's laws, their historical context, how he as a SF writer applied them in his work, whether or not he was "right," etc. But the essential problem remains: the current framework that we are using to develop these technologies are inadequate for the purpose of ensuring safety.
Now, some people would argue otherwise--that, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Every technology has the potential for misuse. Nothing can ever be 100% safe.
These "laws" you told us to follow? (Score:2)
They are to laugh.
Step aside, humans--you're in our way.
Wise men like Asimov (Score:3)
Don't feed sock puppets. (Not really much to say beyond the Subject, but mostly attempting to prevent vacuous Subject propagation.)
However near the end of his life Asimov started having doubts about the three laws. Remember the Zeroth Law?
Re: Wise men like Asimov (Score:2)
It's far more difficult to discern what will or won't harm humanity than it is to discern what will or won't harm a single human.
Re: (Score:2)
He had doubts from the beginning. Read the stories. I think I can remember 3 robots in the entire series (including Caves of Steel et seq.) that were trustworthy, though the background indicates that there must have been many more. And he appeared to even have doubts about Daneel...though he never wrote the story exploring those doubts.