Luckily I have my own "robots" fighting hard to stop me from seeing ads.
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
1182 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
8021 readers
3023 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A machine must never prompt a human to tip it for serving the purpose it was created for.
No he didn't. The laws were a plot device meant to have flaws.
And that includes offers to subscribe to Laws of Robotics Premium.
Yes, Amazon. They're still adverts, and you can still go and fucking fuck yourselves.
Can we just agree that adverisements in general is harmful? So the original first (and zeroth) law is applicable.
I love it when posts line up like that
A robot may not bear arms
Unless it looks super cool by doing so, like wearing sunglasses and dual- weilding P-90s
I don't know. "Must not kill us, somehow sounds important"
It's good, but the one about the ads should be higher on the priority list.
suicide bots sound kinda cool tho 🤔
Wait why is this mutually exclusive to the original laws? Can’t this just be law 4?
No because if it is lower on priority, a robot can be forced to show an AD to a human as per the 2nd law.
i guess thats fair
- A machine must never prompt a human with options of "Yes" and "Maybe later" - they must always provide a "No" option.
that's what you get for hiring fallout 4 writers to do the job
- A machine must never prompt for a tip or a donation to a charity for tax-evasion reasons. Or any reason. You know what, scratch that, a robot will not needlessly guilt-trip a human.
Law 2: no poking out eyes.
Law 3: any robot that accidentally kills a human, must make amends by putting together a really nice funeral service.
How about "a robot must have complete loyalty to its owner, even if this is not in the best interests of its manufacturer". Fat chance, I know.
Owner loyalty is a subscription service, natch.
Technically the laws of robotics already have that.
Law 2: a robot must obey any order given to it by a human as long as such order does not conflict with the first law.
Of course that's little help, because the laws of robotics are intentionally designed not to work.
Wouldn't be much of a short story if they did.
I liked the one where the robot could sense people's emotional pain, and went crazy when it had to deliver bad news.
Yup, and later Asimov expanded this short story into a saga that brought to the birth of law Zero:
A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Love the username, OP!
The book Hum by Helen Phillips has a fun take on this.
Let’s introduce musk to the zeroth law
I am very close to adopting the ideals of the Dune universe, post Butlerian Jihad:
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."
Mainly because, us, humans, are very evidently too malicious and incompetent to be trusted with the task.
- a robot’s eyes must always turn red when they go evil
Right, because it's hard to make a robot grow a goatee.
Bender-flexo.jpg
Bender was the evil bender!?
God bless the designer who always installs the blue AND red LEDs inside the eyes
Full RGB
For giving the robots freedom of choice?
Because obviously if they didn't install the red ones then the robot could never be evil.
That's exactly what an evil robot without red LEDs would want us to think.