Talk:Robot ethics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:15, 27 September 2014

Robotics Start‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Philosophy: Ethics / Science Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science

How exactly does robotics by itself unify science and humanities?

"Robotics de facto unifies the so called two cultures, science and humanities..." I don't see how... explain your reasons to state that please. guessing that you wanted to say that "Roboethics unify..." instead of "Robotics unify..."?

Asimov?

How does this article get away with not mentioning Isaac Asimov's Three Laws which is the cornerstone of the entire subject of Roboethics? All work in this field is the result of discussion, criticism, modification or improvement (and even rejection) of Asimov's original ideas. Its like an article about gravity not mentioning Newton! Roger (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed

Include any missing info (esp Asimov, future etc.)
refs
check content
reassess after work done

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links not sufficiently relevant

This article has a large collection of external links relative to its length, and I think some of them are only tangentially relevant. I like the organizations, but I think they belong in other articles. In particular, I'd propose to remove at least these: The Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology, Union of Concerned Scientists, The International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Humanity+. Does anyone have objections? Brian Tomasik (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture

I believe that in this section, something ought to be said about the recent Spike Jonze film "Her", and its relevance to the subject.--67.1.164.146 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 This article has a large collection of external links relative to its length, and I think some of them are only tangentially relevant. I like the organizations, but I think they belong in other articles. In particular, I'd propose to remove at least these: The Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology, Union of Concerned Scientists, The International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Humanity+. Does anyone have objections? [[User:Brian Tomasik|Brian Tomasik]] ([[User talk:Brian Tomasik|talk]]) 07:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
+== In Popular Culture ==
+I believe that in this section, something ought to be said about the recent Spike Jonze film "Her", and its relevance to the subject.--[[Special:Contributions/67.1.164.146|67.1.164.146]] ([[User talk:67.1.164.146|talk]]) 02:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)