Little Lost RobotRobot Long and Robot HighAn Unfamiliar Day in the LifeMusical message from a long-lost...
Is there a way to download the iOS 13 public beta IPSW?
How does a poisoned arrow combine with the spell Conjure Barrage?
What are the closest international airports in different countries?
How did astronauts using rovers tell direction without compasses on the Moon?
How can Paypal know my card is being used in another account?
Who said "one can be a powerful king with a very small sceptre"?
Did Vladimir Lenin have a cat?
Is it possible for a particle to decay via gravity?
Argand formula and more for quaternions?
Why is softmax function used to calculate probabilities although we can divide each value by the sum of the vector?
Why would an invisible personal shield be necessary?
Is it safe if the neutral lead is exposed and disconnected?
In syntax, why cannot we say things like "he took walked at the park"? but can say "he took a walk at the park"?
What is the German equivalent of the proverb 水清ければ魚棲まず (if the water is clear, fish won't live there)?
Piece of chess engine, which accomplishes move generation
A variant of the Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem
What language is Raven using for her attack in the new 52?
What clothes would flying-people wear?
To find islands of 1 and 0 in matrix
Why does the Eurostar not show youth pricing?
If the Moon were impacted by a suitably sized meteor, how long would it take to impact the Earth?
Convert graph format for Mathematica graph functions
How do I find the FamilyGUID of an exsting database
What is more environmentally friendly? An A320 or a car?
Little Lost Robot
Robot Long and Robot HighAn Unfamiliar Day in the LifeMusical message from a long-lost uncleRobot Dan and IThe Death Of An AngelAn unknown message from an unknown worldA Space Station 13 tricky situationLittle Pictures: Charlie's Lunch EditionA Space Station 13 malfunctioning A.ICharlotte's lost fish
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
This puzzle is adapted from Isaac Asimov's short story Little Lost Robot (1947). For anyone familiar with the story, you will note I have changed many details for sake of brevity (This also means the story's actual solution may not be the best fit).
Robots in Isaac Asimov stories have an artificial intelligence that is kept in check with three "laws" that are at the core of their programming:
- 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 Laws
There was a military research station that used a number of robots. The research involved gamma radiation. Given the strength of this radiation, it was decided that a human could be safely exposed to it for long as 30 minutes, but a robot's positronic brain would almost certainly be destroyed in less than a minute in that environment.
The robots, upon observing that a human had been in the contaminated zone for a while, would conclude that the human may be confused or complacent and may overstay their allotted 30 minute window. The first law outranks the third law, and so the nearby robots would run into the gamma radiation to try and "save" the human, even though they themselves almost certainly wouldn't survive the ordeal. Many robots were destroyed as a result, and no arguments would convince the robots to not take the risk. Even though the human risk was minute, they are more than willing to die protecting them. Not even commanding them to stay put could work, as the first law is above the second.
The lead researcher of the station decided to take a drastic step to correct this problem. He had the robot's programming modified such that the first law was now "A robot may not injure a human being" and omitting the inaction part. Now, in theory, the robots could ignore humans left in the radiation zone, even if they had been there for much longer than 30 minutes.
A few days later, a frustrated researcher told one of the (now modified) robots to "Get Lost!", not intending the robot to take the phrase literally. It became evident that the robot did interpret that as a command because after a search nobody could find it. The lead researcher, upon finding out, became concerned. If a robot, whose 1st law was modified, went out into the world and possibly let a human die through their inaction, it could be traced back to him and he would surely go to jail. The lead researcher ordered the station into lockdown and called the best team possible to help save his him from this problem.
This is where you, a robot detective, come in. Arriving at the research station, you looked for clues. Eventually, you found something. A cargo ship arrived the same day that the robot became lost (it was still docked because the whole facility was on lockdown). The cargo manifest was for 62 robots; all replacements for the ones lost earlier that week. There are, however, 63 robots in the cargo hold, all currently in sleep mode.
You switch the robots on one at a time and question them. All 63 claim to have been shipped direct from the factory and have no knowledge of this facility or which robot among them is the imposter. The "lost" robot has apparently chosen to follow the "Get Lost!" command above any command you could give.
The robots are physically identical, and the positronic brain is too complicated to analyze for differences. The "lost" robot is trying to not be found out, and will try to act exactly as though it is one of the newly built robots.
What can you do to identify the missing robot from the 63 robots?
Clarification Edit: The Asimov story has something of a reason for why the lost robot chooses to follow the "Get Lost" order above all other orders, but I skipped over it. From its perspective, it will do practically anything to not be caught. If you order the robot to do something, it will try to follow along in the spirit of being indistinguishable from the others. It is hiding "in plain sight" so to speak.
story
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This puzzle is adapted from Isaac Asimov's short story Little Lost Robot (1947). For anyone familiar with the story, you will note I have changed many details for sake of brevity (This also means the story's actual solution may not be the best fit).
Robots in Isaac Asimov stories have an artificial intelligence that is kept in check with three "laws" that are at the core of their programming:
- 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 Laws
There was a military research station that used a number of robots. The research involved gamma radiation. Given the strength of this radiation, it was decided that a human could be safely exposed to it for long as 30 minutes, but a robot's positronic brain would almost certainly be destroyed in less than a minute in that environment.
The robots, upon observing that a human had been in the contaminated zone for a while, would conclude that the human may be confused or complacent and may overstay their allotted 30 minute window. The first law outranks the third law, and so the nearby robots would run into the gamma radiation to try and "save" the human, even though they themselves almost certainly wouldn't survive the ordeal. Many robots were destroyed as a result, and no arguments would convince the robots to not take the risk. Even though the human risk was minute, they are more than willing to die protecting them. Not even commanding them to stay put could work, as the first law is above the second.
The lead researcher of the station decided to take a drastic step to correct this problem. He had the robot's programming modified such that the first law was now "A robot may not injure a human being" and omitting the inaction part. Now, in theory, the robots could ignore humans left in the radiation zone, even if they had been there for much longer than 30 minutes.
A few days later, a frustrated researcher told one of the (now modified) robots to "Get Lost!", not intending the robot to take the phrase literally. It became evident that the robot did interpret that as a command because after a search nobody could find it. The lead researcher, upon finding out, became concerned. If a robot, whose 1st law was modified, went out into the world and possibly let a human die through their inaction, it could be traced back to him and he would surely go to jail. The lead researcher ordered the station into lockdown and called the best team possible to help save his him from this problem.
This is where you, a robot detective, come in. Arriving at the research station, you looked for clues. Eventually, you found something. A cargo ship arrived the same day that the robot became lost (it was still docked because the whole facility was on lockdown). The cargo manifest was for 62 robots; all replacements for the ones lost earlier that week. There are, however, 63 robots in the cargo hold, all currently in sleep mode.
You switch the robots on one at a time and question them. All 63 claim to have been shipped direct from the factory and have no knowledge of this facility or which robot among them is the imposter. The "lost" robot has apparently chosen to follow the "Get Lost!" command above any command you could give.
The robots are physically identical, and the positronic brain is too complicated to analyze for differences. The "lost" robot is trying to not be found out, and will try to act exactly as though it is one of the newly built robots.
What can you do to identify the missing robot from the 63 robots?
Clarification Edit: The Asimov story has something of a reason for why the lost robot chooses to follow the "Get Lost" order above all other orders, but I skipped over it. From its perspective, it will do practically anything to not be caught. If you order the robot to do something, it will try to follow along in the spirit of being indistinguishable from the others. It is hiding "in plain sight" so to speak.
story
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This puzzle is adapted from Isaac Asimov's short story Little Lost Robot (1947). For anyone familiar with the story, you will note I have changed many details for sake of brevity (This also means the story's actual solution may not be the best fit).
Robots in Isaac Asimov stories have an artificial intelligence that is kept in check with three "laws" that are at the core of their programming:
- 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 Laws
There was a military research station that used a number of robots. The research involved gamma radiation. Given the strength of this radiation, it was decided that a human could be safely exposed to it for long as 30 minutes, but a robot's positronic brain would almost certainly be destroyed in less than a minute in that environment.
The robots, upon observing that a human had been in the contaminated zone for a while, would conclude that the human may be confused or complacent and may overstay their allotted 30 minute window. The first law outranks the third law, and so the nearby robots would run into the gamma radiation to try and "save" the human, even though they themselves almost certainly wouldn't survive the ordeal. Many robots were destroyed as a result, and no arguments would convince the robots to not take the risk. Even though the human risk was minute, they are more than willing to die protecting them. Not even commanding them to stay put could work, as the first law is above the second.
The lead researcher of the station decided to take a drastic step to correct this problem. He had the robot's programming modified such that the first law was now "A robot may not injure a human being" and omitting the inaction part. Now, in theory, the robots could ignore humans left in the radiation zone, even if they had been there for much longer than 30 minutes.
A few days later, a frustrated researcher told one of the (now modified) robots to "Get Lost!", not intending the robot to take the phrase literally. It became evident that the robot did interpret that as a command because after a search nobody could find it. The lead researcher, upon finding out, became concerned. If a robot, whose 1st law was modified, went out into the world and possibly let a human die through their inaction, it could be traced back to him and he would surely go to jail. The lead researcher ordered the station into lockdown and called the best team possible to help save his him from this problem.
This is where you, a robot detective, come in. Arriving at the research station, you looked for clues. Eventually, you found something. A cargo ship arrived the same day that the robot became lost (it was still docked because the whole facility was on lockdown). The cargo manifest was for 62 robots; all replacements for the ones lost earlier that week. There are, however, 63 robots in the cargo hold, all currently in sleep mode.
You switch the robots on one at a time and question them. All 63 claim to have been shipped direct from the factory and have no knowledge of this facility or which robot among them is the imposter. The "lost" robot has apparently chosen to follow the "Get Lost!" command above any command you could give.
The robots are physically identical, and the positronic brain is too complicated to analyze for differences. The "lost" robot is trying to not be found out, and will try to act exactly as though it is one of the newly built robots.
What can you do to identify the missing robot from the 63 robots?
Clarification Edit: The Asimov story has something of a reason for why the lost robot chooses to follow the "Get Lost" order above all other orders, but I skipped over it. From its perspective, it will do practically anything to not be caught. If you order the robot to do something, it will try to follow along in the spirit of being indistinguishable from the others. It is hiding "in plain sight" so to speak.
story
$endgroup$
This puzzle is adapted from Isaac Asimov's short story Little Lost Robot (1947). For anyone familiar with the story, you will note I have changed many details for sake of brevity (This also means the story's actual solution may not be the best fit).
Robots in Isaac Asimov stories have an artificial intelligence that is kept in check with three "laws" that are at the core of their programming:
- 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 Laws
There was a military research station that used a number of robots. The research involved gamma radiation. Given the strength of this radiation, it was decided that a human could be safely exposed to it for long as 30 minutes, but a robot's positronic brain would almost certainly be destroyed in less than a minute in that environment.
The robots, upon observing that a human had been in the contaminated zone for a while, would conclude that the human may be confused or complacent and may overstay their allotted 30 minute window. The first law outranks the third law, and so the nearby robots would run into the gamma radiation to try and "save" the human, even though they themselves almost certainly wouldn't survive the ordeal. Many robots were destroyed as a result, and no arguments would convince the robots to not take the risk. Even though the human risk was minute, they are more than willing to die protecting them. Not even commanding them to stay put could work, as the first law is above the second.
The lead researcher of the station decided to take a drastic step to correct this problem. He had the robot's programming modified such that the first law was now "A robot may not injure a human being" and omitting the inaction part. Now, in theory, the robots could ignore humans left in the radiation zone, even if they had been there for much longer than 30 minutes.
A few days later, a frustrated researcher told one of the (now modified) robots to "Get Lost!", not intending the robot to take the phrase literally. It became evident that the robot did interpret that as a command because after a search nobody could find it. The lead researcher, upon finding out, became concerned. If a robot, whose 1st law was modified, went out into the world and possibly let a human die through their inaction, it could be traced back to him and he would surely go to jail. The lead researcher ordered the station into lockdown and called the best team possible to help save his him from this problem.
This is where you, a robot detective, come in. Arriving at the research station, you looked for clues. Eventually, you found something. A cargo ship arrived the same day that the robot became lost (it was still docked because the whole facility was on lockdown). The cargo manifest was for 62 robots; all replacements for the ones lost earlier that week. There are, however, 63 robots in the cargo hold, all currently in sleep mode.
You switch the robots on one at a time and question them. All 63 claim to have been shipped direct from the factory and have no knowledge of this facility or which robot among them is the imposter. The "lost" robot has apparently chosen to follow the "Get Lost!" command above any command you could give.
The robots are physically identical, and the positronic brain is too complicated to analyze for differences. The "lost" robot is trying to not be found out, and will try to act exactly as though it is one of the newly built robots.
What can you do to identify the missing robot from the 63 robots?
Clarification Edit: The Asimov story has something of a reason for why the lost robot chooses to follow the "Get Lost" order above all other orders, but I skipped over it. From its perspective, it will do practically anything to not be caught. If you order the robot to do something, it will try to follow along in the spirit of being indistinguishable from the others. It is hiding "in plain sight" so to speak.
story
story
edited 8 hours ago
Dark Thunder
asked 9 hours ago
Dark ThunderDark Thunder
2,3975 silver badges25 bronze badges
2,3975 silver badges25 bronze badges
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Order all robots to stay put and walk into the radiation zone. Robots whose first rule overrides your command will follow you, whereas the "lost" robot cannot follow you without breaking its second rule.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We need to get the altered robot to differentiate itself, and the only differences in its programming are (1) it is willing to be inactive while a human is harmed, and (2) it responds to any orders you give it in the same way that an unaltered robot would. So we can't use The Second Law to order it into inaction.
But,
We can use The Third Law to force it into inaction. Tell each robot "If you don't sit idly by while I slap myself in the face, you will be destroyed." You aren't giving it a command, so the "Get Lost" override shouldn't kick in. Unaltered robots will be bound by The First Law and stop you. The altered robot will be forced to preserve its own existence by letting you slap yourself.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could you
enter the contaminated zone and hang out for a while? The new robots would have the original rule, so they would all try and save you, where the "lost one" would do nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my humble opinion, maybe that's an idea for an answer:
Maybe you take the whole robot apart and tell it: If you were told to get lost in the past - now get lost again,
And right after that, you put him in a closed room (and with cameras so you can see his action) full of belongings and closets, which can be hidden inside.
If Robot hasn't been told before, he won't do anything.
But if he was told so in the past he would have to hide among the objects because getting lost is a command he must carry over all the rest.(Even if he wants to keep track of what the other bots are doing, he won't be able to because this command comes first)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f86701%2flittle-lost-robot%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Order all robots to stay put and walk into the radiation zone. Robots whose first rule overrides your command will follow you, whereas the "lost" robot cannot follow you without breaking its second rule.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Order all robots to stay put and walk into the radiation zone. Robots whose first rule overrides your command will follow you, whereas the "lost" robot cannot follow you without breaking its second rule.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Order all robots to stay put and walk into the radiation zone. Robots whose first rule overrides your command will follow you, whereas the "lost" robot cannot follow you without breaking its second rule.
$endgroup$
Order all robots to stay put and walk into the radiation zone. Robots whose first rule overrides your command will follow you, whereas the "lost" robot cannot follow you without breaking its second rule.
answered 9 hours ago
jafejafe
34.4k5 gold badges95 silver badges344 bronze badges
34.4k5 gold badges95 silver badges344 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I added a clarification that I'm hoping will help? I'm very much open to ideas outside the one in the book, but I'm worried you're misinterpreting the robot's motivations in this. His idea of staying "lost" is being indistinguishable from the others. I'll be the first to admit the book did it better.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DarkThunder Ah, I see. It considers it would be breaking rule 2 by getting caught, so in this case it would just follow the others despite the later order.
$endgroup$
– jafe
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We need to get the altered robot to differentiate itself, and the only differences in its programming are (1) it is willing to be inactive while a human is harmed, and (2) it responds to any orders you give it in the same way that an unaltered robot would. So we can't use The Second Law to order it into inaction.
But,
We can use The Third Law to force it into inaction. Tell each robot "If you don't sit idly by while I slap myself in the face, you will be destroyed." You aren't giving it a command, so the "Get Lost" override shouldn't kick in. Unaltered robots will be bound by The First Law and stop you. The altered robot will be forced to preserve its own existence by letting you slap yourself.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We need to get the altered robot to differentiate itself, and the only differences in its programming are (1) it is willing to be inactive while a human is harmed, and (2) it responds to any orders you give it in the same way that an unaltered robot would. So we can't use The Second Law to order it into inaction.
But,
We can use The Third Law to force it into inaction. Tell each robot "If you don't sit idly by while I slap myself in the face, you will be destroyed." You aren't giving it a command, so the "Get Lost" override shouldn't kick in. Unaltered robots will be bound by The First Law and stop you. The altered robot will be forced to preserve its own existence by letting you slap yourself.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We need to get the altered robot to differentiate itself, and the only differences in its programming are (1) it is willing to be inactive while a human is harmed, and (2) it responds to any orders you give it in the same way that an unaltered robot would. So we can't use The Second Law to order it into inaction.
But,
We can use The Third Law to force it into inaction. Tell each robot "If you don't sit idly by while I slap myself in the face, you will be destroyed." You aren't giving it a command, so the "Get Lost" override shouldn't kick in. Unaltered robots will be bound by The First Law and stop you. The altered robot will be forced to preserve its own existence by letting you slap yourself.
New contributor
$endgroup$
We need to get the altered robot to differentiate itself, and the only differences in its programming are (1) it is willing to be inactive while a human is harmed, and (2) it responds to any orders you give it in the same way that an unaltered robot would. So we can't use The Second Law to order it into inaction.
But,
We can use The Third Law to force it into inaction. Tell each robot "If you don't sit idly by while I slap myself in the face, you will be destroyed." You aren't giving it a command, so the "Get Lost" override shouldn't kick in. Unaltered robots will be bound by The First Law and stop you. The altered robot will be forced to preserve its own existence by letting you slap yourself.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 9 hours ago
hdsdvhdsdv
663 bronze badges
663 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
It seems to me that you haven't given a reason the lost robot couldn't just behave like the others. I added a clarification that maybe helps?
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think I did give a reason - self-preservation. If you are saying that the "Get Lost" directive supersedes The Laws, then it's probably worth saying so explicitly. As written, the "Get Lost" order only supersedes "any order I give". Including in your clarification, I'm afraid.
$endgroup$
– hdsdv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could you
enter the contaminated zone and hang out for a while? The new robots would have the original rule, so they would all try and save you, where the "lost one" would do nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could you
enter the contaminated zone and hang out for a while? The new robots would have the original rule, so they would all try and save you, where the "lost one" would do nothing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could you
enter the contaminated zone and hang out for a while? The new robots would have the original rule, so they would all try and save you, where the "lost one" would do nothing.
$endgroup$
Could you
enter the contaminated zone and hang out for a while? The new robots would have the original rule, so they would all try and save you, where the "lost one" would do nothing.
answered 9 hours ago
PartyHatPandaPartyHatPanda
1,5926 silver badges20 bronze badges
1,5926 silver badges20 bronze badges
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the lost robot knows that, and would try to save you. The rule doesn't stop him from saving humans.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my humble opinion, maybe that's an idea for an answer:
Maybe you take the whole robot apart and tell it: If you were told to get lost in the past - now get lost again,
And right after that, you put him in a closed room (and with cameras so you can see his action) full of belongings and closets, which can be hidden inside.
If Robot hasn't been told before, he won't do anything.
But if he was told so in the past he would have to hide among the objects because getting lost is a command he must carry over all the rest.(Even if he wants to keep track of what the other bots are doing, he won't be able to because this command comes first)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my humble opinion, maybe that's an idea for an answer:
Maybe you take the whole robot apart and tell it: If you were told to get lost in the past - now get lost again,
And right after that, you put him in a closed room (and with cameras so you can see his action) full of belongings and closets, which can be hidden inside.
If Robot hasn't been told before, he won't do anything.
But if he was told so in the past he would have to hide among the objects because getting lost is a command he must carry over all the rest.(Even if he wants to keep track of what the other bots are doing, he won't be able to because this command comes first)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my humble opinion, maybe that's an idea for an answer:
Maybe you take the whole robot apart and tell it: If you were told to get lost in the past - now get lost again,
And right after that, you put him in a closed room (and with cameras so you can see his action) full of belongings and closets, which can be hidden inside.
If Robot hasn't been told before, he won't do anything.
But if he was told so in the past he would have to hide among the objects because getting lost is a command he must carry over all the rest.(Even if he wants to keep track of what the other bots are doing, he won't be able to because this command comes first)
$endgroup$
In my humble opinion, maybe that's an idea for an answer:
Maybe you take the whole robot apart and tell it: If you were told to get lost in the past - now get lost again,
And right after that, you put him in a closed room (and with cameras so you can see his action) full of belongings and closets, which can be hidden inside.
If Robot hasn't been told before, he won't do anything.
But if he was told so in the past he would have to hide among the objects because getting lost is a command he must carry over all the rest.(Even if he wants to keep track of what the other bots are doing, he won't be able to because this command comes first)
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
TahelTahel
91914 bronze badges
91914 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f86701%2flittle-lost-robot%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
This is one of my favorite puzzles now! Thank you for the puzzle!
$endgroup$
– Duck
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank Isaac Asimov. I posted this because I just happened to think about how confused I was when I read that 15 years ago, and so I read it again. I was still kind of confused, actually. I know I didn't do it justice, but maybe that will convince somebody to pick up "I, Robot"
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why does the story's solution not work? Am confused...
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@im_so_meta_even_this_acronym I've changed certain details, so copy-pasting the paragraphs from the story wouldn't actually be a good answer.
$endgroup$
– Dark Thunder
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the solution's main idea still works, right? (Not that I'm going to put it here as an answer of course, but just wondering)
$endgroup$
– im_so_meta_even_this_acronym
3 hours ago