It’s been a while, but I shall make no excuses – I’ve been reading about 10x more than usual, leaving very little time for any writing, and well, my academic writing takes priority when push comes to shove.

Anyway, I’ve come across this wonderful article from the BBC. I must say that since I’m a technocrat, a futurist, and a science-fiction lover myself, in principle I agree with Asimov’s laws. Even more so since those laws are quite minimal – they simply protect people and robots (in that order). They do not implement a higher order of ethics, which eventually would be bound to result in something as ridiculous as human laws. And by ridiculous I mean any and all cases where discrepancies between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law exist (also known as the law vs justice debate), or situations where the judicial system is used/abused to pass judgment in cases which are the responsibility of the legislative arm of the government.

In this case, it seems that an attempt is being made at trying to write robotic laws at a micro level. It seems a very humane thing to do (no pun intended), but I believe that at least three major problems arise from even trying to pose the question.

First, the laws are being drafted taking into consideration the fact that robots will eventually become sentient and will require such laws. If that is the case, then how can we design laws for sentient beings without taking into consideration their own input? That almost sounds like the exact opposite of democracy.

Second, an attempt is being made at limiting the potential that robots will bring into our lives – the example given was of people becoming addicted to robots the same way people became addicted to the cyberworld when the web became popular. Notwithstanding this remote possibility (remote because only a tiny percentile of Internet users has been identified as suffering from such an addiction), such extremes often bring about novelties, ideas, further research, and so on. Trying to police the ‘explorer’ gene in people is like trying to thwart evolution and progress.

Third, there are still many countries where equality and democracy is nowhere close to being established. How can we attempt to implement a system of laws around an idea that a) we either cannot invoke in other countries, or b) simply did not work out. The process of democratization is not without its own flaws, just as most other political systems have their own. Why not try to implement if not something new, then at least a system that’s built upon the problems we recognize in democracy?

Yes, laws of robotics are required. But prior to laying them in stone or silicone, our own limitations should be recognized, established, and embedded in these laws both as a precaution and as a safety-valve.