[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
hook, now that his mother had decided that he should be a civil-rights
crusader instead. And the lawyer in him was fascinated by the
challenge. There were deep and profound legal implications to the
campaign that called for the most careful analysis and calculation.
As senior partner of Feingold and Charney, George plotted
much of the strategy, but left the actual work of research and filing
papers to his junior partners. He placed his own son Paul, who had
become a member of the firm three years before, in charge of piloting
the day-by-day maneuvers. Paul had the additional responsibility of
making dutiful progress reports virtually every day to his
grandmother. She, in turn, discussed the campaign every day with
Andrew.
Andrew was deeply involved. He had begun work on his book on
robots--he was going back to the very beginning, to Lawrence
Robertson and the founding of United States Robots and Mechanical
Men--but he put the project aside, now, and spent his time poring
over the mounting stacks of legal documents. He even, at times,
offered a few very different suggestions of his own.
To Little Miss he said, "George told me the day those two men
were harassing me that human beings have always been afraid of
robots. ' A disease of mankind,' is what he called it. As long as that is
the case, it seems to me that the courts and the legislatures aren't
likely to do very much on behalf of robots. Robots have no political
power, after all, and people do. Shouldn't something be done about
changing the human attitude toward robots, then?"
"If only we could."
"We have to try," Andrew said. "George has to try."
"Yes," said Little Miss. "He does, doesn't he?"
So while Paul stayed in court, it was George who took to the
public platform. He gave himself up entirely to the task of
campaigning for the civil rights of robots, putting all of his time and
energy into it.
George had always been a good speaker, easy and informal, and
now he became a familiar figure at conventions of lawyers and
teachers and holo-news editors, and on every opinion show on the
a
a
T
T
n
n
s
s
F
F
f
f
o
o
D
D
r
r
P
P
m
m
Y
Y
e
e
Y
Y
r
r
B
B
2
2
.
.
B
B
A
A
Click here to buy
Click here to buy
w
w
m
m
w
w
o
o
w
w
c
c
.
.
.
.
A
A
Y
Y
B
B
Y
Y
B
B
r r
public airwaves, setting forth the case for robot rights with an
eloquence that grew steadily with experience.
The more time George spent on public platforms and in the
communications studios, the more relaxed and yet commanding a
figure he became. He allowed his side-whiskers to grow again, and
swept his hair--white, now--backward in a grandiose plume. He even
indulged in the new style of clothing that some of the best-known
video commentators were going in for, the loose, flowing style known
as "drapery." Wearing it made him feel like a Greek philosopher, he
said, or like a member of the ancient Roman Senate.
Paul Charney, who was generally a good deal more conservative
in his ways than his father, warned him the first time he saw his
father rigged out like that: "Just take care not to trip over it on stage,
Dad;"
''I'll try not to," said George.
The essence of his pro-robot argument was this:
"If, by virtue of the Second Law, we can demand of any robot
unlimited obedience in all respects not involving harm to a human
being, then any human being, any human being at all, has a fearsome
power over any robot, any robot. In particular, since Second Law
overrides Third Law, any human being can use the law of obedience
to defeat the law of self-protection. He can order the robot to damage
itself or even destroy itself for any reason, or for no reason
whatsoever--purely on whim alone.
"Let us leave the question of property rights out of the
discussion here --though it is not a trivial one--and approach the issue
simply on the level of sheer human decency. Imagine someone
approaching a robot he happens to encounter on the road and
ordering it, for no reason other than his own amusement, to remove
its own limbs, or to do some other grave injury to itself. Or let us say
that the robot's owner himself, in a moment of pique or boredom or
frustration, gives such an order.
"Is this just? Would we treat an animal like that? And an
animal, mind you, might at least have the capacity to defend itself. But
we have made our robots inherently unable to lift a hand against a
human being.
"Even an inanimate object which has given us good service has a
claim on our consideration. And a robot is far from insensible; it is
not a simple machine and it is not an animal. It can think well enough
to enable it to speak with us, reason with us, joke with us. Many of us
who have lived and worked with robots all our lives have come to
regard them as friends --virtually as members of our families, I dare
say. We have deep respect for them, even affection. Is it asking too
much to want to give our robot friends the formal protection of law?
"If a man has the right to give a robot any order that does not
involve doing harm to a human being, he should have the decency
never to give a robot any order that involves doing harm to a robot--
a
a
T
T
n
n
s
s
F
F
f
f
o
o
D
D
r
r
P
P
m
m
Y
Y
e
e
Y
Y
r
r
B
B
2
2
.
.
B
B
A
A
Click here to buy
Click here to buy
w
w
m
m
w
w
o
o
w
w
c
c
.
.
.
.
A
A
Y
Y
B
B
Y
Y
B
B
r r
unless human safety absolutely requires such action. Certainly a
robot should not lightly be asked to do purposeless harm to itself.
With great power goes great responsibility. If the robots have the
Three Laws to protect humans, is it too much to ask that humans
subject themselves to a law or two for the sake of protecting robots?"
There was, of course, another side to the issue--and the
spokesman for that side was none other than James Van Buren, the
lawyer who had opposed Andrew's original petition for free-robot
status in the Regional Court. He was old, now, but still vigorous, a
powerful advocate of traditional social beliefs. In his calm, balanced,
reasonable way, Van Buren was once again a forceful speaker on [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl wyciskamy.pev.pl
hook, now that his mother had decided that he should be a civil-rights
crusader instead. And the lawyer in him was fascinated by the
challenge. There were deep and profound legal implications to the
campaign that called for the most careful analysis and calculation.
As senior partner of Feingold and Charney, George plotted
much of the strategy, but left the actual work of research and filing
papers to his junior partners. He placed his own son Paul, who had
become a member of the firm three years before, in charge of piloting
the day-by-day maneuvers. Paul had the additional responsibility of
making dutiful progress reports virtually every day to his
grandmother. She, in turn, discussed the campaign every day with
Andrew.
Andrew was deeply involved. He had begun work on his book on
robots--he was going back to the very beginning, to Lawrence
Robertson and the founding of United States Robots and Mechanical
Men--but he put the project aside, now, and spent his time poring
over the mounting stacks of legal documents. He even, at times,
offered a few very different suggestions of his own.
To Little Miss he said, "George told me the day those two men
were harassing me that human beings have always been afraid of
robots. ' A disease of mankind,' is what he called it. As long as that is
the case, it seems to me that the courts and the legislatures aren't
likely to do very much on behalf of robots. Robots have no political
power, after all, and people do. Shouldn't something be done about
changing the human attitude toward robots, then?"
"If only we could."
"We have to try," Andrew said. "George has to try."
"Yes," said Little Miss. "He does, doesn't he?"
So while Paul stayed in court, it was George who took to the
public platform. He gave himself up entirely to the task of
campaigning for the civil rights of robots, putting all of his time and
energy into it.
George had always been a good speaker, easy and informal, and
now he became a familiar figure at conventions of lawyers and
teachers and holo-news editors, and on every opinion show on the
a
a
T
T
n
n
s
s
F
F
f
f
o
o
D
D
r
r
P
P
m
m
Y
Y
e
e
Y
Y
r
r
B
B
2
2
.
.
B
B
A
A
Click here to buy
Click here to buy
w
w
m
m
w
w
o
o
w
w
c
c
.
.
.
.
A
A
Y
Y
B
B
Y
Y
B
B
r r
public airwaves, setting forth the case for robot rights with an
eloquence that grew steadily with experience.
The more time George spent on public platforms and in the
communications studios, the more relaxed and yet commanding a
figure he became. He allowed his side-whiskers to grow again, and
swept his hair--white, now--backward in a grandiose plume. He even
indulged in the new style of clothing that some of the best-known
video commentators were going in for, the loose, flowing style known
as "drapery." Wearing it made him feel like a Greek philosopher, he
said, or like a member of the ancient Roman Senate.
Paul Charney, who was generally a good deal more conservative
in his ways than his father, warned him the first time he saw his
father rigged out like that: "Just take care not to trip over it on stage,
Dad;"
''I'll try not to," said George.
The essence of his pro-robot argument was this:
"If, by virtue of the Second Law, we can demand of any robot
unlimited obedience in all respects not involving harm to a human
being, then any human being, any human being at all, has a fearsome
power over any robot, any robot. In particular, since Second Law
overrides Third Law, any human being can use the law of obedience
to defeat the law of self-protection. He can order the robot to damage
itself or even destroy itself for any reason, or for no reason
whatsoever--purely on whim alone.
"Let us leave the question of property rights out of the
discussion here --though it is not a trivial one--and approach the issue
simply on the level of sheer human decency. Imagine someone
approaching a robot he happens to encounter on the road and
ordering it, for no reason other than his own amusement, to remove
its own limbs, or to do some other grave injury to itself. Or let us say
that the robot's owner himself, in a moment of pique or boredom or
frustration, gives such an order.
"Is this just? Would we treat an animal like that? And an
animal, mind you, might at least have the capacity to defend itself. But
we have made our robots inherently unable to lift a hand against a
human being.
"Even an inanimate object which has given us good service has a
claim on our consideration. And a robot is far from insensible; it is
not a simple machine and it is not an animal. It can think well enough
to enable it to speak with us, reason with us, joke with us. Many of us
who have lived and worked with robots all our lives have come to
regard them as friends --virtually as members of our families, I dare
say. We have deep respect for them, even affection. Is it asking too
much to want to give our robot friends the formal protection of law?
"If a man has the right to give a robot any order that does not
involve doing harm to a human being, he should have the decency
never to give a robot any order that involves doing harm to a robot--
a
a
T
T
n
n
s
s
F
F
f
f
o
o
D
D
r
r
P
P
m
m
Y
Y
e
e
Y
Y
r
r
B
B
2
2
.
.
B
B
A
A
Click here to buy
Click here to buy
w
w
m
m
w
w
o
o
w
w
c
c
.
.
.
.
A
A
Y
Y
B
B
Y
Y
B
B
r r
unless human safety absolutely requires such action. Certainly a
robot should not lightly be asked to do purposeless harm to itself.
With great power goes great responsibility. If the robots have the
Three Laws to protect humans, is it too much to ask that humans
subject themselves to a law or two for the sake of protecting robots?"
There was, of course, another side to the issue--and the
spokesman for that side was none other than James Van Buren, the
lawyer who had opposed Andrew's original petition for free-robot
status in the Regional Court. He was old, now, but still vigorous, a
powerful advocate of traditional social beliefs. In his calm, balanced,
reasonable way, Van Buren was once again a forceful speaker on [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]