Wikipedia:Peer review/Three Laws of Robotics/archive1

Three Laws of Robotics
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

Article was previously at FAR and demoted and I feel that significant work has been done to get it back up to a reasonable standard.

Prior to a GAN or FAN I feel a peer review could bring to light any problems before it is listed for GA or FA.

Also I realise that I have listed it as Language and Literature, but it easily falls into the categories of social sciences & society as well as engineering & technology. If there is a way to put those other cats in I am unaware so chose langlit as the "best fit". Thanks, Chaosdruid (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a general observation that most of the article appears to be in-universe. It's a notable theoretical concept in robotics that has also been criticized, so it deserves to have most of the Asimov consistency check (was this canon? wasn't it?) removed, and replaced with more stuff about why the subject is important. Shii (tock) 00:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. I was wondering if you could explain what you meant by "so it deserves to have most of the Asimov consistency check (was this canon? wasn't it?) removed" - I particularly did not understand the Asimov consistency check referred to, nor in what particular version of definition the canon was to be applied: representing a field or accepted as authentic?
 * THe THree Laws have been fairly long in coming to their present state of acceptance as the SF robotics ethics standard, but realistically that is all they are. This is why there is 20% to their founding through Asimovs early years, 60% dedicated to development after their initial inception and 20% to their use in media and in present & future technology.
 * I thought that the applications of The Three Laws are not accepted as any real laws to be used by the field of AI in reality, and more as a base for discussion, was explained in the article. The section Three_Laws_of_Robotics has links to two "main" pages, Philosophy of artificial intelligence and Ethics of artificial intelligence, and a brief summary is in that section with examples of how the laws are looked on by two or three sectors, other SF writers and scientists. The section mainly deals with criticism of the laws actual application to technology, particularly the last paragraph: a quote by Woods.
 * I thought that the section was enough but welcome suggestions on how it might be added to. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant this: "2.1.1 First Law modified 2.1.2 Zeroth Law added 2.1.3 First Law derived differently by other Asimov Universe cultures 2.1.4 Removal of all Three Laws 2.1.5 Alternative definitions of "human"". I'm not entirely sure all this information is necessary, since Wikipedia is aimed at the general public and not Asimov fans solely. This is just my personal opinion and once this gets a full review you can hear someone else's opinion of how the article ought to look. Shii (tock) 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section "First law derived differently by..." - It was totally superfluous and unecessary as the information is better included in "First law modified". I have also changed "Alternative definition" to "Alternative perception" Chaosdruid (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)