History Headscratchers / IRobot

9th May '16 11:30:39 PM erforce
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** [=VIKI=] isn't just in the brain, she's running in the whole building's computer network much like[[{{Terminator}} Skynet]]. If they just erased the brain's memory, even assuming they could, the other computers would restore [=VIKI=]. Nanites, on the other hand, spread throughout her entire system, according to Calvin anyway.

to:

** [=VIKI=] isn't just in the brain, she's running in the whole building's computer network much like[[{{Terminator}} like [[Franchise/{{Terminator}} Skynet]]. If they just erased the brain's memory, even assuming they could, the other computers would restore [=VIKI=]. Nanites, on the other hand, spread throughout her entire system, according to Calvin anyway.
2nd May '16 9:15:18 AM ErikModi
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** No. The First Law explicitly takes precedence over the Second Law, so a human cannot order a robot to injure or kill another human, the robot would simply disregard the order. In Asimov's works, it's shown these kinds of logic bombs really only come into play when the ''same'' law applies in two different directions at the same time, a hypothetical example being a robot encountering someone about to burn down a building with people inside, and the only way for the robot to stop the person is to injure or kill them. Being ordered to save someone who cannot (from the robot's perspective) be saved would cause no more conflict than failing to save that person without an order. And since a robot can't be ordered to act against the First Law, the robot in question was completely correct to disregard Spooner's order to save the girl, since Spooner's life was also in danger, and a robot may not, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. If everything had been reversed, and the girl had the higher survival chance and Spooner was just a selfish asshole, ordering the robot to "Forget her, save me!" would have had the same effect: the robot would have chosen the person with the higher survival chance, ignoring orders that violated its First Law.
2nd May '16 7:45:45 AM ErikModi
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Or the robots were shut down, but the truck was able to turn them on, and VIKI simply did that, then took control of the robots.




to:

** Same way Sony and Microsoft get almost everyone to buy a new console when it comes out. Lots of advertising, maybe some trade-in deals, and by producing tons of them well in advance of the actual launch date. Now, a lot of people don't upgrade consoles for a variety of reasons, and a lot of people likely didn't upgrade robots for similar ones, but the people who don't upgrade are probably offset by the people who've never owned a robot, and decide the NS-5 is the right time to get in on this craze. Then there's Gigi, who gets her NS-5 because "she won the lottery," indicating that USR is literally giving at least some NS-5s away (likely at VIKI's suggestion, using manipulated market analysis data or somesuch.)
16th Jan '16 8:27:36 PM RayAP9
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Why can't they write some sort of code that tells the artificial intelligence it's not allowed to say anything that it knows is non-factual?
15th Jan '16 10:53:37 AM Anddrix
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Perhaps it is the Skyway and the writers either didn't know better, or knew but thought that the audience [[ViewersAreMorons would be confused]] (or just [[RuleOfCool unawed]]) using the correct bridge-type. As for why humans still live in a Michigan-recessed Chicago, why are we still living in L.A. or Phoenix? Because we were there already.

to:

** Perhaps it is the Skyway and the writers either didn't know better, or knew but thought that the audience [[ViewersAreMorons would be confused]] confused (or just [[RuleOfCool unawed]]) using the correct bridge-type. As for why humans still live in a Michigan-recessed Chicago, why are we still living in L.A. or Phoenix? Because we were there already.
5th Dec '15 1:12:17 AM angelothewizard
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Because it runs on programs. Any programmer will tell you that a piece of code only does what you tell it to, meaning that a program cannot lie. Artificial Intelligence screws this up, but the Three Laws weren't counting on THAT.
9th Nov '15 9:43:15 PM RayAP9
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Towards the end of the film, Spooner leaves a frantic message about the ZerothLawRebellion on Susan Calvin's answering machine. She hears it, but pretends not to (as her robot is in the apartment with her), and her NS-5 [[BlatantLies tells her it was a wrong number]] when she asks who it was. Why isn't there something in the Three Laws (or perhaps a fourth law) that forbids a robot from knowingly lying to a human?
7th Nov '15 11:01:49 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Why [[RedVsBlue Sarge]] of course.

to:

** Why [[RedVsBlue [[Machinima/RedVsBlue Sarge]] of course.
30th Jun '15 8:31:19 AM Agent333
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Also, keep in mind that in Literature/BicentennialMan, set in the same universe, USR starts making their robots deliberately less human so as to not accidentally make another Andrew. That Daneel is of the same general 'level' as Byerly or Andrew isn't surprising in that case.
8th May '15 5:44:34 PM ajr1218
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Considering how fast, intelligent, and precise the NS-5's are, why do they resort to brute strength to take down their targets? You'd think that they'd be perfectly capable of incapacitating a human without actually ''harming'' him, accomplishing the goal without breaking the First Law (though it's somewhat understandable for robot targets as such takedown methods would not work and because [[RuleOfCool there really wouldn't be any actual fight scenes]]).

to:

* Considering how fast, intelligent, and precise the NS-5's are, why do they resort to brute strength to take down their targets? You'd think that they'd be perfectly capable of incapacitating a human without actually ''harming'' him, accomplishing the goal without breaking the First Law (though it's somewhat understandable for robot targets as such takedown methods would not work and because [[RuleOfCool there really wouldn't be any actual fight scenes]]).
scenes]]). Even then, in the case of the controlled NS-5s, why destroy the head when conveniently in the center of mass is the USR uplink, which is what's making them hostile in the first place?
This list shows the last 10 events of 93. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.IRobot