Šo grāmatu izlasīju „Fantastikas pasaulē” sērijas lasīšanas projekta ietvaros. Par grāmatas kvalitāti pirms lasīšanas es ne mirkli nešaubījos, jo kā gan var šaubīties par stāstu krājumu, kuru esi lasījis desmitiem reižu. Pirmo reizi, kad man vēl nebija pat desmit gadu. Sākumā pārlasīju pāris reizes gadā, pēdējoreiz šajā gadsimtā lasīju pirms gadiem desmit.Ir trīs robotikas likumi:Pirmais. Robots nedrīkst darīt cilvēkam pāri vai ar savu bezdarbību pieļaut, ka cilvēkam tiek nodarīts ļaunums.Otrais. Robotam jāpaklausa cilvēka pavēlēm, izņemot gadījumus, kad šīs pavēles ir pretrunā ar Pirmo likumu.Trešais. Robotam jārūpējas par savu drošību, ja vien tas nav pretrunā ar Pirmo un Otro likumu.Šie trīs likumi ir tie, kas zinātniskās fantastikas cienītājam nāk prātā, izdzirdot vārdu robots. Šajā stāstu krājumā Azimovs parāda robotu attīstības vēsturi. No to pirmsākumiem divtūkstošo gadu sākumā līdz piecdesmit gadus attālai nākotnei, kad cilvēce ir izmainījusies līdz nepazīšanai.Deviņu stāstu mērķis ir pakāpeniski parādīt robotu tehnisko attīstību. Tas viss notiek, izmantojot sarunas ar Sjūzenu Kelvinu. Sjūzenai ir doktora grāds robotu psiholoģijā, un ar robotu - cilvēku attiecībām viņai ir bijusi saskarsme visu dzīvi. Savās atmiņās viņa izceļ galvenos robotikas pavērsiena punktus. No aizlieguma izmantot robotus uz Zemes līdz dienai, kad roboti faktiski pārņem Zemes ekonomikas kontroli.No bērnu dienām man ir paticis katrs no šiem stāstiem. Tie rosināja mani domāt par nākotni, kad līdzās cilvēkiem staigās mehānismi, kas gudrāki par viņiem pašiem, bet tomēr darīs visu, lai cilvēkiem būtu labi. Nav ko noliegt domāju, ka iespējams tādēļ nemaz nebūs jāstrādā, jo visu manā vietā darīs roboti. Nav jau tā, ka roboti manā dzīvē nebūtu ienākuši, bet es tomēr biju gaidījis ko vairāk kā parastu putekļsūcēju, kas pat neprot runāt. Arī tagad pārlasot grāmatu mani bērnības entuziasms joprojām nav atstājis. Grāmatu lasīju ar interesi, lai ar zinu viņu praktiski no galvas un joprojām ceru, ka reiz pienāks brīdis, kad tiks izgudrots cilvēkam draudzīgs Mākslīgais intelekts.Azimova pasaules cilvēkiem pret robotiem nav nekādu simpātiju. Pirmkārt, tie var atņemt darbu strādniekiem. Viņi ir it kā saprātīgi, bet nekad nevar zināt vai viņi tiešām ir cilvēkiem paklausīgi. Trīs robotikas likumi it kā nodrošina pašu robotu paklausību, bet nekad nevar zināt, vai zinātnieki kaut ko nenolaidīs greizi. Daļēji tajā iespējams saskatāmas sešdesmitajos ASV aktuālā rasisma atskaņas, bet vairāk cilvēku attieksme pret visu svešo.Paanalizējot smalkāk Azimova pasauli, redzam, ka cilvēku bažām ir pamats. Robotu pozitronu smadzenes ir daudz pārākas par cilvēkiem. Roboti to apzinās, un tikai Trīs likumi ir tie, kas notur viņus grožos. Var jau pārmest Azimovam, ka, iespējams, augstākam intelektam ne vienmēr ir tendence dominēt pār zemāka intelekta pārstāvjiem. Es personīgi nekad neesmu uzņēmies skudrupūžņa komandiera pienākumus. Taču šeit ja nebūtu šo likumu, tad roboti noteikti censtos pārņemt varu pasaulē. Trīs likumi padara šos robotus par cilvēces kalpiem, viņi eksistē tikai, lai palīdzētu cilvēkiem un nekam vairāk. Te nav runa par nekādu pašnoteikšanos un personības izpausmi, trīs likumi viņos dominē ne sliktāk kā golema mutē ieliktā viņa radītāja zīmīte.Paši trīs likumi, kurus autors nekautrējas saukt arī par laba cilvēka morāles kompasu, tuvāk aplūkojot, netur kritiku. Grāmatas sarakstīšanas laikā haosa teorija vēl bija tikai iedīgļa formā, un cilvēkiem joprojām šķita, ka, pieliekot nopietnas pūles, ir iespējams vismaz makroskopiskā pasaulē paredzēt notikumus līdz sīkumam. Par sistēmu bifurkāciju punktiem neviens neuztraucās. Realitātē Pirmais likums nozīmētu vien to, ka robots pēc tā iedarbināšanas uzkārtos, jo viņš fiziski nespētu ievērot pirmo likumu. Tai pat laikā robotam ir atļauts diezgan plaši interpretēt šo likumu būtību un nozīmi. Piemēram, stāstā „Pazudušais robots” rakstītais ļauj secināt, ka nolamājot robotu un noniecinot viņu, var diezgan ietekmēt robota uzvedību. „Riņķa deja” arī liecina, ka trīs likumu ievērošanas prioritāte tiek izvērtēta balstoties uz saņemto balss komandu. „Riņķa deja” un „Noķert trusi” parāda arī citu svarīgu Azimova robotu niansi, viņi neglabā log failus. Viņi neanalizē savu iepriekšējo darbību. Ja viņi to darītu, tad šo stāstu sižets nemaz nespētu attīstīties.Šie likumi no robota paredz arī, ka robots spēj atšķirt labu no ļauna tā rašanās brīdī. Jo ļaunums taču var būt visdažādākais, tad nu robotam ir jāpaceļas pāri fiziskajam ļaunumam un jāpievēršas arī morālajām traumām, piemēram, stāstā „Melis”. Tas savukārt paredz, ka robota pozitronu smadzenēs jābūt atrodamam milzīgam informācijas apjomam par cilvēkiem un pasauli vispār. Kā tas tiek panākts, to autors nestāsta. Taču stāsts „Loģika” nonāk pretrunā ar šo pieņēmumu. Jo te izriet, ka robotam nav pieejams nekas vairāk kā liels vārdu krājums un loģisku spriedumu veikšanas spēja ar brīvu apkārtējās pasaules interpretāciju. Nerunāsim nemaz par pašu galveno lietu, robotam ir tieši jāzina, ka viņš ir robots, citādi uz viņu likumi neattieksies vispār.Roboti lielākoties ir androīdi, tas būtu saprotams, ja viņiem nāktos strādāt cilvēku pasaulē, bet tā kā viņi strādā kosmosa stacijās uz asteroīdiem un citām planētām, tad šāda forma pāri funkcionalitātei izvēle ir visai interesanta. No literārā viedokļa skaidra lieta - ir vieglāk identificēties ar humanoīdu radījumu un piešķirt tam cilvēciskas īpašības. Pat likt iemīlēt kā stāstā „Robijs” vai radīt jauku stāstu „Pierādījums”, kur centrālā sižeta līnija analizē iespēju atšķirt cilvēku no robota.Par pašu robotu uzbūvi autors neko daudz mums nepavēsta. Viņiem ir pozitronu smadzenes (pozitrons tajos laikos bija top daļiņa, tāpat kā mūsdienu Higgsa bozons), enerģiju viņiem dod atoma dzirksts. Šis universālais enerģijas avots padara tādus stāstus kā „Riņķa deja” nevajadzīgi dramatiskus. Kādēļ viņiem jāuztraucas par Spīdiju un selēnu fotoelementiem, ja viņiem pie rokas ir portatīvie kodolreaktori? Iemontē šīs smadzenes mehāniskā ķermenī un robots gatavs! Saziņas interfeiss ir valoda, robots apkārtni reģistrē ar fotoelementu palīdzību (redze), gadās pa kādam telepātam „Melis!” vai uz datu bāzes sēdošai mašīnai „The Evitable Conflict”, bet tie ir izņēmuma gadījumi.Kas ir interesanti, PSRS laikos izdotais stāstu krājums sevī neietver stāstu „The Evitable Conflict”, jo tajā tika paredzēts, ka ekonomikas pārvalde un sociālo problēmu risināšanu tiks nodotas kibernētisko iekārtu tranzistoriem. Un autors vēl pamanījās nesmuki izteikties par Marksu, un gaišajā nākotnē neatradās vietā arī Padomju republiku draudzīgajai saimei. PSRS piecdesmitajos gados notika lieli strīdi, vai kibernētika ir viltus zinātne. Tā savā veidā lika šaubīties par zinātnisko jaunradi, cilvēka lomu progresā un citām padomju cilvēkam svarīgās lietās. Sešdesmitajos tika panākts kompromiss, kibernētika nav nekāda viltus zinātne un aizspriedumi radušies tikai no nepareizas buržuju preses interpretācijas. Taču šim stāstam tas nepalīdzēja, pārāk antikomunistisks.Beigās atliek vien piebilst, ka trīs robotikas likumus izgudroja nevis Azimovs, bet viņa redaktors John W. Campbell. Grāmatai lieku 10 no 10 ballēm, neskatoties uz visu augstāk minēto kritiku stāsti ir vienkārši izcili. Ja vēl neesi izlasījis, tad noteikti izdari to, šis ir viens no zinātniskās fantastikas pīlāriem, kas ietekmējis daudzas robotu pasaules un grāmatas.
In 1989 I drove to Indianapolis to meet Eric, a collector of rare films, ostensibly to see his 16-millimeter print of the elusive 1926 W.C. Fields movie, So's Your Old Man, of which he claimed there were only a half dozen extant copies. We also screened prints of the Lon Chaney Sr. silent, He Who Gets Slapped and the silent German mountain film classic, The White Hell of Pitz Palu, both of which, at the time, were very difficult to see but which have since been issued on DVD. For good measure, he threw in a Charles Bowers comedy short and the Will Hay British comedy, Oh, Mr. Porter!As the evening progressed, I could tell Eric was hesitant and distracted, twice starting to tell me something and then stopping in mid-word with a "Never mind."Eric, like most film collectors, was very protective of his cinematic cache. I was sworn to secrecy to tell no one that he even owned the W.C. Fields movie and to especially be hush-hush about a nitrate print of another movie that he kept under temperature controlled conditions in his basement. Owning a highly flammable nitrate print is completely illegal.But Eric had a secret eating at him. I must have seemed or looked trustworthy, because he finally clued me in. "How would you like to see a print of Abbott and Costello Meet the Mechanical Men?" he asked. I thought he was joking. Film buffs know the backstory of this long-unseen production, which was withdrawn after its disastrous audience preview in Pomona in 1951, and then remained unreleased after becoming mired in a perpetual legal squabble that pitted Universal studio and the Isaac Asimov estate. The estate contended the film, directed by the workmanlike Charles Brabin, deviated too far from the content and thematic spirit of the fragmentary novel and thus violated a clause in the contract, which gave Asimov final approval or disapproval of the film's content and the right to order withdrawal of the film.A technician at Universal had apparently read the novel on its first publication in 1950 and in discussing the book with a screenwriter at the studio the two began to see its obvious potential as a vehicle for the legendary comedic duo. Several stories in the book involve the misadventures of comically flustered robotic engineers, Donovan and Powell, who seemed to always be up to their ears in trouble with crazy robot shenanigans. A&C had met menaces as disparate as Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, the Killer, the Invisible Man, Captain Kidd and other horrific villains in their comic forays. So the reasoning went, why not robots? The studio executives loved the idea, and gave the technician who had read the novel a bonus for suggesting it, especially as Paramount also was considering buying the rights as a vehicle for Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, which would have marked that comic duo's debut in comedy sci-fi.Eric held in his palm a small reel in a film gauge I was not familiar with; it seemed almost as small as Super 8, and he placed it on a special projector. I sat on his filthy couch full of cat hair and cast my eyes toward the illuminated screen in the darkened room, taking in the test pattern and numeric countdown before the credits, stained with color splotches. A Universal logo in a crude color format, not Technicolor but Cinecolor, I think, reeled off before me and I settled in for a completely unexpected and unlikely experience. When the title came on the screen, Abbott & Costello Meet...THE MECHANICAL MEN!!!, backed by an alternately ominous and comical musical score, I could not believe it. I was about to see one of the rarest movies on Earth.My jaw, which had dropped below my collarbone upon seeing the title, dropped closer to the floor as the movie unwound. I simply could not believe what Universal had done to Asimov's classic novel--and I could understand completely why the author forbade the studio from putting the film into general release.The stories in the book dealing with the emergence of robotic reasoning and the nature of the three rules of robotics had been jettisoned entirely, and in their place A&C had to save the world from a mad scientist (played ignominiously and with evident boredom by Boris Karloff) and his robot army. To cap this disgrace, A&C engaged the crudely realized robots--looking more like an assemblage of whiskey barrels and cardboard boxes--in a tired custard pie fight, which, unlike the ineffective bullets previously tried, jammed their circuitry and foiled the madman's plan. (In later interviews for film magazines, Karloff denied he had made the movie or that it even existed). B-movie blonde bombshell Martha Hyer was woefully miscast as the homely, frigid, sarcastic and serious robopsychologist, Dr. Susan Calvin. The filmmakers even found a way to fit her into a slinky sequined dress slit up the legs for a rendition of an original song penned by none other than Sammy Cahn: "No Love Like Robo Love," which twists the first law of robotics (never harm a human) into "never harm a human heart." Like Karloff, Cahn later refused to discuss the existence of this song or his participation in the film. Character actor William Frawley (soon to gain fame as Fred Mertz on TV's I Love Lucy), also dreadfully miscast, lent extra comic relief as a bespeckeled scientist who learns of the robot menace and is thus dragged off by several, shouting "heeeelllp!" as he disappears behind a door to a fearsome fate. In the final scene, now terribly racist, a bumbling black maintenance man accidentally gets a metal pail stuck on his head, causing the clueless and panicky Costello to believe that the defeated robot army has been resurrected, eliciting his trademark sign of alarm, wheezed from the plump and aging comic's throat: "Heyyyyy, Abbbbootttttt!!!"As the lights came on in the room I had to ask Eric: "Where did you GET this?""Sorry," he said. "I can't say. I could be arrested for even owning this."I told him his secret was safe with me.And if you've read this far, then it's April Fools for you four months early.Merry Christmas.--------(Now, an actual review:)I, Robot, from 1950, is not entirely a novel as first effusion but as a collection of short stories published in various magazines during the 1940s which are here strung together in a flashback framework as the memories of Dr. Susan Calvin, a "robopsychologist." Each of the stories is presented as her reminiscences of anecdotes about the evolving sophistication of robotics in the 21st century.The first story, "Robbie," about a girl and her robot companion, is a quaint variation on the old "boy and his dog" story, and is the weakest of the bunch. In fact it took me a good while to recover from the disappointing taste left by it. I also found it hard to take seriously some of the stories featuring the comically bumbling duo of test engineers, Donovan and Powell, even when the stories featured some interesting philosophical points. But the stories build in strength as the collection proceeds, culminating in the superb second-to-last story, "Evidence," about one politician accusing another of being a robot, leading to a fascinating examination of the many concepts of robot and human ethics that Asimov explores throughout the book. It was the only story that made me say, "Fuck, yeah!" at the denouement, even though the book is littered with clever endings that reminded me of Agatha Christie mysteries. On the whole I was not blown away but the book gets better if you can stay with it.
Do You like book I, Robot (2004)?
This rarely happens to me: I just could not finish this book. I found it unbearable and about half-way through I really did not care about how these stories would continue. In my opinion, it is incredibly poorly written and frankly, I found these robot stories dull and boring content-wise as well. I read that this is supposed to be one of the classics of sci-fi. I don't have a lot of experience with that genre but if this book is supposed to be one of the best, I doubt the genre is for me.I'll now go back to Kazantakis' 'the last temptation'. This, for once, is a very well written and inspiring story... more my cup of tea, I must say!
—Smarti
3.5 StarsDid you know this science-fiction classic by Isaac Asimov is a collection of short stories? No? Well, neither did I. Colour me surprised when I found out I, Robot is actually nine short stories with an introduction.Most of these short stories star a recurring cast of characters including robopsychologist Susan Calvin and the comic duo of Powell and Donovan. They have been strung together by the introduction and some text throughout, but they generally stand on their own. The reader is invited to fill in the blanks, and in his own mind follow the development of a world that, ultimately, is completely run by robots.Generally, I, Robot holds up very well. There are hardly any out-dated references, and in many ways the story feels timeless. What doesn't feel timeless is the simplistic writing and the juvenile banter of Powell and Donovan. I found the writing to be too one-dimensional; something I would gladly blame on the time period, were it not that I have read some way better written books from the same decade. An hour later, perhaps, Powell looked at his hand on the metal arm-chair and said with frozen calm, 'Feel the wall, Mike.'Donovan did, and said, 'You can feel it shake, Greg.'Let's just keep calling each other by our name in dialogue, that feels so natural!The content was interesting. Asimov explores, through a sort of 'case study' approach, the different ethical and practical consequences of being able to create robots with a conscience. He poses some very interesting points, especially in his later stories. Some of his assumptions haven't worked out the way he might have expected. Asimov's robots are able to understand human speech, and can respond in kind, yet scientists are baffled when a robot can do high-level calculations. The way robotics have developed in the last sixty years is the exact opposite - although we have advanced calculating machines, it has proven difficult to equip robots with the ability of natural human speech patterns. At the time Asimov is writing, this was still very unclear. So although robotics such as Asimov envisioned them haven't happened (yet), I hardly blame the guy for that.Especially the last few stories gain a complexity not fully explored in the first few, though entertaining they were. There are parallels to slavery and links to events happening in Asimov's life (many of the stories are written in the aftermath of the Second World War). I really liked that, although he does raise some points worth thinking about, his stories are never as bleak or depressing as many other science-fiction tales are. I, Robot is humoristic and optimistic, with a sharp edge.
—Celine
3½ stars, rounded up for the scope of Asimov's AIInteresting ideas and conception of robotics conveyed in a series of short stories. I could read about Asimov's robotics all day. His scope of cultural changes (ie revolution), however, is lacking in comparison. The year 2007 in the book does not seem like actual 2007 at all, same goes for 2015, and same for 2035 I'd imagine. The cultural climate feels more like the 1950s with the addition of accelerated scientific advancement than the world we're familiar with. You could tell Asimov was a writer very influenced by his era; the customs and politics of that time period laid the foundation for his writing. I don't expect books or people from the 1950s to be able to predict our current state of the world with any accuracy, but some accuracy or astute outlook would make the writing more believable.
—Mimi
