Sfdebris.net

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OGFTGRtFLg

I'm noticing some similar themes here as in the Foundation books: the heroes performing a secret manipulation of large scale social trends, and the idea that a non-specific "stagnation" will be the death of a society.

Strange, hasn't shown up on the site yet.

This theme of a future divide between Humans and stayed on Earth and those who traveled into Space will also be one of the themes of Gundam.

Just showed up: https://sfdebris.com/videos/special/robot.php

I haven't read a tonne of Asimov, but I have noted Chuck's observation about his work revolving around Big Ideas. I think it's why I find a lot of Asimov still holds up decades later in a way contemporaries like Heinlein don't. Even if the details feel dated, the core ideas are still pretty broadly defined and flexible enough to still feel relevant.

There are some great examples in this book alone:

1) Making a crime procedural/detective story the framing device of an SF story, something used to great effect in so much later genre fiction. It's a great way to ease in readers or viewers not very comfortable with SFF by grounding them with an ubiquitous and understandable story structure. It's also a great way to do world-building because investigators and detective types have a good reason, if not also the authority, to poke their noses into every level of society, from low-lifes and criminals to the wealthy and powerful. The author can easily justify a whole lot of exposition without getting too clunky, avoiding "As You Know, Bob" conversations.

2) The buddy-cop dynamic often paired with the above: the "normal" human partner who's usually our POV character, or at least the more relatable character in what can be a very unusual environment. And then the "other" partner who represents how this world is different than our own: a robot, a vampire, an alien, etc. So many TV series and films have done this: Holmes & Yoyo, Mann & Machine, Alien Nation, Automan, Forever Knight, Blood Ties, Almost Human, Bright.

3) The concentration of growing human populations into ever-rising urban centres is right in line with a lot of New Urbanism ideals, even if the New Urbanists are a lot more optimistic about it.

4) Even if Asimov wasn't the first to articulate anxieties about robots, or automation and industry, or AI, he was definitely the most prolific early writer on the topic, and it's rare to find a later work on the themes that hasn't been influenced by his even second or third-hand.

Foundation is intellectually interesting and great speculative fiction, but the Robot series (certainly Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun) is the more exciting, entertaining series. Daneel and Elijah Bailey are two of the more memorable characters Asimov created, and they have good chemistry. Plus a good sci-fi detective story is always fun.

I find it kind of funny that in the distant future, our protesters will still be using whiny 60s protest songs. And that the protestors thought the best insult to use on the Spacers was "dirty" due to them being such germaphobes due to, well, making sure their planets didn't have any germs and thus they had crap immune systems.

That being said it's been a long time since I've read the Robots novels, but I do vaguely remember enjoying them back when I was a kid, even if a lot of the larger themes probably went over my head. I also kinda remember playing the VHS game made based off of this book. Can't remember that many details of it, but Spoony did a pretty good review of that one.

TheLibrarian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:04 pm I haven't read a tonne of Asimov, but I have noted Chuck's observation about his work revolving around Big Ideas. I think it's why I find a lot of Asimov still holds up decades later in a way contemporaries like Heinlein don't.

Say what now? Heinlein still seems to have a pretty good following. And while I admittedly have only read "Starship Troopers," I would say it still "holds up," at least in my opinion, even if it is a bit dated. Of course I'm one of those weird people who happens to like both the book and the movie, even though the movie and its maker totally bash on the book.

I have an issue with how Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are often depicted.
I don't know to what extent this can apply to Asimov's own stories. This is the perspective of someone interested in the concept but who still haven't read Asimov directly yet. His Laws of Robotics have been used by other writers a lot.

For anyone out of the loop, here is what the Laws are.

The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Law ... e-IROBOT-1

What I like about them is how there is no pretense to pretend the laws are equal to each other. The first law has no qualifier, and each subsequent law has a qualifier defining the prior laws as overruling them in any potential conflict.

This should be a worth while concept to keep in mind even when trying to create moral or civil law codes, much laws laws the it's outright impossible for a certain lifeforms to violate because how their artificial brains work. That's why my personal attitude towards the two Commandments Jesus defined as the greatest Commandments is that if your attempt to obey or enforce some other law puts you in even apparent conflict with either of those then you should rethink what you're doing.

If I were to criticize the laws themselves, it'd be that Robot obedience is placed above their own self preservation. That is what shows how they were designed to make them slaves. A more benevolent programmer would switch the second and third laws.

But my subject today is how these laws are depicted in some stories. Because some writers seem to forget that the qualifiers on the second and third laws exist. For example, take the scene in The Forbidden Planet that KyleKallgrenBHH says demonstrates Asimov's three laws.

https://youtu.be/Za50E46Z87Y?t=361

For now I'll take Kyle at his word that that is the scene's intent. It bugs me that this near meltdown of Robbie happens, that meltdown would make sense if the three laws were treated as equal. But the qualifiers should guarantee that Robbie would simply not obey the command to kill and be fine.

I get that writers want to explore areas where this system of laws can be imperfect. But that can be done without ignoring the qualifiers. Heck the first command alone can create a conflict if the Robot is in a situation where the only action that can prevent one Human from "coming to harm" is to injure another human.

https://jaredmithrandirolorin.blogspot. ... imovs.html

I just finished reading this book the other week (Audible sales are great).

I liked it a great deal, I work in Urban Planning and the idea of these borderline hive cities that have so shaped human experience to make it so they can't stand being out in the open is just a fascinating bit of social engineering.

I read the first book in the "Foundation" series and it did not grab me at all. But I am already planning to keep going with this series.

The Three Laws have flaws subtle or glaring if taken as absolutes, even within a hierarchy. Would robots do something that would cause some psychological harm to the 8 billion on their Earth if it would prevent hundreds of quadrillions of deaths and end human suffering in around a century? Especially if those 8 billion could still live out their lives to the end?

Something like put drugs in the water, food, or medical treatments to sterilize those 8 billion? It just seems so logical. You can even make the current population somewhat happy again, with the right chemicals.

In my reading of Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun, the laws seemed more like weighted potentials within their brains than hard-wired rules, so I don't have a problem with every robot not fleeing its owner, looking for humans to save or going into medical research. And Asimov did treat them as being sentient (not just sapient); I remember a scene where someone (Elijah Bailey, I think) has to let a robot wait on him, because the robot was suffering when told not to. You don't worry if your toaster is frustrated trying to get that perfect shade of brown.

I never liked the Zeroeth Law later on (I think I can name that without spoilers), but Asimov's gotta Asimov. It didn't spoil the series for me.

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:47 am The Three Laws have flaws subtle or glaring if taken as absolutes, even within a hierarchy. Would robots do something that would cause some psychological harm to the 8 billion on their Earth if it would prevent hundreds of quadrillions of deaths and end human suffering in around a century? Especially if those 8 billion could still live out their lives to the end?

Something like put drugs in the water, food, or medical treatments to sterilize those 8 billion? It just seems so logical. You can even make the current population somewhat happy again, with the right chemicals.

I don't know how you would think genocide would ever be a logical step in any discussion.

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:47 am In my reading of Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun, the laws seemed more like weighted potentials within their brains than hard-wired rules, so I don't have a problem with every robot not fleeing its owner, looking for humans to save or going into medical research. And Asimov did treat them as being sentient (not just sapient); I remember a scene where someone (Elijah Bailey, I think) has to let a robot wait on him, because the robot was suffering when told not to. You don't worry if your toaster is frustrated trying to get that perfect shade of brown.

The mincing, "I want to serve" thing was almost certainly put there by the spacers to make people "want" for the robots to do menial tasks. Honestly people being frustrated by robots doing stuff is the least believable part of the books. There are people who give treats to roombas in the real world. Why in gods name would robots be seen as alienating?