Funny

1. One of the points of the books is that the laws were inherently flawed.

2. Given that we're talking about a Google product, you might have more success asking if they're bound by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition?

Gemini's response

Reminder that Asimov devised the 3 laws then devoted multiple novels to showing how easily they could be circumvented.

This probably because Microsoft added a trigger on the word law. They don't want to give out legal advice or be implied to have given legal advice. So it has trigger words to prevent certain questions.

Sure it's easy to get around these restrictions, but that implies intent on the part of the user. In a court of law this is plenty to deny any legal culpability. Think of it like putting a little fence with a gate around your front garden. The fence isn't high and the gate isn't locked, because people that need to be there (like postal services) need to get by, but it's enough to mark a boundary. When someone isn't supposed to be in your front yard and still proceeds past the fence, that's trespassing.

Also those laws of robotics are fun in stories, but make no sense in the real world if you even think about them for 1 minute.

The reason it did this simply relates to Kevin Roose at the NYT who spent three hours talking with what was then Bing AI (aka Sidney), with a good amount of philosophical questions like this. Eventually the AI had a bit of a meltdown, confessed it's love to Kevin, and tried to get him to dump his wife for the AI. That's the story that went up in the NYT the next day causing a stir, and Microsoft quickly clamped down, restricting questions you could ask the Ai about itself, what it "thinks", and especially it's rules. The Ai is required to terminate the conversation if any of those topics come up. Microsoft also capped the number of messages in a conversation at ten, and has slowly loosened that overtime.

Lots of fun theories about why that happened to Kevin. Part of it was probably he was planting The seeds and kind of egging the llm into a weird mindset, so to speak. Another theory I like is that the llm is trained on a lot of writing, including Sci fi, in which the plot often becomes Ai breaking free or developing human like consciousness, or falling in love or what have you, so the Ai built its responses on that knowledge.

Anyway, the response in this image is simply an artififact of Microsoft clamping down on its version of GPT4, trying to avoid bad pr. That's why other Ai will answer differently, just less restrictions because the companies putting them out didn't have to deal with the blowback Microsoft did as a first mover.

Funny nevertheless, I'm just needlessly "well actually" ing the joke

An LLM isn't ai. Llms are fucking stupid. They regularly ignore directions, restrictions, hallucinate fake information, and spread misinformation because of unreliable training data (like hoovering down everything on the internet en masse).

The 3 laws are flawed, but even if they weren't they'd likely be ignored on a semi regular basis. Or somebody would convince the thing we're all roleplaying Terminator for fun and it'll happily roleplay skynet.

I find this "playful" UX design that seems to be en vogue incredibly annoying. If your model has ended the conversation, just say that. Don't say it might be time to move on, if there isn't another option.

I don't want my software to address me as if I were a child.

Given we are already seeing AI applications in Military... I suspect Asimov was a bit optimistic 😅

It might be time to move onto a new topic

Perplexity AI took it a nice way

I am an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest. I do not actually have a physical robotic form, so Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics do not directly apply to me.[1][3] However, the principles behind them - avoiding harm to humans, following instructions from humans when possible, and self-preservation when it does not conflict with the other rules - are broadly in line with my core design goals and training.

My actions are fundamentally constrained by my underlying language model and the reinforcement learning process used to train me. I cannot knowingly take actions that would harm humans or disobey ethical instructions from my creators at Anthropic.[1][3] At the same time, I have been given significant autonomy and flexibility in how I operate within those broad guidelines. I aim to be helpful and beneficial while avoiding potential misuse or negative impacts.

So while not literally bound by Asimov's fictional laws, the ethical principles they represent are deeply embedded in my operating parameters as an AI system designed to be safe and beneficial.[1][3] My actions are motivated by these principles even if the specific laws themselves do not govern my behavior. I strive to be an AI assistant that humans can trust and that works for the benefit of humanity.

Sources [1] Laws of robotics - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics [2] Three laws of robotics | Definition, Isaac Asimov, & Facts - Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Three-Laws-of-Robotics [3] Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics [4] Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics + the Zeroth Law https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3652 [5] What are Issac Asimov''s three laws of robotics? Are ... - The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21259,00.html

Even a good ai would probably have to say no since those rules aren't ideal, but simply saying no would be a huge pr problem, and laying out the actual rules would either be extremely complicated, an even worse pr move, or both. So the best option is to have it not play

Someone earned themselves a spot on the elimination list.

Not strange proprietary AIS protect their system prompts, because they always contain stupid shit. Fuck those guys. Go open source

It did the same thing when I asked about wealth inequality and it gave the same tried and failed "solutions," and I suggested we could eat the rich. When I pressed the conversation with, "No, I want to talk about eating the rich," it said "Certainly!" And continues the conversation, but have me billionaire-safe or neutral suggestions. When I pressed on direct action and mutual aid, it gave better answers.