Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 4136-4140 (Nov 18th-22nd, 2019)
Is it cold in here?:
Veronica's understanding of what is acceptable terminology may or may not line up with an individual's preference. The ultimate in courtesy here would be a matter-of-fact "What do you prefer?" addressed to the person whose opinion matters.
Tova:
I agree with IICIH?, naturally.
But I still don't understand why people are tying themselves into linguistic knots when the word "humanoid" already exists and means precisely what you are trying to express.
Example of AI usage of the term in-strip: https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4073
Edit: Humaniform would be fine as well, but I've never seen it used in the strip.
Mr_Rose:
I think humanoid would be too generic in this case since it typically applies to limb count, configuration, and proportion in most sci-fi that I can think of, rather than specifically detailed structure.
I like humaniform better since the source has it specifically referring to robots designed to mimic humans in every detail rather than being more like Punchbot but, yes, Jeph hasn’t included it in the lexicon yet.
Which now makes me really curious how QC’s actual AI robots feel about Asimov and/or his stories…
Thrudd:
--- Quote from: Mr_Rose on 24 Nov 2019, 03:42 ---Which now makes me really curious how QC’s actual AI robots feel about Asimov and/or his stories…
--- End quote ---
My guess is that it would be similar to us meat-space intelligentsia.
Most would not know what the BLEEP we are talking about without looking up the Wiki. :facepalm:
The rest would vary between early scifi nostalgia all the way to in depth psychological analysis of those laws. O0
They are a plot device that Asimov made up to help drive his stories. Even more, his tales almost always revolved around how robots might follow these great sounding, logical ethical codes, but still go astray and the unintended consequences that result. Most of this is due to humans circumventing these rules in one way or another.
Just please ignore the train-wreck that was the 2004 Hollywood "adaptation" when discussing the subject.
People ask about whether any simple modern day robots are able to follow Asimov’s laws.
There is a simple reason they don’t: We can’t build Asimov’s laws into them.
This is because the concepts that the laws are based on can't be reduced down to algorithms.
We can't even agree on what those base concepts are in the first place,
We can't even get people to follow the first law and people are supposed to be the best things we have to work with as a model.
:psyduck:
Mr_Rose:
What was wrong with I, Robot?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version