Do we need Asimov's Laws?

In this essay the stance on robots is discussed. The attitude against robots in history, starting in Ancient Greek culture until the industrial revolution is described. The uncanny valley and some possible explanations are given. Some differences in Western and Asian understanding of robots are listed and finally we answer the question raised with the title. Robots and autonomous machines are very often central characters in science fiction literature and movies. A very common plot in this regard are machines that are going crazy or even taking over the rule about mankind. This essay is dealing with the question, why robots are characterized like this so frequently and we will discuss that this was not always the case in history. The notion ’robot’ goes back to a play written by Karel Čapek in 1924 ([Č N04]). Robota is the Czech word for forced labour and it became introduced into English and many other languages by this play. Already here, so to speak, in the cradle of robotic culture, the robots took over the world and nearly destroyed mankind. One of the best known science fiction authors, Peter Asimov, did not like the usual ’Frankenstein’ pattern: a robot was created and at the end destroyed by his creator1 – he explained this in the introduction of [Asi64] in 1964. This is why he introduced his famous three laws of robotics in [Asi42]: 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 to 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 Laws. 1 We will see later on that we should better call this the ’Golem’ pattern