So first off, Asimov's entire point was these laws don't work. But also the entire setup of the trolley problem means that the robots only option is to violate 1. by either pulling or not-pulling the lever (though the server case is different - at least in the philosophical interpretation - I can easily see Asimov justifying it by saying that destroying the train-control-robot is going to cause a lot of human beings to come to harm).

> A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

The trolley problem with this would be an Asimov story (it's pretty close already). Pulling the lever injures a human, not pulling the lever allows a human being to come to harm via inaction. The positronic robot probably ends up stuck trying to pull and not pull the lever at the same time.

>A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

I mean, you don't have to be a famed sci-fi writer to understand that this is a great setup for logical contradictions lol

The essence of these laws are much more interesting than these laws themselves. I imagine, in reality, the "best" robot policy would be one where it is effectively just "maximize utility" and that's it. Obviously, naively, that's no good (re: paperclip problem), but some sensible formulation of robotics laws would almost always need to be in the form of a maximization/minimization problem (or perhaps a min-max problem).

you forgot to add "no mistakes"

A lesson I am drawing from my testing is that if one of these rules has to be evaluated by the robot, at all, we should take over for it.

Inverse laws for humans, when interacting with robots

1. Do not humanize the Ai

2. Do not blindly trust output from the Ai

3. Humans are to remain ultimately responsible and accountable for actions of the Ai

adapted / paraphrased from

https://susam.net/inverse-laws-of-robotics.html