I'm not sure how Asimov intended them. But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics. Rules are fine as far as they go. But they don't go very far. We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology. Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object." Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets. There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets. Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns. But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment. An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail. It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*. The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
