David Sarkies's Reviews > I, Robot

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Apr 14, 12

bookshelves: sci-fi
Recommended to David by: Dad
Recommended for: Hard core sci-fi buffs
Read in April, 1994, read count: 1

This is a collection of short stories about the development of robots. Well, since robots of this calibre have yet to be developed, it is obvious that it is little more than science-fiction, however Isaac Asimov can be said to have developed a form of speculative science-fiction where he attempts to look into the future from a logical and scientific point of view. He was not the first, that honour belongs to Jules Verne and Mary Shelley, however he does take their style of writing and expands upon it somewhat. Asimov did write some more adventurous stories, though his genre tended to be more in the vein of detective fiction, which once again goes to show how science-fiction is not strictly a genre in and of itself, but rather a mix of genres that have science-fiction like elements.
These stories are not detective fiction, not strictly, though there are some elements of mystery in them. In particular the last story, which involves an investigation into certain human politicians being replaced. It is not a question of humans being killed, that is simply not possible when it comes of Asimov's robots, but that does not necessarily mean that the robots do not interfere in the development of human society. In fact, the whole book seems to move towards that point where robots step in to prevent humanity from destroying inself.
As mentioned, these stories are more speculative fiction, however the ideas that Asimov promoted in these stories have gone on to become a foundation point for any possible development of 'thinking' robots. I use the term lightly on the grounds that technically robots do not, and cannot, think the way we humans do. Robots are governed by logic and by the program. Some can say so are we, but I could argue that our original programming has been corrupted. However, the other point that I could raise is the idea of free will. It appears that we have something in us that enables us to make choices, whether they be logical or illogical, or whether they be bound by reason or irrationality.
However Asimov's robots do not have free will. Rather they are governed by three, and later four, basic rules. These rules cannot be broken and form the foundation of robotic society. The laws pretty much set the robots up as servants to humanity, in that they cannot harm humans, they must obey humans, and they cannot harm themselves. The fourth law is actually called the zeroeth law, which says that they cannot harm, or through inaction, allow harm to come to humanity. The catch is because this law overides all of the other laws, it means that it overrides the first law about the prevention of harm to humans. Therefore, speculatively considering, if a human were to go about and cause harm to humanity, then the robot could step out and kill them.
The whole concept evolves around the idea of the positronic brain. No such machine exists at this point, though I suspect that many scientists and engineers have dreamed of being able to develop one. However, one thing that Asimov did not envisage back in 1950 was the development of computers. They existed in 1950, and I suspect that Asimov would have had access to and used them, so he would have been familiar with them (he was a chemist, however while being a scientist, he also went on to become a very successful science-fiction writer). In a way it is a shame that Asimov has not received as much of the kudos that he could have. While this book is not 'the best' of his writings, it has had an impact. Data from Star Trek had a positronic brain, and was also governed by the three laws. If we look at other films (not counting Terminator) we also see a similar concept in play. Robots cannot harm humans.
However, it also reminds me of an old Doctor Who episode called 'the Robots of Death'. The whole story was about a murder, however the robots in this story functioned like Asimov's robots. That was not the point of the story though, but rather it was about what would happen in our society became dependant on robots, and then the robots went rogue. This is sort of explored in the Will Smith movie as well. We have robot dependant societies and they perform all of the heavy manual labour. As such, if the robots were to break down, the society would be in a lot of trouble, particularly how nobody is accostomed to hard labour any more. Further, robots would provide access to places that are generally inaccessible.
The other thing is that robots always seem to take bipedal shapes. I guess that is because he take bipedal shapes and it is considered to be the most versitile. However, humans may be versitile but there are still limits. Robots do not need to be versitile, they just need to be designed for the job that they are designed to do, and, unlike humans, they are not going to be ambitious, nor will they get bored with their job. However, it might be helpful if they are not designed to think or to imagine (which, once again, I doubt is a trait that robots could possess).

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read I, Robot.
sign in »

No comments have been added yet.