Only a matter of time now. And we don't even have the laws of robotics to protect us.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2025
214 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
77035 readers
2233 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or laws at all at this point.
USAsian located.
A huge point of I, Robot is that there isn't some exact instructions you can give robots that will have them always protect humanity. They have an inherent danger in their literalism
It’s the underlying crux of the entire series, and even Foundation too. The Zeroeth law requires a massive war to develop it and still doesn't solve the problem.
cant allow regulations of robotics or ai, because peter thiel says regulations will speed up the coming of the anti-christ, bud
Can't argue with that.
Greta Thunberg is already here though.
Yeah it's crazy. I grew up reading about how the "three laws of robotics" are still imperfect, contradictory and filled with loopholes.
But these sci-fi worlds at least tried, imperfect as they are. Turns out IRL no one gives a fuck.
IRL we aren't anywhere near the point where the laws of robotics can be used as they require an AI intelligent enough to understand them first.
Just the first law: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" requires something that can process the difference between a robot and a human, the concept of causality, what actions or events may or may not harm a human, and use those to actively decide of it should do something or not.
I have an AR-15 and armor piercing green-tips. Weird enough, I only have the green tips because they were the cheapest option at the time. At 100' they drill press a perfect hole in 1/4" steel.
Probably hundreds of movies show all the ways making humanoid robots can go wrong. Why the hell does anyone think it's still a good idea to make robots that are significantly stronger than humans?
Got nothing to do with being humanoid.
Bipedal predators are a rounding error, probably the most effective hunter/killer robot would be dog shaped and medium dog sized, with a back mounted turret.
Give it pack tactics, with radio comms....
It doesn't need comms if the pack is functioning as a multi part individual the way bees or ants do.
Aka: radio comms, when talking about robots.
Vernor Vinge has entered the chat
Why the hell does anyone think it's still a good idea to make robots that are significantly stronger than humans?
So they can easily do tasks better than a human or that a human could not possibly do. Like moving heavy furniture unaided.
I'm much more interested in a robot that can cook. That'd be something.
They already have stir fry robots. They’re not humanoid though, because they’re built specifically for stir fry.
That's definitely a step in the right direction.
The strongest wisdom I have learned in life is that if humans can do it, they will. Ethics can never prevent something from arising; only physics.
It's totally safe, bro. It will never be used for anything but home assistants, bro. Trust us, bro.
I don't even trust the well established automated 6 axis robots in use all over the world in factories today. I'm sure as fuck not trusting one of those things standing next to me.
you ever seen a robot go from super slow teaching speed to 100% a few seconds later with a few hundred pounds attached to it? it'll set your safety sensors straight real quick
For most robots in factories the safety system is don't go near it. Because no one can guarantee that the robot will stop in time.
Related: Robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks saw this coming: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/10/why-irobots-founder-wont-go-within-10-feet-of-todays-walking-robots/
I think this is a well-written and important article.
One more aspect: The article lines out that todays control algirithms for robots are not inherently stable and can't guarantee safety.
I have seen some code that runs in some if such humanoid robots and would like to add the following warning: the control code for robots is typically written by researchers, not safety experts. While there might be some brilliant programmers among them, such code will be, in most of the cases, a hot mess which cannot guarantee any safety. It will certainly not meet requirements which are commonly mandated for things like complex medical devices, automobiles, or other dangerous work equipment - but due to the much larger complexity and dangerous mechanical forces in such robots, the requirements should be higher than in automobiles.
Nothing that uses any form of today's AI systems can be stable.
Would you go near an uncontrollable maniac swinging a ten-pound sledgehammer, or stand two meters below a larger-than life bronce sculpture of Neptun with a harpoon, weighting 150 kilograms, which is not fixed, unstable and could at any moment fall upon you?
No? Then you should not go near such a robot.
Isn‘t this why they‘re putting human workers into driving cages so they don‘t collide with working robots?