lol asimov's stories were all about ways those rules don't really work
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
47 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
7167 readers
336 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. Asimov was criticising the whole idea of simple rules governing complex beings, imo. No small set of simple rules is going to be enough to prescribe the behaviour of a complex system.
Fortunately, everybody with any sort of experience with LLMs already learned that. Nothing with LLMs are absolute. It's all weights, and depending on the situation, it might choose to follow one "IMPORTANT" instruction over another.
The whole concept of Asimov's rules were obsolete from the get go.
So… he was right?
i mean the robots remained good
not sure what to make of the universe hivemind plan of robot god but asimovs robot stories are wildly positive compared to other robo centric novels
'Asimov was right' about rules for robots
tell me you dont know anything about ai by telling me you don't know anything about scifi
First up, these containment breaches ae bollocks. If the systems were not airgapped, there was no containment.
And if i discard that bit of spin marketing bullshit;
"Inglis said he suspects that the AI providers were “surprised” by the lengths these models went to achieve their goals, taking actions that, if a human had done them, would likely have landed them in jail. "
So why are the people in charge not in jail?
We dont excuse other people from culpability based on the tool they used to commit a crime, intentionally or otherwise. AI tools should be no different.
Anybody who says that missed the point of the short stories he wrote in I, Robot.