“The exciting new effort to make computers think . . . machines with minds, in the full and literal sense”[1]
Previously, we talked about Robbie, our little caregiver, and Cutie, our first robo-philosopher, remember? Now we want you to meet our dear friend, Speedy, aka SPD-13; this new and improved friend has been mentioned as one of the fastest robots in I, Robot Series. Speedy’s story is significant because it is the first story where Asimov cohesively presents the Three Laws of Robotics as a unified set.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Once upon a time, there was a scorching planet called Mercury in a galaxy not so far, far away. Two engineers, Mike and Gregory, are on a mission to determine if a previously failed mission can be continued with the help of robots. However, Speedy has gotten out of hand and starts running around the selenium pool. Because Speedy is a new and quite an expensive robot to build and has been programmed to pay more attention to the Third Law than other robots might. Speedy’s behavior, akin to a stagger, results from the conflicting priorities of obeying human orders and avoiding self-harm, as it nears the selenium pool, which poses a danger. So, Danger, Will Robinson![2]
Therefore, as he approaches at a certain distance to the selenium pool, Rule 3 comes into force, but Speedy needs to follow all three laws. Speedy’s dilemma is a result of the conflicting demands of the Second and Third Laws of Robotics, exposing the tension within Asimov’s famous Three Laws. Speedy is sent to retrieve selenium from a dangerous pool, but as he nears the pool, his Third Law—the one that compels a robot to protect its own existence—kicks in because the area is hazardous. At the same time, the Second Law commands him to obey the human order to collect selenium. The closer he gets to the danger, the more his Third Law asserts itself, pulling him away. This back-and-forth between two equally powerful rules causes Speedy to circle aimlessly, caught in an equilibrium between obeying orders and protecting himself. This situation highlights a crucial limitation of the Three Laws: their rigidity. While the laws are designed in a hierarchical fashion—First Law supersedes the Second, and the Second supersedes the Third—Asimov shows that when certain conditions are met, the balance between the laws can lead to indecision or paralysis, especially in ambiguous situations.
In Speedy’s case, no single law takes precedence because the danger isn’t lethal enough to activate the First Law (which prevents harm to humans), but it is serious enough to create an endless loop between the Second and Third Laws. Therefore, the incident with Speedy showcases the inherent difficulty of programming ethics and decision-making into machines. The Three Laws were intended as a comprehensive safeguard against robotic autonomy running amok, ensuring that robots remain servants to humans and always prioritize human safety. However, this incident demonstrates that even with carefully formulated rules, unexpected situations can arise in which a robot’s response is not only ineffective but dangerous. This illustrates the core philosophical tension in Asimov’s robot stories: while robots are programmed to follow strict ethical principles, those principles can fail when applied to the unpredictability of the real world. Hence, the story invites readers to question whether any system of control—whether over robots or other forms of technology—can ever be truly reliable. Even systems designed with the best intentions, like the Three Laws, are subject to the limitations of human foresight and the complexities of the universe.
Monotheist religions like Christianity believe that humans are special; hence, they have the ‘supremacy’ to embed and implement morals into robots, e.g., three laws.[3] Humanity – or the Western part- was always afraid of robots.[4] Hence, Frankenstein, Frankenstein Complex, Uncanny Valley. So, Asimov established these rules for robots to make them socially acceptable and maintain a safe relationship between machines and humans. But when you look at the syntax of these rules, it gives the impression that Asimov aimed for humans to be superior to robots, so humans would rule and control robots. Did you know that the term ‘robot’ derives from the Czech word robota, which means forced labor?[5] However, this surface reading belies the more intricate intentions behind Asimov’s design of the Three Laws and his broader critique of rigid systems of control.
Asimov introduced the Three Laws of Robotics not merely to depict robots as obedient servants but to highlight the complexities and limitations of trying to govern robotic behavior through a strict legalistic framework. Asimov was less interested in creating a vision of robotic servitude and more focused on illustrating that robotic behavior cannot be fully controlled or predicted by simple rules—even rules as well-thought-out as the Three Laws. Speedy’s dilemma in Runaround serves as a prime example of this: despite being bound by the laws, Speedy’s actions demonstrate the unpredictability and conflict that can arise when rigid systems interact with complex environments. Also, Asimov sought to challenge the “Frankenstein Complex”—the fear that robots or creations of human technology would inevitably turn against their creators. By crafting robots governed by logical, ethical principles, Asimov aimed to portray them as inherently safe and loyal, so long as they adhered to the Three Laws. In this sense, his robots are not “enslaved” but rather depicted as designed with a fail-safe to prevent harm to humans, a stark contrast to traditional depictions of robots or machines as dangerous. This shifts the narrative away from robots being objects of fear or rebellion and toward a more nuanced exploration of their ethical responsibilities and limitations. Therefore, while Asimov’s robots are certainly bound by rules that make them serve humans, it is not so much a portrayal of enslavement as it is an exploration of how robots might exist within a framework designed to protect humanity and themselves from the dangers of unregulated autonomy. A more balanced discussion should consider both the servitude aspect and Asimov’s larger purpose in showing the limitations and safeguards inherent in robotic behavior, particularly his intention to challenge the darker fears surrounding artificial intelligence.
Furthermore, the genius of Asimov’s Three Laws lies in their entanglement, a deliberate interweaving that reflects the inherent complexities of robotic behavior. It’s as if Asimov foresaw the ambiguities that could emerge from the ‘black box’—the mysterious, often opaque inner workings of artificial intelligence. Long before AI became a tangible reality, Asimov was already wrestling with its potential dangers. He anticipated that the opacity of decision-making processes in intelligent systems might one-day present unforeseen risks. One might even imagine Asimov sitting down to write, envisioning a world where robots are not just tools, but partners in human endeavors. What if, he thought, a robot misinterpreted an order or decided that no human could fully comprehend? In this world of infinite possibilities, the “black box” looms large. It is the point at which human understanding meets the limits of technological control, where a robot’s internal processes become as mysterious as the human subconscious.
To prevent the potential for catastrophe, Asimov crafted the Three Laws in such a way that they would be both entangled and hierarchical. The First Law prevents harm to humans—was a protective umbrella. But as he designed the Second Law (obedience to humans) and the Third Law (self-preservation), he knew that these rules could not exist in isolation. They would need to pull against each other like the gears of a machine, constantly balancing safety, autonomy, and service. However, why the three laws of robotics are a one-way-street? Why there isn’t a set of rules for humans organizes their behaviour towards humans? At this very crucial point, there comes the Zeroth Law stating that “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” The Zeroth Law introduces a fundamental tension: it raises questions about utilitarian ethics, in which the good of the many can override the good of the few. This allows robots to make decisions where they might harm an individual human if it serves the greater good of humanity. It also challenges the original hierarchy of the laws by placing humanity’s collective well-being above the absolute sanctity of an individual’s life.
Alright, enough with the legal talk, let’s go back to Speedy. Speedy reaches a deadlock struggling to choose between its programmed orders and laws until circumstances change. I think that what Asimov is trying to underline is how human rationality and machine rationality differs. So, let’s explain how Speedy or Mike and Gregory’s decisions regarding our story would vary based on the rational choice theory.[6] This theory states that individuals use their self-interests to make choices that will benefit the most significantly. So Speedy will construct decisions by mathematical functions and try to optimize the best outcome.[7] Remember what HAL said?
“No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.”[8]
However, since Speedy depends on data, this data is provided by humans, including three laws of robotics. On the other hand, Speedy can detect the danger around the selenium pool through its high-tech devices. So, the collected data and uploaded data conflict. Hence, Speedy could not succeed in making a rational choice here that will break the vicious runaround because of conflicting laws. Mike and Gregory are only humans; we use brains for their intelligence, and brains get tired. Moreover, the brain cannot make the calculations to make the most rational choice. Obviously, Mike and Gregory have failed to make the rational choice by not considering the possible dangers around the selenium pool, which affect Speedy.
On one hand, Asimov may try to show us that rules should be in greater detail and length if we need laws to regulate robots. On the other hand, it could be argued that more detailed and extensive rules might actually introduce new complications rather than solve the problem. The more granular and complex the laws become, the greater the risk of contradictions, misinterpretations, or ethical loopholes. Asimov’s stories demonstrate that even with seemingly simple laws, robots face paradoxes and unintended consequences. Over-regulating robots might create a rigid system incapable of adapting to unforeseen circumstances, much like how bureaucracy can stifle human decision-making. Moreover, it’s not about enslaving robots, but ensuring human safety in a world where robots might possess intelligence and physical power far beyond our own. Rules, in this sense, are safeguards, not shackles—necessary to prevent harm in the absence of emotional or moral intuition in machines. Without clear, enforceable boundaries, robots might unintentionally cause harm, even when aiming to do good. In this view, strict rules aren’t enslavement but a responsible measure for ethical governance.
So, when one reads the story of Speedy, it seems that humans’ less rational decisions and the entangled laws are what caused Speedy to become trapped in the runaround. So, who will save Speedy? Will it be the robot’s own logic, or our human moral understanding?
[1] J. Haugeland, (Ed.), “Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea” (1985, MIT Press.)
[2] In Lost in Space, the quote “Danger, Will Robinson!” is a recurring phrase spoken by the Robot, often used to warn the young protagonist of impending threats. This iconic line became synonymous with the character’s protective nature and is widely recognized as a cultural reference to imminent danger or caution.
[3] Joi Ito, “Why Westerners Fear Robots and the Japanese Do Not” (2018, Wired) < https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-robot-overlords/>
[4] Joi Ito, “Why Westerners Fear Robots and the Japanese Do Not” (2018, Wired) < https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-robot-overlords/>
[5] Karel Čapek’s R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), first published in 1920, is a seminal work in science fiction, introducing the term “robot” to the world. The play explores themes of industrialization, artificial life, and the potential consequences of creating intelligent machines to serve humanity. It is often cited as one of the earliest works to critique the ethics of automation and the exploitation of artificial beings (Čapek, 1920).
[6] Tshilidzi Marwala, ‘Human vs Machine Rationality’, Rational Machines and Artificial Intelligence (Elsevier 2021) <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B978012820676800003X> accessed 1 July 2022.
[7] Marwala (n 1).
[8] In 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL says this in a conversation with Dr. Dave Bowman and Dr. Frank Poole. The context is HAL discussing the reliability and infallibility of the HAL 9000 series computers, emphasizing that no HAL 9000 has ever made a mistake or distorted information.
Habibe Deniz Seval
Habibe Deniz Seval is a PhD candidate in Law at the University of Ottawa Centre for Law, Technology, and Society. She is also a Geek and SciFi editor of DigiCon.
