Asimovian Robots: Cannot Kill Pacifism

[David Johnston2]

Under most circumstances it isn't a serious problem that a Silver to Bronze Age superhero has Cannot Kill Pacifism but no problem at all killing volitional robots and undead. There are so many more human or humanoid alien opponents than there are entities who don't trigger the restrictions, and it's almost impossible to kill them really dead anyway, even more than humans.

But take a situation where there are three worlds in a system. One is mostly inhabited by humans while the other two are inhabited by just as many volitional robots (because they have absolutely horrendous habitability ratings and high RVMs). The robots have hardwired restrictions against killing human beings. They have no such restriction when dealing with each other. There are actually more volitional robots than there are human beings if you add the two "colonies" together and the two colonies are increasingly unfond of each other.

My question is, how much of a limitation should I put on their Cannot Kill Pacifism?

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

My question is, how much of a limitation should I put on their Cannot Kill Pacifism?

How likely to be useful to them is the killing of humans? :)

[jacobmuller]

I've seen the 3 Laws listed as 2 Great Vows and a feature for [-30].
I feel Pacifism [-15] - Self-defense Only "You only fight to defend yourself or those in your care" is a better fit to the Laws than Cannot Kill.
The modifier you're looking for may be "Species Specific -80%". Can't remember where I saw it but it means the subject will happily kill anything/one except the specified species. In your case, and the 3 laws, Humans.

Three Laws of Robotics [-30/-42]
1. A robot will not cause nor by inaction allow harm to a human;
2. A robot will obey the orders of a human unless this would negate Law 1;
3. A robot will not cause nor by inaction allow damage to itself unless this would negate Law 1 or 2.

I changed this a little
1. An A.I. will not cause nor by inaction allow harm to specie;
2. An A.I. will obey the orders of overseer/s unless this would negate dictate 1;
3. An A.I. will not cause nor by inaction allow unauthorised access, damage or removal of the property of overseer/s unless this would negate dictate 1.

I think it was Robots 3e that rated the 3L as two vows and a feature [-30].
I like: Pacifism - Self-Defence Only (Species Specific -20%) [-12]; Duty: Always On (Involuntary) [-20]; Major Vow (allow no harm to owners’ property) [-10].

[dynaman]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

13. A robot will not cause nor by inaction allow damage to itself unless this would negate Law 1.

If I remember correctly, the exception in this case is for laws 1 and 2, not just law 1

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

How likely to be useful to them is the killing of humans? :)

Cannot kill humans takes points off of Social Stigma Valueable Property: they have just become more valueable property and find it easier to get humans as Allies and Patrons.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

1. An A.I. will not cause nor by inaction allow harm to specie;

They won't deface the coinage?

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

They won't deface the coinage?

Of course not -- it would be illogical.

Remember also -- "No Repo Man will ever harm a car he is repossessing, nor by inaction to allow harm to come to such a car." -- The Repo Man's Code, from "Repo Man," (1984)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

I've seen the 3 Laws listed as 2 Great Vows and a feature for [-30].
I feel Pacifism [-15] - Self-defense Only "You only fight to defend yourself or those in your care" is a better fit to the Laws than Cannot Kill.
The modifier you're looking for may be "Species Specific -80%". Can't remember where I saw it but it means the subject will happily kill anything/one except the specified species.
[ . . . ]

S222. 'Single Species, -20%'.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

They won't deface the coinage?

Obligatory query: Shouln't you add hidden smileys for that sort of statement?

[Anders]

He's probably genuinely confused. Give him a break - he's an economist.