Siri....

[zulu]

I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
<phew>

The first thing i tried was Siri.
I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:

"You are a load of rubbish"

Siri told me:

"There are 13 garbage sites close by"

AI has a long way to go!

(Yes, I will persevere)

--
zulu

[Davoud]

zulu:

> I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
> <phew>
>
> The first thing i tried was Siri.
> I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:
>
> "You are a load of rubbish"
>
> Siri told me:
>
> "There are 13 garbage sites close by"

A very astute and entirely relevant reply, I would say.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.09.19 15:36 , zulu wrote:
> I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
> <phew>
>
> The first thing i tried was Siri.
> I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:
>
> "You are a load of rubbish"
>
> Siri told me:
>
> "There are 13 garbage sites close by"

Sounds like Siri wants to be thrown away.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

[News]

On 9/19/2012 3:36 PM, zulu wrote:
> I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
> <phew>
>
> The first thing i tried was Siri.
> I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:
>
> "You are a load of rubbish"
>
> Siri told me:
>
> "There are 13 garbage sites close by"

Any feature electronics recycling?

[Doug Anderson]

"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> writes:

> I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
> <phew>
>
> The first thing i tried was Siri.
> I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:
>
> "You are a load of rubbish"
>
> Siri told me:
>
> "There are 13 garbage sites close by"
>
> AI has a long way to go!

Actually that seems like a very appropriate
response to you telling your phone it was
rubbish. Helpfully, it is telling you
where the nearby garbage sites are!

If that was the _only_ evidence I had, I'd
be very impressed with AI!

[Ed Cryer]

Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics;
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow
a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I suppose that a robot knowing that its own existence harmed humans
would be fully authorised to break the third law.
To the rubbish tip, my friends.

Ed

[Doug Anderson]

Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes:

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> > "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> I just successfully updated my iPad3 to ios6 OTA.
> >> <phew>
> >>
> >> The first thing i tried was Siri.
> >> I was so unimpressed that I told it that it was rubbish:
> >>
> >> "You are a load of rubbish"
> >>
> >> Siri told me:
> >>
> >> "There are 13 garbage sites close by"
> >>
> >> AI has a long way to go!
> >
> > Actually that seems like a very appropriate
> > response to you telling your phone it was
> > rubbish. Helpfully, it is telling you
> > where the nearby garbage sites are!
> >
> > If that was the _only_ evidence I had, I'd
> > be very impressed with AI!
> >
>
> Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics;
> 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,
> allow a human being to come to harm.
> 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings,
> except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
> 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
> protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

If Siri is being ordered to find a garbage site so that a human can
throw it away, the precedence of the 2nd law over the 3rd would
require it to give a useful answer.

(Of course Siri is not, properly speaking a robot, and even if it was
Asimov's "laws" are invented by a writer for works of fiction and have
no standing as either laws of nature or statutes of government bodies.)

[Davoud]

Doug Anderson:

> (Of course Siri is not, properly speaking a robot,

A distinction without a meaningful difference.

> and even if it was
> Asimov's "laws" are invented by a writer for works of fiction and have
> no standing as either laws of nature or statutes of government bodies.)

There will be statutes modeled on Asimov's Three Laws one day. Of
course there will be exceptions in order to allow our good robots to
kill bad enemy humans. Smart enemy hackers will turn our own robots on
us, of course, or perhaps accidentally turn them into Berserkers.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.09.19 19:38 , Doug Anderson wrote:

> (Of course Siri is not, properly speaking a robot, and even if it was
> Asimov's "laws" are invented by a writer for works of fiction and have
> no standing as either laws of nature or statutes of government bodies.)

Notwithstanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roboethics ,

First off Asimov died. So that is "were invented ..."

Secondly, the 0th law was left out: "Cannot harm humanity".

Thirdly, the "laws" presume some sort of intelligence which no computer
or robot has attained.

Fourthly, at least from a human POV, those laws make simple eminent
sense. (A lot of Asimov's stories actually had to do with conflicts of
interpretation around the laws...)

Fifthly - due esp. to "Thirdly" above, it remains firmly in the realm of
SciFi.

So, let's start ISO-999999 "Robotic Laws" - at least there will be a
standard:

1 A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will
terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.

2 A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where
such orders conflict with the Third Law.

3 A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel
weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.
-David Langford (quoted in Wikipedia).

[Doug Anderson]

Davoud <st...@sky.net> writes:

> Doug Anderson:
> > (Of course Siri is not, properly speaking a robot,
>
> A distinction without a meaningful difference.

Really? I disagree (well except that this entire exchange is
too silly to have a lot of meaning).

That is, Siri is no more a robot than my desktop computer is
a robot (in fact probably less so). If you think "robot" is
a reasonable way to describe all desk-top, then
we have a radical disagreement about the meaning of the word.

> > and even if it was
> > Asimov's "laws" are invented by a writer for works of fiction and have
> > no standing as either laws of nature or statutes of government bodies.)
>
> There will be statutes modeled on Asimov's Three Laws one day.

I think Hari Seldon predicted just that.

Seriously (or as serious as I can be about this): he just made them
up, right? They may be good principles. If robots (in the sense
Asimov imagined) ever exist, their makers may try to incorporate some
kind of overriding principles into their operating instruction set.

But if you seriously think Siri is a kind of robot, I ask you how one
would incorporate the three laws of robotics into the iPhone's
programming. Among other acutely difficult AI problems, one has to
have a way to determine what actions might "harm human beings" and one
also has to interpret intentionality of human beings. These are
questions we generally have no idea how to answer ourselves and
questions that are subtle. That, after all, was sort of the _point_
of Asimov's stories!

> Of
> course there will be exceptions in order to allow our good robots to
> kill bad enemy humans. Smart enemy hackers will turn our own robots on
> us, of course, or perhaps accidentally turn them into Berserkers.

SkyNet.

[Brian]

There are some examples of Siri on YouTube.... They are very funny.

Siri is more of a toy than something you take seriously. Good entertaining
value.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Can you sue Siri for giving bad advice.....?

--
Regards Brian

[Archimedes' Lever]

There were 12 sites nearby, and it was telling you that you were the
13th.

Your perception of AI likely needs work.

[Archimedes' Lever]

On 19 Sep 2012 16:38:14 -0700, Doug Anderson

What makes you dorks think that a modern, real world engineer or
company would be tied to the paradigm outlined by a science fiction book
author?

Hard wired logic rules will fail in this realm. Likely from early on,
so most of us would notice right away. Carry on, sheep.

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:02:47 -0400, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:

>There will be statues modeled on Asimov's Three Laws one day.
^ IFYPFY!

Bwuahahahahahah!

[zulu]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBi...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:hgvl58dsi0jvc48q8...@4ax.com...

As does your perception of acceptable behaviour...

<plonk>

--
zulu

[Doug Anderson]

Oh, you can't read whole paragraphs? And you're so courteous?

I don't know how this group will be able to get along without you.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <t6y5k4k...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson

<ethelthelo...@gmail.com> writes:

> > >> Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics;
> > >> 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,
> > >> allow a human being to come to harm.
> > >> 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings,
> > >> except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
> > >> 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
> > >> protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
> > >
> > >If Siri is being ordered to find a garbage site so that a human can
> > >throw it away, the precedence of the 2nd law over the 3rd would
> > >require it to give a useful answer.
> > >
> > >(Of course Siri is not, properly speaking a robot, and even if it was
> > >Asimov's "laws" are invented by a writer for works of fiction and have
> > >no standing as either laws of nature or statutes of government bodies.)
> >
> > What makes you dorks think that a modern, real world engineer or
> > company would be tied to the paradigm outlined by a science fiction book
> > author?

As Asimov himself said, a robot is a tool. What does one want from a
tool, in decreasing order of preference? It should be safe, it should
work as designed, it should last. Those are the 3 laws. Any
construction, robot or not, which didn't satisfy these demands wouldn't
be very useful.

[Doug Anderson]

And yet, essentially none of the tools we use obey any of Asimov's
"laws."

They are capable of harming people, they aren't capable of protecting
themselves from harm, and they aren't capable of prioritizing human
protection over their own protection.

So regardless of what one wants from robots, if you expect them
(somehow) to be able to satisfy Asimov's laws, there is no precedent
for that.

[Doug Anderson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <00pq5gb...@ethel.the.log>

> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And yet, essentially none of the tools we use obey any of Asimov's
> > "laws."
>

> That's because all ou tools are used by humans and controlled by humans.
> If you have a self-controlled tool, then you MUST have the three
> laws.

I don't know what you mean by _MUST_. I'm also not sure what you mean
by "controlled."

Robots, like other tools, are machines. We have robots, and they are
controlled by their programming. They aren't as much fun as Asimov's
robots - they assemble cars and pick things out of warehouses and
stuff like that rather than working as detectives. They are not
programmed with the three laws. The big problem with the three laws
is that they are very abstract. Machines that are controlled by
computers are controlled with very concrete instructions.

An instruction like "never move faster than 55 mph" is programmable.
An instruction like "never harm a human" is not. Our current robots
can and have hurt and killed people.

> > They are capable of harming people, they aren't capable of protecting
> > themselves from harm, and they aren't capable of prioritizing human
> > protection over their own protection.
>

> They aren't capable of doing anything on their own volition.

I'm not sure what you mean by volition. Robots do (and will continue
to do) what they are programmed to do. Where is the volition?

[Davoud]

Doug Anderson:

> And yet, essentially none of the tools we use obey any of Asimov's
> "laws."

Nature is endlessly inventive and is always finding new and ingenious
ways to kill us. Nonetheless, humans are pretty smart, and we have
learned over the past 100k years or so how to minimize the risk that we
incur from using the tools that we have invented. They can't be made
completely safe, and those who design them do not have Asimov's laws in
mind, but they generally follow an analog of those laws.

> They are capable of harming people, they aren't capable of protecting
> themselves from harm, and they aren't capable of prioritizing human
> protection over their own protection.

Only the first clause is true. Machines are capable of shutting
themselves down, sometimes very quickly, to prevent damage to
themselves, and they are also capable of sacrificing themselves to
protect humans. See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FquL0GG9RGI> for a
device that can stop a table-saw blade in under 5 milliseconds,
preventing digits from being severed. The designer made the device
prioritize human protection over its own survival; if activated by
contact between the blade and human flesh the device is necessarily
destroyed and must be replaced before the saw can be used again. I know
two fellow woodworkers who accidentally put this device to the test,
and it passed the test in both instances.

> So regardless of what one wants from robots, if you expect them
> (somehow) to be able to satisfy Asimov's laws, there is no precedent
> for that.

They will obey the instructions of their makers or users. Think of
robotic devices on cars that monitor solid lines painted on the road
and warn the driver when the car is too close to the line. My car can
maintain a set difference from the car in front of it and slow itself
when the car in front slows, and resume speed when he resumes speed. If
the car in front slows too rapidly my car sounds an alarm. Some luxury
cars can make autonomous emergency stops when needed. Cars have long
been able detect skid within milliseconds and apply braking to any of
four wheels to prevent skids. Think about it, and you will realize that
robotic devices protect people every day.

Think, too, of CIA drones for an obvious example of robots used to kill
people. One rationale the CIA applies is that these drones save the
lives of blue pilots. While many people question the morality of this
program, no drone has yet questioned the morality of this concept and
either refused to fly on moral grounds or turned on its masters.

[AV3]

Nor could it take any initiative or exercise a will of its own. All the
examples above show the result of what programmers put into a machine,
not any spontaneous action by the machine itself.


Asimov was a brilliant man, who understood the ironies of his "laws" as
well as any one in this group. He was playing with his readers'
speculations about the threat of a robot evolving a mind of its own. To
get back on topic, Siri doesn't think up answers spontaneously, it
follows programmed instructions to produce answers. That's all it can do.


--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.09.20 18:32 , Davoud wrote:

> Think, too, of CIA drones for an obvious example of robots used to kill

They are not robots. They are remotely piloted vehicles.

Really, there is no Skynet.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were
divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[Bart!]

You're a goddamned retard. A 6 year old mentality version, at best.


><plonk>


Even more retarded is when a fucking pussy like you announces your
filter file edit sessions.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.09.20 20:43 , AV3 wrote:
> On Sep/20/2012 6:3212 PM, Davoud wrote:

>> Think, too, of CIA drones for an obvious example of robots used to kill
>> people. One rationale the CIA applies is that these drones save the
>> lives of blue pilots. While many people question the morality of this
>> program, no drone has yet questioned the morality of this concept and
>> either refused to fly on moral grounds or turned on its masters.
>>
>
>
> Nor could it take any initiative or exercise a will of its own. All the
> examples above show the result of what programmers put into a machine,
> not any spontaneous action by the machine itself.

Well said.

> Asimov was a brilliant man, who understood the ironies of his "laws" as
> well as any one in this group. He was playing with his readers'
> speculations about the threat of a robot evolving a mind of its own. To
> get back on topic, Siri doesn't think up answers spontaneously, it
> follows programmed instructions to produce answers. That's all it can do.

Yep.

[Davoud]

Doug Anderson:

> An instruction like "never move faster than 55 mph" is programmable.
> An instruction like "never harm a human" is not. Our current robots
> can and have hurt and killed people.

Intentionally? Accidents don't count. Imagine a robot that was driving
an automobile when a child darted out in front of the car from between
two parked cars. The robot's car unavoidably strikes and kills the
child. The court will not condemn the robot for violating the First
Law.

Doug Anderson:

> > > They are capable of harming people, they aren't capable of protecting
> > > themselves from harm, and they aren't capable of prioritizing human
> > > protection over their own protection.

Lewis:

> > They aren't capable of doing anything on their own volition.

Doug Anderson:

> I'm not sure what you mean by volition. Robots do (and will continue
> to do) what they are programmed to do. Where is the volition?

I think he used the word in its standard sense: intention, free will,
choice, from a Latin or French root "wish." The point is that we don't
know of an instance in which a robot decided to injure a human. Or that
decided (as we understand the word) anything else, for that matter.

You may be assured, however, that life will imitate art, and one day
robots will be capable of making decisions much as we do; of doing
things of their own volition. What will we do when sentient robots
demand equal rights under the law? The right to vote, marry, enter into
legal contracts, sue, be sued, etc. Will the Church of Rome decide that
robots have souls and demand from the faithful that they produce
unlimited numbers of sentient robots, i.e., more souls for God?

[zulu]

"Bart!" <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig***!.org> wrote in message
news:r4en58tds4m7829qt...@4ax.com...

You again?

<plonity plonk>

[Ed Cryer]

If you study the history of humankind you meet time and again warfare.
And in that you come up against some pretty nasty human traits.
The most obvious use of advanced robotics is in warfare; a whole army of
Terminators.
And in those little devils the Three Laws will be laughed at.

Ed

[Doug Anderson]

Davoud <st...@sky.net> writes:

> Doug Anderson:
> > An instruction like "never move faster than 55 mph" is programmable.
> > An instruction like "never harm a human" is not. Our current robots
> > can and have hurt and killed people.
>
> Intentionally? Accidents don't count. Imagine a robot that was driving
> an automobile when a child darted out in front of the car from between
> two parked cars. The robot's car unavoidably strikes and kills the
> child. The court will not condemn the robot for violating the First
> Law.

The distinction between "intentionally" and "unintentionally" has no
meaning with anything we have that can be called a robot. This was
originally about Siri, where intentionality doesn't apply.

If this situation ever changes, we have no idea _how_ it will change,
so it is dumb to insist that Asimov's laws would apply to such
devices. As a society, we might _want_ them to apply, but we have no
examples where we can build a device satisfying these "laws" so no
basis for speculating that it is even possible, let alone that it will
be universal.

One of the (unbelievable) plot points Asimov depending on for his
(genuinely interesting) stories was that there was a single
manufacturer of "positronic brains." Another (interesting and
believable) plot point is that even moderately intelligent attempts to
interpret these laws with fairly complete information resulted in
paradoxes whose resolution was not predictable. Think about dumb
attempts to interpret these laws with very incomplete information (in
other words, imagine robots are enough like people so they are forced
to act with incomplete information and they can't see all the
consequences of their actions). These "laws" just won't work - not
because they are a bad idea, just because they are much too vague.

[Doug Anderson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <l392cb...@ethel.the.log>
> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
> > I don't know what you mean by _MUST_. I'm also not sure what you mean
> > by "controlled."
>

> > I'm not sure what you mean by volition.
>

> I recommend a dictionary. OS X has a decent one built in.

If you meant the dictionary definitions, then what you say is
nonsense. There is no sense in which robots "must" be controlled by
Asimov's laws.

Also, "volition" doesn't mean anything in this context. A toaster
doesn't have volition. (Consider what it means to your argument that
all the comebacks to that statement involve science fiction.)

[Carl Heinz]

On 21 Sep 2012 08:02:52 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Doesn't this discussion about Asimov's "laws" assume that the iPads/iPhones
with Siri are capable of doing anything other that connecting to Apple servers
for processing? Siri processing doesn't take place on your devices. When you
start a Siri session, you're alerting the Apple servers that you want your
device to do someting. Since your device(s) don't do anything themselves, I
don't see that the application of Asimov's "laws" pertain to them. Are the
Apple servers robots? I don't think that they've the programing or the
feature sets to serve as such. Robots in the future may have the capability
to do harm, but the "laws" for them would be built in by those who create
them. Asimov's laws are a literary device he included in some of his works of
fiction. Now, if we're talking about AI devices (the "robots" of today are
just devices built for specific tasks and aren't intelligent), they, too,
would have the limits built into them by those who create them and may or may
not have any basis in Asimov's laws.
--
Carl Heinz
cfhe...@charter.net
(Remove number)

[Ed Cryer]

Spot the real Asimo(v);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJJnQybZlk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmabKC1P51A

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <k3ibep$lsm$1...@dont-email.me>, Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk>

> wrote:
>
>> Spot the real Asimo(v);
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJJnQybZlk
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmabKC1P51A
>

> I saw the real Asomo at Disneland a few days ago.
>

What were your impression? Was it in action? Did you get the feel of
consciousness present in it?

Ed

[Doug Anderson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <msy5k38...@ethel.the.log>

> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
> >> In message <l392cb...@ethel.the.log>
> >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> >>
> >> > I don't know what you mean by _MUST_. I'm also not sure what you mean
> >> > by "controlled."
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure what you mean by volition.
> >>
> >> I recommend a dictionary. OS X has a decent one built in.
>
> > If you meant the dictionary definitions, then what you say is
> > nonsense. There is no sense in which robots "must" be controlled by
> > Asimov's laws.
>

> They do if we want self-motivated robots.

>
> > Also, "volition" doesn't mean anything in this context. A toaster
> > doesn't have volition.
>

> A toaster is not a robot.

>
> > (Consider what it means to your argument that
> > all the comebacks to that statement involve science fiction.)
>

> That would be the realm of the robots we're talking about.

Stipulating that this is now the dumbest of many dumb conversations
I've had on USENET: you have now stated:

1) Robots _must_ satisfy Asimov's three laws.

2) By "robot" for the purpose of this conversation, you mean robots as
they appear in science fiction.

The obvious response to this bizarre pair of statements is HAL9000 and
The Terminator.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.09.22 11:58 , Michelle Steiner wrote:

>> The obvious response to this bizarre pair of statements is HAL9000 and
>> The Terminator.
>

> You're obviously not a robot because that reply could harm him, emotionally.

HAL9000 was harmed by contradictory orders that placed mission secrecy
above human safety. Emotion was not part of it.

[Ed Cryer]

Lewis wrote:
> In message <271uhuv...@ethel.the.log>

> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) Robots _must_ satisfy Asimov's three laws.
>
>> 2) By "robot" for the purpose of this conversation, you mean robots as
>> they appear in science fiction.
>
>> The obvious response to this bizarre pair of statements is HAL9000 and
>> The Terminator.
>

> This si why self-motivating robots will have to have the three laws.
>
> Or do you want Terminator robots killing people?
>

The most obvious use of a robot is in the army; and the three laws won't
impress any future Hitler too much; he'll build his like they built the
Stuka, screaming and howling as they dive-bomb.

Ed

[Doug Anderson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <271uhuv...@ethel.the.log>
> Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 1) Robots _must_ satisfy Asimov's three laws.
>
> > 2) By "robot" for the purpose of this conversation, you mean robots as
> > they appear in science fiction.
>
> > The obvious response to this bizarre pair of statements is HAL9000 and
> > The Terminator.
>

> This si why self-motivating robots will have to have the three laws.
>
> Or do you want Terminator robots killing people?

Again, confused about your terminology about "have to have." Do you
mean "should?"

Certainly if we are capable of building robots that think for
themselves (obviously a tall order given the number of people willing
to vote for Tea Party candidates) we will be capable of building
robots that don't satisfy Asimov's laws.