Asimov’s Laws of Robotics
   In his novel I, Robot (1942), Russian-born science fiction writer Isaac Asimov posited that the development of robotics would have to include a series of interconnected programming laws designed to keep robots from harming their human masters. The “Three Laws of Robotics” were:
   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, except where such protection would conflict with the First or Second Laws.
   Asimov later reconsidered and added a fourth law, widely referred to as the “Zeroth Law”
   0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
   Many science fiction writers since have referred to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics in there own works, but the laws are actually both unrealistic and simplistic (though of course they are only considered to be humanistic explanations of the actual programming the robots receive). Certainly, they do not fit in with the history of the development of neural networks and artificial intelligence. (The crude AIs that already exist in the modern day have no such programming, for example.)
  Instead of Asimov’s Laws, the future of robotics might more accurately include core programming designed to give a robot a basic grasp of ethics, morality, and consequences (each of which is, of course, somewhat subjective). Supplied with an understanding of these concepts, the average robot of the future should easily be just as ethical, moral, and aware of consequence as the average human being. Some could be better, some could be worse, but none are likely to have programming that prevents them from acting (or not acting) as they see fit.
  Of course, when a robot sees fit to inflict harm on human beings, or to stand by when human being are harmed, responsibility for the robot’s decisions is more likely to fall squarely on the shoulder of the robot’s programmers and owners-much like responsibility falls on the owners of a particularly vicious dog that attacks and injures someone.