Robot beacon story?
Dave S
remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon focused
on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the robots grew
sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline to the deity.
It's a cute story about how faith becomes the explanation for innate
character elements. Anybody remember the title of the story and the
book in which it appeared?
Thanks,
Dave
Sherm Pendley
> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> to the deity.
Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> explanation for innate character elements.
Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
to irrational behavior.
There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
performance and doesn't harm any humans.
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Dave S
Dave
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
>>remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>>focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>>robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
>>to the deity.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
>sherm--
>
Tim Bruening
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even
apply?
Tim Bruening
Dave S wrote:
> That's it. Thanks!
But the humans don't die off in "Reason".
Michael Stemper
In article <44C71D79...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>> to irrational behavior.
>>
>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>
>Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
>that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
>could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
>of the energy beam.
Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
divine mission to so do.
Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
not the reason that QT did his job properly.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
Alexey Romanov
In fact, so far as QT believed, there weren't any humans on Earth. So it
certainly wouldn't harm any humans if he let the beam deviate!
--
Alexey Romanov
"Sam? No one's chasing us."
"What? There's supposed to be an angry mob hot on our heels!
The inspector promised us an angry mob!
"Helix, I believe we've been stood up."
Tim Bruening
Michael Stemper wrote:
Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control of the
energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than any human
could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at the other
end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the energy
beam matter.
Richard Schultz
: However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any humans at the other end
: of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even apply?
They explain that in the story -- Cutie can't help obeying the First Law
even if he thinks that he isn't.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
ncw...@hotmail.com
Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
thinking at his most rational at the time.
Cheers,
Nigel.
David Johnston
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In alt.books.isaac-asimov Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>: However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any humans at the other end
>: of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even apply?
>
>They explain that in the story -- Cutie can't help obeying the First Law
>even if he thinks that he isn't.
Which strikes me as a trifle superstitious in it's own right.
Richard Schultz
: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:50:37 +0000 (UTC), sch...@mail.biu.ack.il
I don't think so. The QT series was designed to keep a beam in focus on
the earth. It seems to me that a reasonable circuit design would have put
those elements subsidiary in the same positronic circuit as the First Law
directives so that the robot would *always* do that job. That is, the robot
was *designed* so that not keeping the beam in focus would activate its
First Law circuitry. Otherwise, a psychotic human aboard the space station
could order the robots not to do their jobs, and the robots, not knowing that
failure to do the job would lead to harm to humans, would obey them. QT's
failure to understan that there were humans on the earth was a design flaw
somewhere else in the brain -- that's the kind of thing for which beta-testers
like Donovan and Powell are there for. Whether Donovan and Powell, or the
designers of QT, knew the difference between "its" and "it's" is something
that I could not tell you.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Westprog
<ncw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153983669.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Michael Stemper wrote:
> > Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
of the
> > energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than
any human
> > could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at
the other
> > end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the
energy
> > beam matter.
> Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
> correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
> been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
> wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
> thinking at his most rational at the time.
The form of the Robot stories was problem-resolution-explanation. I don't
think Asimov was in the business of providing unreliable explanations.
J/
ncw...@hotmail.com
He did in "Nightfall". The explanation for the madness that overcame
civilisation was given by the psychologist character as being a
reaction to the coming of the darkness, in spite of the observational
evidence that this only affected ten percent of the population. The
real explanation was the appearance of the magnificent night sky that
was revealed by the eclipse.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Tim Bruening
ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
If the Nightfall planet's people ever make it into space, they will have severe
difficulties due to being able to see all those stars with no atmosphere to block
them out by distributing the glare of the six suns.
They might reach space someday. In the expanded version of Nightfall, a religious
cult was able to restore order after the eclipse and start rebuilding
civilization.
Westprog
<ncw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154593688....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That was explained, though. It was the conclusion of the story. There's
nothing in the rules of the game to prevent incomplete and inaccurate
hypotheses being put forward until the real solution is arrived at.
--
J/
BOTW: "The Man Who Knew Infinity" - Robert Kanigal
Tim Bruening
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
knew
that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take
control
of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
Tim Bruening
Michael Stemper wrote:
Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
of the
energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than
any human
could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at
the other
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
Jon Schild
No, it was definitely in I, Robot. I didn't read the other two
possibilities mentioned, but I did read that story. Also, the ISDB says
it was in I, Robot.
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
Mike Schilling
It's called "Reason" and it is in I, Robot.
Tim Bruening
Mike Schilling wrote:
That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.
Dorothy J Heydt
Because it was the Will of the Master!
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
il...@rcn.com
> make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
I am pretty sure it stated somewhere in Robot stories (and more than
once) that First Law operates below conscious level. A robot need not
be aware of humans' existence for First Law to kick in.
John Schilling
No; quite the opposite. Aside from the fact that such a thing would
require Magic, and Asimov didn't generally do Magic, there were cases
like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
be found.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
il...@rcn.com
> >once) that First Law operates below conscious level. A robot need not
> >be aware of humans' existence for First Law to kick in.
>
> No; quite the opposite. Aside from the fact that such a thing would
> require Magic, and Asimov didn't generally do Magic,
Such thing does not require Magic. It only requires that a robot is
consciously aware only of some of its sensory inputs, and other
sensory inputs are acted upon reflexively (automatically, pick your
word), bypassing awareness. Humans certainly function that way, and
every real robot currently in existence reacts to data inputs with no
awareness whatsoever.
Granted, such distinction was not in vogue when Asimov wrote "I,
Robot".
> there were cases
> like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
> killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
> misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
> be found.
I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
"about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
"Caves of Steel".
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
>> there were cases
>> like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
>> killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
>> misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
>> be found.
>
> I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
> "about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
> "Caves of Steel".
Robots' changed definition of "human", where an additional attribute is
required over & above the standard definition of human - the accent of
speech: This appeared in the third book of the series of which Caves of
Steel was first, in the part set on Solaria. I'm forgetting the title
though.
David DeLaney
>il...@rcn.com wrote:
>> I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
>> "about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
>> "Caves of Steel".
>
>Robots' changed definition of "human", where an additional attribute is
>required over & above the standard definition of human - the accent of
>speech: This appeared in the third book of the series of which Caves of
>Steel was first, in the part set on Solaria. I'm forgetting the title though.
The Robots of Dawn. (Second was The Naked Sun.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Tim Bruening
Richard Schultz
: That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
: make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
: there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.
It's a function of his programming. His brain was designed for him to keep
a beam steady, and the First Law was thus implicitly included in the
programming. Obviously, when they programmed the former, they dinged around
with his ability to express the latter. Nowadays, they would say, "It's not
a bug, it's a feature."
Tim Bruening
ncw...@hotmail.com wrote:
That evidence was based on people only spending a few minutes in
darkness. Several hours of darkness might have driven the entire
population mad, even without all those stars!
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, in the original story, religious cults repeatedly took over
after their respective eclipses and started, eventually,
rebuilding civilization. It merely took them a long while.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Tim Bruening
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
knew that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to
take
control of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there
are any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
First Law even apply?
Mike Schilling
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on
>> a
>> remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>> focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>> robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their
>> pipeline to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
But the details are a bit off. In "Reason", the robot worships Earth
as the home of more prefect robots (*not* anything as imperfect as
humans), which causes him to do his job perfectly. After some initial
consternation, the humans decide that the robot's delusion has a
positive effect, so there's no need to try to dispell it.
Quadibloc
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
> > There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> > believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> > performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>
> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
> knew that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
> human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to
> take control of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there
> are any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
> First Law even apply?
I'm not sure of the details of that story in that area, but my
understanding was that they did not remove QT because the effort
required would have potentially created a disruption in the energy
beam, not that they were content that Earth was safe in the hands of
an irrational robot.
The thing to do, obviously, would be to later send up a replacement
robot which was suitably briefed on QT's malfunction, and which would
humor QT in order to take control peacefully.
John Savard
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
Donovan and Powell were unable to remove QT because he was stronger than they
were and had the backing of all the other robots.
Michael Stemper
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>> to irrational behavior.
>>
>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
It's also left to believe as it will because it has control of the space
station, and there isn't a thing that Powell or Donovan can do about it.
There's no reason to belive that their relief will do any better, either.
>Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
>knew that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
>human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to
>take
>control of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there
>are any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
>First Law even apply?
Well, it didn't. Powell was wrong. Cutie specifically states that he
kept the dials and things aligned in accordance with the Master's will.
He was saddened by the fact that Donovan and Powell maintained their
belief in this "Earth" thing.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
Michael Stemper
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>>> remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>>> focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>>> robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their
>>> pipeline to the deity.
>>
>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
>But the details are a bit off. In "Reason", the robot worships Earth
>as the home of more prefect robots (*not* anything as imperfect as
>humans), which causes him to do his job perfectly.
Not really, no. Cutie doesn't believe in the existence of anything outside
of the space station. He keeps the beam aligned properly only because that's
what happens if you operate the control in such a manner that certain readings
are maintained on certain dials. He did that because it was the Master's
will, not because he believed in things such as planets.
>consternation, the humans decide that the robot's delusion has a
>positive effect, so there's no need to try to dispell it.
Not only that, but they are incapable of doing anything about it, short
of possibly blowing the space station out of the ether.
Tim Bruening
Tim Bruening
Michael Stemper wrote:
> [note massive cross-posts]
> In article <44C71D79...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
> >Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> >> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
> >> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> >> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> >> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> >> to irrational behavior.
> >>
> >> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> >> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> >> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
> >
> >Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
> >that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
> >could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
> >of the energy beam.
>
> Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
> was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
> divine mission to so do.
>
> Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
> not the reason that QT did his job properly.
Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
Tim Bruening
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
knew
that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take
control
of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
Donovan and Powell were unable to remove QT because he was stronger than
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
Donovan and Powell were unable to remove QT because he was stronger than
Tim Bruening
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
David Johnston
The premise of that particular story was that the robot had a
subconscious, and subconsciously knew that the humans were there.
Michael Stemper
In article <4C4AB171...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> writes:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Dave S <davidst...@comcast.net> writes:
>> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
>> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
>> > to the deity.
>>
>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
The first part does, but not the second.
>> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
>> > explanation for innate character elements.
>>
>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>> to irrational behavior.
>>
>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>
>Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
>knew that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
>human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to
>take control of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that
>there
>are any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
>First Law even apply?
It woultn't. Powell was mistaken. QT stated that he operated the
controls in such a manner as to keep the dial readings in accordance
with the Master's (?) wishes.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Twenty-four hours in a day; twenty-four beers in a case. Coincidence?
Dorothy J Heydt
BUT ... he was keeping the beacon steady, so "what's the
difference what he believes?"
I suspect that Dr. Calvin eventually got him replaced anyway,
but the story doesn't cover that.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Jonathan Schattke
Um, no - the story specifically says that each new member of the series
was brought there to be indoctrinated into the cult.
Because they were engineers, it working right was the goal, not the
sillyness of why it worked right.
Gene Wirchenko
Not AFAIR. As I recall, Donovan and Powell were discussing the
situation near the end of the story. One of them said that they could
bring robots there with a cutoff switch, let them be indoctrinated,
and then take them elsewhere. The story ends before this is
implemented.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Tim Bruening
orders to relinguish the controls?