?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Page | Next Page

Parasha: I Robot: November 18th reading


And Asimov is kind enough to add a quick blurb that addresses one of my concerns last time... apparently the journalist is "embellishing" the stories to make them more real. :p Well then.

Another First Law story, and does anyone else think that modifying the First Law is a strikingly bad idea, and the start down a slippery slope?

Also I'm troubled frankly by the casual idea of just destroying so many, well, *people* with above-human intelligence and obvious self-awareness, abstract thinking, etc., and the only objection is to cost. *shudder*

The story's also showing its age a bit, since these days most sci-fi seems to be along the lines of trying to give at least reasonable-on-first-blush theories on why/how stuff works, but here we just get the names of different concepts, and it's left at that. And then there's the lovely dated concepts of women who don't even know what all the nasty obscene words *mean*. ;) (As opposed to me, who would probably be explaining some of them to some of the guys...)

As for the story itself, it's interesting enough, playing around with the First Law. I'll admit my first thought was "well just put a human in a situation where he'd seem to be harmed by inaction, and see which one doesn't react, duh!" But I didn't think about the fact that a robot trying to hide would fake it. Oops! So they way they get around it at least is intriguing.

I just wish I found Susan Calvin more sympathetic as a character after her Harpy Meltdown last story. Ah well!


The schedule again, linky!

Comments

khedron
Nov. 19th, 2009 03:54 am (UTC)
That one was pretty good. Tricksy, and actually about the interplay of the Three Laws, unlike some of the stories.

I also wish that Susan Calvin were less of a, well, harpy, as you said it. Although I totally agree with her disgust for Bogert, after that last story, she's not a completely sympathetic character.

Also I'm troubled frankly by the casual idea of just destroying so many, well, *people* with above-human intelligence and obvious self-awareness, abstract thinking, etc., and the only objection is to cost. *shudder*

I'm afraid my thought was, "What, only $30,000 apiece! How is this even a question, if this organization is getting 80% of all science funding?" With each story, the robots become more and more sentient, I agree. But, the pragmatic thing in story-terms, I think, was to get rid of the Nestors lest public outcry if this came out caused a global reaction to all robots. That's what I thought was implied, at least.

Cute writing this time: "In his stained white smock, he was half rebellious and wholly uncertain."