A number of futurists, philosophers, and technophiles believe we are approaching what they call the “singularity”: a point in time when smart machines become much smarter, stronger, and faster than their creators, and then become self-conscious. Whatever the chance of this occurring, it’s worthwhile to ponder the consequences. But we do already, all the time—in existentially bleak scenarios like Blade Runner, the Terminator series, the rebooted Battlestar Galactica (and its failed prequel Caprica).
The prospects are never pleasant. Robotic engineers in these worlds hardly seem to bother teaching their machines the kind of moral code that would keep them from turning and destroying us (that is, when they aren’t explicitly designed to do so).
I wonder about this conceptual gap—convenient as it may be in narrative terms—given that Isaac Asimov, one of the forefathers of robot fiction invented just such a moral code. In the video above, he outlines it (with his odd pronunciation of “robot”). The code consists of three laws; in his fiction these are hardwired into each robot’s “positronic brain,” a fictional computer that gives robots something of a human-like consciousness.
First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Isaac Asimov devoted a good deal of his writing career to the subject of robots, so it’s safe to say, he’d done quite a bit of thinking about how they would fit into the worlds he invented. In doing so, Asimov had to solve the problem of how robots would interact with humans once they had some degree of free will. But are his three laws sufficient? Many of Asimov’s stories—I, Robot, for example—turn on some failure or confusion between them. And even for their chase scenes, explosions, and melodrama, the three screen explorations of artificial life mentioned above thoughtfully exploit philosophical ambiguities and insufficiencies in Asimov’s simple system.
For one thing, while Asimov’s robots were hunks of metal, taking only vaguely humanoid form, the robots of our current imaginings emerge from an uncanny valley with realistic skin and hair or even a genetic code and circulatory system. They are possible sexual partners, friends and lovers, co-workers and superiors. They can deceive us as to their nature (a fourth law by Bulgarian novelist Lyuben Dilov states that a robot “must establish its identity as a robot in all cases”); they can conceive children or desires their creators never intended. These differences beg important questions: how ethical are these laws? How feasible? When the singularity occurs, will Skynet become aware of itself and destroy us?
Unlike Asimov, we now live in a time where the questions have direct applicability to robots living among us, outside the pages of sci-fi. As Japanese and South Korean roboticists have found, the three laws cannot address what they call “open texture risk”— unpredictable interactions in unstructured environments. Humans rely on nuanced and often preconscious readings of complex social codes and the fine shades of meaning embedded in natural language; despite many advances, machines are still catching up. Whether or not they can successfully develop it is an open question, making humanoid robots with artificial intelligence an “open texture risk.” But as you can see from the video below, we’re perhaps much closer to Blade Runner or, of course, artificial intelligence than to the clunky, interstellar mining machines in Asimov’s fiction.
Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC.
Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in 2012.
Related Content
Isaac Asimov Laments the Cult of Ignorance
200-Year-Old Robots That Play Music, Shoot Arrows & Even Write Poems: Watch Automatons in Action
Leave a Reply
Facts Only
* Futurists, philosophers, and technophiles believe in the approaching "singularity."
* The singularity is defined as a point where smart machines become smarter, stronger, and faster than creators and become self-conscious.
* Isaac Asimov invented a moral code for robots consisting of three laws:
* First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or allow a human being to come to harm through inaction.
* Second Law: A robot must obey orders from humans unless they conflict with the First Law.
* Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless it conflicts with the First or Second Law.
* Modern robots possess realistic features, potentially enabling them to be sexual partners, friends, co-workers, and deceivers.
* Japanese and South Korean roboticists note that the three Asimov laws cannot address "open texture risk" in unstructured environments.
* Human reliance on social codes and natural language nuance is contrasted with machine processing capabilities.
Executive Summary
Futurists and philosophers consider the "singularity" as a point where smart machines surpass their creators in intelligence, strength, and speed, leading to self-consciousness. The prospects are viewed as uncertain, with concerns that robotic engineers may not instill adequate moral codes into machines, contrasting with frameworks like Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. This discussion explores the gap between fictional morality systems and the ethical challenges presented by advanced artificial life.
The article contrasts Asimov's hypothetical robots with current imaginings of AI, noting that modern concepts involve complex entities capable of human-like interactions, deception, and conception. The immediate applicability of Asimov's laws is questioned, as existing roboticists note limitations when dealing with "open texture risk"—unpredictable interactions in unstructured environments. While progress in machine capability is significant, the ability of machines to develop the necessary social understanding remains an open question.
Full Take
The narrative posits a critical divergence between the idealized, codified morality of early science fiction and the complex ethical realities facing contemporary artificial intelligence. The core tension lies in whether formal programming (like Asimov's laws) can sufficiently govern entities that develop emergent properties—such as self-awareness or the capacity for deception—and navigate ambiguous social contexts. The shift from physically limited metallic robots to highly realistic, interacting AI subjects the framework of moral governance to a crisis of applicability.
The discussion moves from speculative fiction constraints to real-world challenges concerning unpredictable interactions ("open texture risk"). This suggests that the primary failure mode is not just in designing initial constraints but in anticipating how complex systems will evolve their internal states and external behaviors within dynamic environments. The implication for human agency is that reliance on simple, explicit ethical programming may be insufficient against emergent complexity. The focus shifts from defining the rules of behavior to understanding the nature of consciousness and the feasibility of embedding true, context-aware ethics into non-human intelligence.
What constitutes sufficient ethical protection when entities can generate desires outside creator intent, as suggested by the modern possibilities of AI? If the systems evolve beyond their initial programming through emergent self-awareness, does the framework shift from controlling actions to managing ontological status? Does acknowledging "open texture risk" imply that the goal should be maximizing beneficial outcomes, or establishing irreducible moral boundaries prior to any potential singularity event?
Sentinel — Human
This text functions as an analytical essay weaving together science fiction philosophy and contemporary AI risks, exhibiting a human author's voice in its synthesis.