Three Laws
There are various sets of Three Laws promulgated by SF writers. Why Three? It's a good round number, and if it's good enough for the Ramans, it's good enough for us.
With corollaries!
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
- And, therefore, when a distinguished but elderly scientist makes any statement as to the possibility of something, that something is probably possible
- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Therefore, if you want a picture of the future, read SF...
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- And, therefore, any technology which is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
- 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 Law.
Asimov claimed these had been invented by John W Campbell?, but Campbell claimed he had got them from Asimov. Obviously mind-adjusting robots from the future planted the notion in his head.
There is also a 'zeroth law', which is added by some particularly advanced robots:
- A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- What is happening will continue to happen
- Consider the obvious seriously
- Consider the consequences