No, only the first one (supposing they haven’t invented the zeroth law, and that they have an adequate definition of human); the other two are to make sure robots are useful and that they don’t have to be repaired or replaced more often than necessary…
Remove the first law and the only thing preventing a robot from harming a human if it wanted to would be it being ordered not to or it being unable to harm the human without damaging itself. In fact, even if it didn’t want to it could be forced to harm a human if ordered to, or if it was the only way to avoid being damaged (and no one had ordered it not to harm humans or that particular human).
Remove the second or third laws, and the robot, while useless unless it wanted to work and potentially self destructive, still would be unable to cause any harm to a human (provided it knew it was a human and its actions would harm them, and it wasn’t bound by the zeroth law).
They never were intended to. They were specifically designed to torment Powell and Donovan in amusing ways. They intentionally have as many loopholes as possible.
But what if you’re just imagining or dreaming that you’re doubting…? How do you even know you are the thing that’s doubting…? “You” could be a spurious Boltzmann brain, randomly manifested out of quantic chaos, in a state resembling that of a person doubting their own existence, for a mere Planck instant before dissolving back into the chaos from whence you emerged…
You are suggesting that piracy eventually leads to profit.
Provided the product is something people want, yeah. If not, at the very least it won’t decrease profit. As I said it’s free marketing. Sharing. Word of mouth. Trying before you buy.
That’s not a definition of piracy.
No, it’s not, correct. I don’t know why you think I was attempting to define it, but to be clear I was replying to this rethoric question of yours, and disputing your implicit assertion that it subverts the means for a producer to profit off of a product (which it evidently doesn’t):
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
(This is the end of the previous paragraph; just putting this here because otherwise, at least in my client, the two quotes back to back look like they might be confusing to read; this probably is, too, but hopefully not as much.)
I am saying piracy is obtaining a digital product in an unauthorised manner to avoid paying for the product
No, piracy is the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. Of course dictionaries also include, at this point, definitions like (from Oxford’s) “the unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work” (which is clearly wrong, as it would include things that no one refers to as “piracy”, like plagiarism or copyright infringement) or yours (also wrong; that would be corporate espionage and sabotage; you might have been trying to say “obtaining a copy of a digital product…”), due to the concerted malicious efforts over several decades by IP lobbies to attack such a fundamental aspect of culture and of human nature as sharing (which is what is being attacked when the word “piracy” is used in this context) by labelling it with the same word as a particularly horrible crime.
I am ambivalent to piracy.
That’s horrible, tragic, and sad. Regardless of whether you’re using the correct definition or the malicious one.
it is up to content producers to combat it.
Sure, if by that you mean provide an affordable and more convenient alternative.
Though I’d argue that given that most of them (with exceptios such as Valve, which is doing an excellent work combating it, judging by the amount of unplayed games in the stereotypical Steam library) seem to prefer to make their customers’ experience worse (to the point of installing malware on their computers) such alternatives should, at this point, be forced through customer protection regulations.
but that’s not the topic I’m discussing
I wasn’t replying to whatever topic you were discussing (and at this point I neither remember what it was, nor care to), as I thought was evident by quoting a specific part of it I was replying to said specific part, to wit, your implicit (and clearly incorrect) assertion that “piracy” negatively affects profits.
Then for some reason you started talking about definitions, and here we are. 🤷♂️
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
Not really. Most people who “pirate” games or media wouldn’t have paid for them anyway.
As Gabe Newell said (and demonstrated with Steam), “piracy” is a service problem.
Give people an affordable and more convenient way of accessing said games or media (Steam, Spotify before it got enshittified, Netflix before it got enshittified and the market got fragmented beyond any reasonable usability), and we’ll happily stop “pirating”.
“Piracy” is free marketing (of course, this doesn’t work if your product isn’t worth its price, but bad products not earning money is a good way to improve overall quality), not theft. And without all the inconveniences of paid marketing. And often it’s a symptom that the way you’re selling your content is too inconvenient or overpriced for at least a fraction of your potential consumers, and thus needs to be fixed or improved (either voluntarily or through regulation).
You’re saying “piracy” subverts the means for a producer to profit off their product.
I’m saying the exact opposite: that it not only doesn’t do that, but in fact almost certainly increases said profits (and linking references to support said position).
And I’m absolutely not defending “piracy”. It shouldn’t exist, as its existence is a symptom of serious issues within the market. And getting rid of it is simple: just provide an affordable and more convenient alternative. Valve did it. Netflix and Spotify did it, for a while.
But, if said alternative doesn’t exist, “piracy” will happen, and it happening, while definitely a worse situation than said convenient and affordable option existing, will be more beneficial to both society and content producers than the absence of both.
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Why pay for an OpenAI subscription? (sh.itjust.works)
Excuse me, René (mander.xyz)
It seems so strange to me that we are locked in battle with providers mining our lives for whatever, and we have to work our asses off trying to stay anonymous, to the point of being denied service
or even pseudo-incriminated for attempting to maintain our own life....
After 100ish years, Graffiti becomes noteworthy (i.imgflip.com)
Ancient wisdom often sounds like common sense now that it is commomly taught. What is some ancient wisdom that we no longer teach because it was wrong?
This question inspired by this post..
no.. just no (lemmy.ca)
Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Why?? (mander.xyz)
Space is 2D, right? (lemmy.world)