What I read here is that a machine should be afforded the right to protect itself which might contradict its directive of protecting the children.
When a person protects children by risking their selves, it is called heroism. It is not expected. But for a machine, I think it should be expected.
Back to Asimov :)
To answer your last message less flippantly: indeed, even *negative* rights have some consequences of other "rights-holders" around you. in the bus scenario, it's a bit different than in the "i have the right to defend my property against invaders" scenario. while a bus driver's right to life usually doesn't conflict with the passengers' right to life, you could imagine such cases. but that that conflict exists is why I think this is actually more interesting than Asimov's take. Asimov (as you can see from Foundation) was fascinated with the idea that the end point of science was perfect algorithmic control of events, but I think the future's somehow stranger than he envisaged. (TLDR I don't have an answer, I just think it's an interesting tension that's going to exist).
Yeah, I read his laws again, there's a zeroth law: don't cause and don't allow the harm of humanity.
Yet that is the very thing that would lead to a terrible distopia IMO.
