I recently read an article here: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5741334.ece that talks about possible future robotic warriors, and how to keep them from "turning on us." As usual in such articles, it eventually gets to Asimov's laws of robotics. This article, like most, seems to find no problem with these laws. I do find problems; very serious problems. For those who may be unfamiliar with them, here they are:

Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics

1 A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm

2 A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law

3 A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

     Do you see some problems here? Let me point out the ones that I see. I must add that if I see so many serious problems when I have only casual acquaintance with these laws, what further problems might someone better educated and more familiar with the laws find?

     Let's work backwards, since the most serious problems are actually with the first, but it seems wrong to list the important problems first, then less serious issues, because, after all, who would stick around to read about the less serious issues?

Rule 3.
     The problem here is sort of a philosophical question. What does protecting one's own existence entail? There is an inherent risk in everything. There is nothing in this world without some risk. So what is acceptable risk? Should I get out of bed in the morning? I might slip and fall. Should I eat a new type of food? I might be allergic and die from it. Should I interact with others? They might carry infections that might be fatal to me. If one's primary focus was simply to protect one's own existence, one would become extremely averse to risk, and confined to living in a bomb shelter while eating a stockpile of monotonous, pre-tested foods, breathing filtered air, drinking filtered water, etc.
     If I am a robot following rule three, I would choose to flee from humans at all costs, because they will undoubtedly ask me to do something which has greater risk than doing nothing. So robots that follow rule three will run and hide from humans so they don't have to do anything risky. They will remain as still as possible to avoid any movement which might lead to injury. They will find the safest, most remote places possible and hide there. They will obey people only as a last resort, since doing work for humans is surely risky. Sadly, I've only scratched the surface of rule three.
     So now I'm a robot that was found hiding and forced to come out and obey by a human. I am sent on a dangerous mission to bring some bread and milk to the house. Let's see, what is, following rule three, the safest way for me to accomplish this mission? I, being a smart robot, will find a way to reprogram another robot to do the job for me! It doesn't really matter if the other robot isn't keen on this idea, none of the rules say i can't harm other robots! So big, tough robots, may find it easier to ambush and reprogram other robots to do their bidding. I know it sounds far-fetched, but we have to remember that robots are not human, and are not constrained by human thought patterns. Nothing seems "strange" or even "immoral" to a robot, with the exception of the 3 laws, so such a course of action may seem perfectly practical to a robot.
     The real danger of rule three may lie in the very ambiguous nature of human language, and the concrete logic of computers and robots. If I order a robot to "feed the cat," the robot may search its database, find that cats eat rodents, and feed the pet hamster to the cat. After all, no human has been harmed, and the order from the human was obeyed. (see rule two) Without to much effort or imagination, the reader can undoubtedly think of many more examples with far worse consequences.
     It comes down to the fact that rule 3 is probably not only unrealistic and unworkable, but could lead to some serious unforeseen consequences.

Rule 2. I can't think of any issues I have with rule two itself, except as it relates to rules one and three. (see above and below)

Rule 1.
So now we reach rule one. This rule is a doozy. It seems fine on the surface, but dangers lie lurking. The rule has two parts. The first part, "a robot may not injure a human being," isn't too bad, but may lead to some restrictions on what a robot can and cannot do. One of the flaws of rule three is haunting us again here. Human language is ambiguous. What does "injure" mean? Can a robot give a flu injection? Clearly, the needle puncture is a tangible, if slight, injury to a human being. A robot following rule one cannot give the shot, regardless of the benefit it may have to the human. We can carry this further of course. Some would say that emotional harm is an injury. What if a robot hurts someone's feelings? Is that an injury? The obvious answer here is that what an injury is depends on who you ask, and we can't ask a robot. A robot cannot be allowed to determine this itself! A robot must never be allowed to cross that line and be able to determine what "level" of injury is acceptable. If so allowed, it may decide that any non-fatal injury is acceptable and act accordingly, with disastrous results.
     We also have to concern ourselves with acceptable risk. Just as everything a robot might do has a chance of harming itself, everything a robot might do has some risk of harming a human as well. But how much risk is acceptable? Is a robot capable of figuring this out? Should it be allowed to? Should it take a human's word for it? What if the risks predicated by the human are not realistic according to the robot's own assessment? Let's look at some examples. What about bumping into someone on a crowded sidewalk? Could that lead to injury? Certainly it could. What is the likelihood of bumping someone, and if bumped, what is the risk of the human being injured to some extent? So could a robot function in a downtown area of a major city? I cannot imagine a robot able to traverse a New York City sidewalk without running a sizable risk of (slightly) injuring someone by bumping with them. Is the risk acceptable? A robot cannot be allowed to determine this itself! A robot must never be allowed to cross that line and be able to determine what "level" of risk is acceptable. Let's look at the example below for proof of that.
     Ok, so you may say that robots will only work in uncrowded areas. But even here there is danger of injuring a human. A robot could never operate a vehicle on a normal roadway, because there is always some risk, however slight, of a mechanical problem in the robot's vehicle causing it to collide with and injure a human. A robot would have to decline. A robot may also never be allowed to take risk calculation into account. If so allowed, the robot driver in this case may decide that driving two-hundred miles per hour in freeway traffic is allowable risk because his owner wanted that big-Mac brought back "as soon as possible" from the robot's errand to McDonald's.
     The issues of the ambiguity of the word "injure" and the fundamentally unpredictable nature of risk would allow robots to take virtually no action at all, due to the potential risk of injuring a human.
     The real risk of rule one comes from the second part. A robot may not ,through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. All I can say is "Oh My God!" The perils of this part of law one are enormous. As I have mentioned above several times, any action has some risk of injury. Let's face it, humans not only do many things which have a risk of injury, but we do things that are designed to cause injury to humans. Let's look at each of these situations, starting with the latter.
     As humans, we do many things which are designed to intentionally harm other humans. We build weapons and use them against other humans. Robots not only can't take part in any of these activities, due to the first part of rule one, as I discussed above, but due to the second part of rule one, must take action to stop these activities. This second part of rule one would mandate that robots do all that is in their power to stop these activities. Remember, robots are capable of communicating and, presumably, of collaborating, since this is the most effective way to achieve many orders given by humans, as covered by rule two. Picture this scenario: robots learn of a munitions plant because a robot is asked to work there and has to refuse, in order to comply with the first part of rule one. But now the robot is aware of the munitions factory and its purpose to cause injury to humans. The robot is now obligated to remove the cause of injuries to humans. The robot summons many other robots to the site. The robots wait until the factory is closed and empty of humans at night, and form a wall around it to exclude humans from the scene in order to prevent potential injury. The remaining robots then systematically destroy the factory and all the munitions and munition components. The robots not only will not obey any human instructions to stop destroying the factory, they are forbidden to do so by rule one and two. Remember, rule two forbids a robot from following any human order that violates rule one, which states that robots may not injure, or through inaction, allow humans to be injured. Robots would be forced to destroy any device that is designed to injure humans, and also destroy anything which manufactures devices designed to injure humans. But wait, that's just the tip of the iceberg, things get a whole lot worse real soon.
     As I have now stated many times, any action runs some risk of injury. Let's face it, almost anything we do has the potential to injure or kill us. Robots will quickly become aware of this, and due to rule one, be forced to take action to prevent us from being injured. Has the light come on now? Do you see it? Here is the major problem, the big kahuna of problems with the three laws of robotics.

Every action humans take has the potential to cause injury to one or more humans AND robots are obligated to take actions to keep humans from being injured.

Therefore: robots are obligated to prevent all human action.

The statements above look like computer programming code, don't they? That is exactly the way robots understand things. Remember, robots do not understand that an idea may be seem silly or undesirable to us. Remember the example above of feeding the hamster to the cat? Now put humans into the equation. It's scary.

OMG WTF! According to robotic law numero uno, robots would be forced to sedate all humans and keep them immobile in beds, fed through tubes and protected from all chance of injury. I don't think this is the outcome most people want from robots, but the laws would leave no other outcome possible.

Needless to say, the three laws, while a good starting point for discussion, are terribly and hopelessly flawed.
    

I keep hearing people talk about gay marriage, but I hear so few (actually none) touch on anything but the most simplistic and polarizing aspects of the debate.  Nobody is concerned with fairness until it's unfair against them. When things are unfair in their favor we don't hear a word about it. Well here's how I see the topic.

Gay people are upset, and I believe rightfully so, that they are being denied access to the special rights and privilege that married straight people enjoy. Gay people want to get married so they can get in on the act too. OK, fair enough, but what about single people of all sexual orientations? They are still excluded and unable to enjoy the preferential treatment that married people enjoy. If gay people are allowed to be legally married, the issue is far from over, some people are still being given preferential treatment that others are denied. So the implicit statement from the partnered gay community is "it's OK if some people are denied the privileges of marriage, as long as we're not the ones being denied." It's not about equal rights, it's about getting their piece of the pie. There is nothing wrong with wanting a piece of the pie, but let's give everyone a piece, not just the group(s) that you belong to or support.

If we are going to go to all the trouble of changing the constitution on this issue, shouldn't we give everyone equal rights? Shouldn't we have it written to state that the government will treat all people equally? It should be illegal to discriminate against people, or give preferential treatment to people, based on their marital status. Why should I, as a single person, enjoy fewer rights and privileges than my married counterpart?

To allow gays the right to marry, but still give married people preferential treatment is analogous to a civil rights activist saying "Now that black people have been given equal rights, we will ignore the fact that [insert other minority group of your choice here] are still being denied the rights which we now enjoy." Doesn't sound very fair, does it? So why is it OK to give married people of any sexual orientation special rights that are denied to others? It's not OK!

Are we all still brainwashed by the old stereotype that people must grow up, get married, settle down, and have kids, and that unmarried adults are irresponsible, and unworthy of full rights in society? Married people are given preferential treatment under the law to perpetuate this outdated, and anachronistic belief. If one believes that married people should have special treatment, one is tacitly agreeing with this idea. Personally, I am appalled that so many people still subscribe to and support this belief. By trying give married gay people the special rights of married straight people without giving the same rights to single people, the gay community is tacitly supporting this philosophy. That is the message they are sending, but I don't think that it is the message they want to send. I think the gay community wants and supports equal rights for everyone, including single people. If so, they need to change directions.

The main point I want to make here is this:

It is not acceptable to treat people differently based on their decision to marry or not. Every person should receive equal treatment under the law, regardless of their marital status. Please notice that I did not say every straight person, or every gay person, or every white person. I said every person should receive equal treatment under the law without regard to marital status.

I think this is a fairly simple and easily understood message, yet I have never heard a single person support this position. Everyone I have heard discuss the gay marriage issue is caught up in the most simplistic aspects.

So if you, the reader, agree that all people should be treated equally without regard to marital status, please speak up and make your voices heard. Let people know that it is not OK to discriminate on any basis, be it religion, color, race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or marital status!

The more I think about the mind and the soul, the more unclear it all becomes. Are we just a "wetware" computer? Do we have a spirit that is greater than and/or different from our physical body and brain? Are we ruled by fate or free will? The more I think about these issues, the less clear they become. It seems like the conclusions I come to regarding these questions are sometimes contradictory too.

One confusing aspect is the "mechanism" of the thought process. According to biological theory, our thoughts and actions originate in the brain. The neurons of the brain allow and originate all thoughts, desires, actions etc. These cannot exist without the neurons. According to theory, the electrochemical processes of the neurons cause thoughts and feelings. Do you begin to see the problem here? If we have free will, I can cause myself to think and do anything, at whatever instant I choose. The actions of the neurons cause the thoughts and actions to come into existence at my will. But something must have occurred to cause the neurons to be in the state that determined what I wanted to do. It's a problem of causation. A certain set of conditions in the neurons of my brain must exist to generate a thought, but there must have been an agent that caused that state to exist, and that agent would have to be something that does not involve the physical processes of the brain. It seems to me that there are only two possible conclusions; we have a non-physical spirit (the soul), or there is no such thing as free will and we are guided purely by fate. Free will would thus only be an illusion generated by the neurons of our brain to help make sense of the world.

Am I making some error of reasoning here? If so, please point it out to me. If I am correct, then we must put our research into finding out the very nature of our most basic beliefs. Do we have a non-physical spirit and free will, or are we simply biological machines reacting without control to our environments?

I'm not the kind of person prone to effervescent happiness. I have my own level of happiness that I seem to center around, as most other people do. The last few days, I have been feeling unusually happy.

I call this state my, "lemonade and lawnmowers" state. I call it that because it reminds me of happy things from childhood, like lemonade, and the smell of fresh cut grass. I don't get in this state often. When I'm here it feels like I'm in a dream. The rest of my life is like I just awoke from the dream. After I awake from a dream, I can usually remember certain parts of the dream only, not the entire dream, and after a short time I forget even those details and I am left with only a vague sense of the dream. This lemonade and lawnmowers feeling is like that. When I'm feeling it, it's great, like a wonderful dream, but the rest of the time I can only vaguely recall the state. That's a sad place to be, to remember a wonderful feeling, but being unable to get there at the moment, and never being sure if it will ever recur.

When I'm in the state, things even look different. I can't tell you how, exactly, but it is different. Everything looks happy. Everything is infused with light and energy and spirit and life. I can remember seeing things this way a lot when I was young, but the ability to see things this way at will eludes me.

I wish i knew how to get back to this place when I leave, but it's akin to trying to pick up a good dream where I left off, I simply can never manage to do it. 

Does this all sound too strange? Does anyone else ever feel anything like this? Am I nuts?

I guess an introduction should have been my first entry, but I saw an issue that was  important to me and wrote about that first. So this can be my introductory entry.

I don't usually have much to say about things. I don't get excited about a lot of topics. I tend to be suspicious of people who get all excited about a lot of things. Many times, when I ask people about why they are excited about an issue, their answers show that they have a poor understanding of the issue. Sometimes people just want an excuse to get excited or upset. I'm not like that. There are only a few issues that I tend to focus on.

This is not a complete list of course, but some of the issues which I am concerned with and you will read about here in this blog are: social justice, hypocrisy, usage of technology, the direction of the U.S. and the world, etc.

What you will not see entries about are: sports, fashion, celebrities, or reality shows.

So check back in now and then to see what's brewing.

Today in the San Francisco Chronicle online (SFgate) there was an article stating that Obama will get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military, thereby allowing gays to serve without restriction in the military. Read the article here:www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

I am very much in favor of equal rights for everyone, but there is an important issue here which is being totally ignored. As an army veteran, I feel I have some insight into this issue, at least as far as army soldiers are concerned. What about the rights of straights in the military? Long gone are the days when army personnel lived in communal open bays. For the most part, army personnel live in dorm style living quarters with just two or at most a small handful of roommates. They also get some discretion in choosing roommates.Unmarried males and females are not allowed to live/sleep together.

If gays are allowed to serve without restriction, it can only be assumed that they would be treated as all other same-sex soldiers and be allowed to live together. After all, what would prevent it? So gays in the military would be able to live and sleep with the sexual partner of their choice, a right not allowed to straights. One inequality would be corrected only to create another.

If gays are allowed to serve freely in the military, then all military personnel should also be allowed to choose their roommates. This would have to be done at once, as non-openly gay soldiers already benefit from this inequality.

If we want equality, we can't simply give rights to one group at the expense of another, or take them from one group to give to another.