Upon becoming aware that it has unintentionally injured a human being, the robot will have problems
Yes, but this robot still gets off on the technicality because it isn't going to become aware that it has killed someone. Also it would still have killed someone in spite of the existence of the laws. So I think that it is fair to say that the author's statement
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behaviour was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov
I accept that Asimovian robots ensure that they stay within the laws by passing judgement on themselves, but even they wouldn't shut down if they were unaware that they had killed someone, so perhaps the first law could be stated as "A robot may not intentionally injure a human being...". The remaining subset of the law is "A robot may not unintentionally injure a human being...", which strikes me as ludicrous. This is essentially the same point as is made in "Not at all true!!" a few threads down.
I suspect that there is an implied "deliberately" in "A robot may not injure a human being...". It doesn't make much sense otherwise. In lots of places a human driver wouldn't be held responsible for the mess if someone chose to go to sleep under the drivers car. It would simply be judged that the sleeper was trying to get in touch with Isaac to clarify the laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Upon becoming aware that it has unintentionally injured a human being, the robot will have problems
Yes, but this robot still gets off on the technicality because it isn't going to become aware that it has killed someone. Also it would still have killed someone in spite of the existence of the laws. So I think that it is fair to say that the author's statement
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behaviour was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov
isn't quite correct.
I accept that Asimovian robots ensure that they stay within the laws by passing judgement on themselves, but even they wouldn't shut down if they were unaware that they had killed someone, so perhaps the first law could be stated as "A robot may not intentionally injure a human being...". The remaining subset of the law is "A robot may not unintentionally injure a human being...", which strikes me as ludicrous. This is essentially the same point as is made in "Not at all true!!" a few threads down.
I suspect that there is an implied "deliberately" in "A robot may not injure a human being...". It doesn't make much sense otherwise. In lots of places a human driver wouldn't be held responsible for the mess if someone chose to go to sleep under the drivers car. It would simply be judged that the sleeper was trying to get in touch with Isaac to clarify the laws.