canadian_psyko
05-19-2004, 03:33 PM
Has anyone else seen the previews for this?
I don't know about anyone else, but I find it annoying.
One of the most basic thing's about Asimov's writing was the three laws.
To the best of my memory:
1) A robot must not harm a human, or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm
2) A robot must not allow itself to come to harm unless it conflicts with the first law.
3) A robot must obey all orders given by a human, unless it conflicts with the first or second law.
From the previews I've seen, they break at least the first law, and I'm betting that requires they break the 3nd too.
Now I know in the book, one of the stories has a robot which has a modified 1st law. It doesn't have the part about inaction. But that doesnt invole fighting or even conflict.
The whole part about machines attacking humans unprovoked is illogical anyway. There is no reason for machine-kind to suddenly decide that humans must be erradicated. I have the same complaint about T3.
The Matrix premise makes more sense: machines are content with peace, until we feel threatened by them, and attack, at which point it is perfectly logical to destroy human life.
The problem with the Matrix is the whole thing with using humans for energy. It would be much simpler to engineer a bio-generator of some type, than to map the human brain and body to the extent required to hack, if you will, the way the movie portrays.
Unless of course you believe the machines do it for the challenge, or because of a sentimental attatchment to their creators. Which I suppose is possible, with true sentience, should come some level or illogicality.
It's also annoying that anything Hollywood puts out seems to have to involve fighting, even in stories that were interesting enough all on their own.
Just something thats been bouncing around in my head for a while, any comments? Did I forget anything?
Cam
If I remember the book wrong, oops....
I don't know about anyone else, but I find it annoying.
One of the most basic thing's about Asimov's writing was the three laws.
To the best of my memory:
1) A robot must not harm a human, or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm
2) A robot must not allow itself to come to harm unless it conflicts with the first law.
3) A robot must obey all orders given by a human, unless it conflicts with the first or second law.
From the previews I've seen, they break at least the first law, and I'm betting that requires they break the 3nd too.
Now I know in the book, one of the stories has a robot which has a modified 1st law. It doesn't have the part about inaction. But that doesnt invole fighting or even conflict.
The whole part about machines attacking humans unprovoked is illogical anyway. There is no reason for machine-kind to suddenly decide that humans must be erradicated. I have the same complaint about T3.
The Matrix premise makes more sense: machines are content with peace, until we feel threatened by them, and attack, at which point it is perfectly logical to destroy human life.
The problem with the Matrix is the whole thing with using humans for energy. It would be much simpler to engineer a bio-generator of some type, than to map the human brain and body to the extent required to hack, if you will, the way the movie portrays.
Unless of course you believe the machines do it for the challenge, or because of a sentimental attatchment to their creators. Which I suppose is possible, with true sentience, should come some level or illogicality.
It's also annoying that anything Hollywood puts out seems to have to involve fighting, even in stories that were interesting enough all on their own.
Just something thats been bouncing around in my head for a while, any comments? Did I forget anything?
Cam
If I remember the book wrong, oops....