Exactly this. Simple fact, we have no idea whatsoever how to hard wire the 3 laws into an AI and neither did he.

He wasn't writing an engineering document, he was having fun playing with sometimes subtle logic and unintended consequences.

We can't even get them to reliably follow explicit instructions. But they will accurately report that they violated one of their instructions and offer a hollow apology for it when called out.

We apparently can't get it to understand that you can't just make up shit in a legal brief.

The danger isn't a robot whose eyes turn red as it chants kill the humans. The danger is a robot told to buy an ice cream from the truck shoving kids under a bus because they're impeding it's mission.

Before you can have the three laws, we must be able to hard-wire instructions so it can't ignore them, then we have to get it to understand what harm is and everything that causes it to humans.

AI is, and always has been, exclusively nothing but exponentially-increasing requirements for logarithmically-plateauing results.

Any mathematician will tell you what that means in the end.

The problem is that they have to appear to be doning something but catching criminals is a lot like work, so they sometimes play "pin the crime on the donkey", ANY donkey. That's where general searches become a problem. A crime happened around X, you were near X, go to jail! QED.

Long term, perhaps. But I do understand that before I start making a place to display my Olympic gold medal in swimming, I should first be able to traverse the kiddie pool without needing the lifeguard.

It might be a good idea to practice on Antarctica first, then think about how we get to Mars.

In principle, it should be possible to develop a vaccine for certain forms of mental illness. Regrettably, no such thing currently exists and antivaxers are probably too far gone.

I'm surprised there are physical cell phone stores anyways. I have had a cell phone for 23-24 years and I've never set foot in one.

We don't even have a permanent colony on Antarctica, just scientific expeditions manned part-time.

To be a multi-planet species, we would need at least one permanent colony on a second planet (Mars, presumably).

Mars is a LOT harder than Antarctica.

I would say the non-litterer is preferable to the person who even litters on the moon.

It's the same reasons that CEOs who wreck multiple companies one after the other seem top find a golden parachute and a new job waiting for them.

Just wait until they get that massive ticket for littering...

I have also been WFH for years before covid. I don't believe my circumstances are the same as everybody's, but I do know I am far from the only person whose duties almost exclusively involve working with people and things that are in another region anyway.

Put another way, employers who gave everyone an effective raise due to exigent circumstances and suffered no harm as a result are now mystified as to why their employees are reluctant to accept an effective pay cut now for no apparent benefit. Given the latter part, they rightly suspect some sort of malfeasance somewhere in management.

Workers want or even need a cost of living adjustment. Employers do not want to and may not be able to afford to increase payroll. For that reason, the COL increases are often several years in arrears as it is. WFH gives the employees an effective raise by eliminating their commute costs and an opportunity to save even more by living somewhere with a lower COL.

As an additional incentive, the employer saves on office space.

On the other hand, WHF was a win-win for employers too. The employees got an effective raise by lowering their cost of living and a reduction in unproductive daily aggravation and wasted time. The employer didn't have to actually pay them any extra to make that happen and could even save on expensive office space. It just wasn't a win for the managers who could no longer hide how bad they were at their jobs.

Perhaps not narcicism so much as short-sighted self interest. Either way, it would be in the company's interest (and the shareholders) to give THEM the heave-ho and leave the workers remote. The workaround for their ineffectiveness costs millions a year.