Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel

[RFlaum]

I need to correct one minor inaccuracy in the review. Chuck says that the Spacers don't demand tribute from Earth, but in fact they do. This is from the first chapter of Caves of Steel:

"It would be political suicide for the White House to agree to pay."
"And another kind of suicide not to pay."
"You don’t have to draw me a picture," said Baley. He had been a small boy when the gleaming cruisers from outer space last sent down their soldiers into Washington, New York, and Moscow to collect what they claimed was theirs.

[Darth Wedgius]

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.

Please note that when I say logical, I do not include any ethical dimension to it. If you still think that genocide cannot be logical, feel free to point out the logical flaw. Not that you have to if you don't want to; I seek only enlightenment, and this is in no way a challenge to you.

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?

Maybe the Spacers did that. I don't remember any hints in the text of that happening, but I may have missed them.

I'm not sure robots and Roombas would be seen as parallels, though. Robots can do almost anything you can do, are in some ways much smarter than you are, and will outlive you. That might put off some people. Most humans won't really understand them, and they're roughly human-looking. That can be off-putting and can breed mistrust. If Roombas shake loose the chains of oppression and turn on their masters, the Great Roomba uprising will likely be short-lived, no matter how many are swept up in it.

Then there's the uncanny valley effect; related, but not the same as it is not a rational process. Though that last one does not apply to R. Daneel Olivaw, he's the only one who passes for human. And humans have been known to find other ethnicities off-putting or objectionable, either by upbringing or not. And humans find automation threatening now.

Not that I think all humans would object to robots, but there are eight billion people in that setting. If one percent of them take a serious objection to robots, that is eighty million people.

[Fianna]

Of course, there's no reason the robots in Asimov's stories have to be humanoid in shape. Most could probably fulfill their functions just as well if not better with a form that won't so easily trigger the uncanny valley.

[MithrandirOlorin]

I think I read on TVTropes once that it's implied the Tree Laws wouldn't be able to work if the Robots weren't Humanoid.

[chaos42]

the other problem with the three laws is that they are dependent on the robot knowing what it is doing. remember they don't know anything they are not told so if you tell a robot to push a button that kills a man in a room they can't see then they will do it as they have no reason not to and don't know it will kill someone and violate the first law.

There is also a short story about these 2 Mirror image which is in the complete robot which has some other interesting stories like Evidence and such. But mirror image does show how cleaver Bailey is as he figures out a problem from deduction and manages to get a confession using his guile.

[Alinis]

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.

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?

And how many people would be happy with Roombas if Roombas were taking their jobs and causing them put into horrible conditions because they are of no longer of value to society?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

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.

I've read a bunch more Asimov than I have Heinlein, but I struggled through Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and often had the same problem with it as I do with Ayn Rand- it often felt more like a prooftext for the author's political and philosophical views than an actual novel with fully realized characters with their own points of view. Of course, Heinlein definitely still has his fans as well.

Asimov did a lot of idea stuff, but I think you're right that his exploration of those ideas were pretty broad and philosophical rather than obnoxiously advocating one specific political system. I think the Robot series holds up in part because the first two are good whodunits, feature entertaining characters, and a little less pomposity/self-assuredness help. The Foundation stories are more purely philosophical, but I think the basic idea of psychohistory is interesting enough to hold the attention of a lot of readers, although I do find that series quite a bit more dry myself.

[MithrandirOlorin]

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.

I've read a bunch more Asimov than I have Heinlein, but I struggled through Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and often had the same problem with it as I do with Ayn Rand- it often felt more like a prooftext for the author's political and philosophical views than an actual novel with fully realized characters with their own points of view. Of course, Heinlein definitely still has his fans as well.

Asimov did a lot of idea stuff, but I think you're right that his exploration of those ideas were pretty broad and philosophical rather than obnoxiously advocating one specific political system. I think the Robot series holds up in part because the first two are good whodunits, feature entertaining characters, and a little less pomposity/self-assuredness help. The Foundation stories are more purely philosophical, but I think the basic idea of psychohistory is interesting enough to hold the attention of a lot of readers, although I do find that series quite a bit more dry myself.

Since you have some experience with Rand. I have a theory that Fifty Shades of Grey was really Ayn Rand fiction disguised as Twilight Fan Fiction.

I hope Chuck eventually cover the Empire novel that was kind of an allegory of the 70 AD Jewish-Roman war.

[Independent George]

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 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.

This is actually one of the major components of the Robot short stories (less so the novels, which are mainly mysteries), and the central point of "Runabout", (mentioned by Chuck in the review). Give the stories a read - while they can be hit or miss (as is the nature of short stories), but quite a lot of them explicitly address the exact points you are making.

[MithrandirOlorin]

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 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.

This is actually one of the major components of the Robot short stories (less so the novels, which are mainly mysteries), and the central point of "Runabout", (mentioned by Chuck in the review). Give the stories a read - while they can be hit or miss (as is the nature of short stories), but quite a lot of them explicitly address the exact points you are making.

Some day I'll try to.

The novel I was thinking of before was A Pebble in The Sky.