Often I'd see an article about how someone (usually military) is doing some work that involves robots being used in military, and discussion around the laws of robotics would come up, usually to the tone of 'that'd violate the laws of robotics'. I find this word usage to be rather biazrre. The laws are just something Asimov made up. It's not like he was the first guy to invent sentinent robots and decreed that future robots should be built like this. If someone made a robot and it went on a shooting rampage the best you can say is that robot that didn't behave like what Asimov would like them to. It's not like some physical fundamental truth of the universe has been violated. And yet it seems like people use these laws in the same way as say a perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics (which does have very serious ramifications to our understanding of the universe).
Another law that comes to mind is Moore's Law. I'm pretty sure it's not a universal truth that the something has to double every 18 months, but a lot of time you'd see argument that sounds like if processor speed didn't double every 18 months then we don't really know the universe like we thought it did. Maybe these 'laws' need to be downgraded to 'observations'? But I guess 'Moore's Observation' wouldn't sound as cool as 'Moore's Law'.
Another law that comes to mind is Moore's Law. I'm pretty sure it's not a universal truth that the something has to double every 18 months, but a lot of time you'd see argument that sounds like if processor speed didn't double every 18 months then we don't really know the universe like we thought it did. Maybe these 'laws' need to be downgraded to 'observations'? But I guess 'Moore's Observation' wouldn't sound as cool as 'Moore's Law'.
