[jMyles]

The article doesn't directly talk about robot-to-human violence, but presumably if root access at the software layer allows absolutely any command, it is possible to cause the described botnet to physically attack humans.

I realize that Azimov's three rules are subject to enormous ethical quandaries and rethinkings (and that this is after all the point of them in the first place), but is there some disadvantage to having a hardwired command, at the core of the command hierarchy, that forces robots to relent if a human says "stop, you're hurting me" in any language?

Presumably police, gangs, cartels and militaries who have robot fantasies won't like this, but on medium to long time scales we need to prevent them from using robots anyway (and eventually dismantle them entirely).

[SamaraMichi]

The Three laws of Robotics seem to be a good idea though in reality, as Asimov portrayed in his works, are nothing more than fallible plot device.

The nuance a humanoid machine intelligence needs is way above what the current state of the art is capable of. Ultimately, we need each autonomous robot's action to fall back to a real human for accountability purposes, just as heavy machine operators today.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[yourpaltod]

> The article doesn't directly talk about robot-to-human violence,

This one does: https://takeonme.org/gcves/GCVE-1337-2025-000000000000000000...

> Imagine a scenario where one robot is placed in range of a sufficiently motivated attacker, such as a hostage situation or a bomb defusing (both being reported uses of Unitree robots). The attacker could take complete control of the robot, then walk the robot toward other similarly vulnerable robots, and automatically place those robots under the attacker’s control as soon as they’re in range of the Patient Zero robot.

> Robots compromised in this way can endanger the lives, health, and property of their authorized operators and bystanders, as well as serve as traditional bastion hosts for more subtle surveillance or further pure-cyber attacks, for less violently-minded attackers.

[bonoboTP]

Imagine a ransomware that makes your household robot put you in a chokehold physically until you pay.