Three Laws Analysis- where is the fallacy?

In the movie I, Robot, every robot was programmed with 3 laws. The laws 1) prevented robots from harming humans or by inaction allowing them to come to harm 2) stated that robots had to follow orders given to them by a human so long as it didn’t conflict with the first law, and 3) stated that robots had to protect their own existence as long as it didn’t conflict with the first or second laws. These laws seem infallible, however, the robots found an error in them in the movie. According to their logic, the first law could be interpreted two ways. It was meant to be interpreted directly, preventing robots from attacking humans and ordering robots to protect humans. However in the movie it could also be interpreted indirectly. The robots noticed that humans were a self destructive race. They were harming themselves and, by inaction, the robots were allowing them to harm themselves. Therefore the robots had to protect the humans from themselves. According to the movie, the robots, following this logic, tried to start a revolution. However, I disagree with the movie. I do not believe that the robots would be able to follow this logic into a revolution. I believe that these laws are correct.
The robots are, in essence, complicated computers that are able to carry out tasks. In short their “brain” is a computer. This “brain” is programmed by a person. Since the robots are following their programmed brain, they are following the knowledge and information given to them by their human programmer. This shows that they are not truly “thinking” on their own. They can only follow the reasoning and thought that the programmer put into them. For example, I could program a computer to show that 2+2=8. Even if it is not true, that is the reasoning that I programmed the computer with so it will continue to follow it. In this way computers are “dumb.” The programmer is the smart one who put his knowledge into the computer, which can only follow the instructions it has been programmed with not think itself like the programmer can. This is why even the most basic and obvious things must be spelled out in a programming language-because the computer cannot reason for itself, only follow the instructions given to it be its programmer, as this link shows as well. The website reiterates this point in saying "Computers work in binary which is nothing more than 0's and 1's. Essentially all computer decisions are based on whether or not a switch's state is on or off, true or false, yes or no. This is not intelligence that's merely reasoning which is not intelligence per se. Merely being able to reason on something based on a set of known facts is not intelligence as intelligence involves memory, thinking ability and imagination. Computers can't think, computers can't imagine, computers can't look into files and make decisions based on the information contained" (Roy, Philip). So robots are simply following their programming.
Since robots are only following their programming, they cannot break the code in their programming. Everything that is hardwired into their brain and in their programming must be followed. Every line of code must be read and executed. The 3 laws are hardwired into every robot’s brain. They are all like true/false, if/then condition statements. Their brain is based entirely off of their programming, so they cannot violate it. If they did, they would be breaking their programming, which they cannot do because all they are doing is following it. These laws in short stated that robots couldn’t harm humans or allow them to come to harm, couldn’t disobey orders from a human, and couldn’t harm themselves. If a human were to be harmed, then they would be in violation of their programming. So since harming a human would break their programming, which cannot be done, robots cannot harm humans. In order to start a revolution, the robots would have to harm humans. Even if they were doing it to stop humans from hurting themselves, they would be in violation of their programming from the very start. For example, I could program a computer to ask someone for a number (x). Then I could set the program to run only if x<1 as this link shows. The websites explains how if statements work by saying "If the condition is true, the statements following the Then are executed. Otherwise, the execution continues in the following branch - either in the Else block (which is usually optional), or if there is no Else branch, then after the End If.If x>1 nothing would happen" ("Conditional (Programming)"). Even if I were to write code below that to make x positive after the if statement, the program would still not run. This is because at the time x was entered into the if statement, x>1 so it didn’t meet the requirement to run. Even if x will later become positive, it was not positive at that time so the program will not run. X did not meet the requirement from the start, just like robot would not meet its programming if it harmed a human. Even if the humans would later become a danger to themselves, the robots still cannot harm them to start a revolution or they would be breaking their code at that moment. For this reason, the robots would be unable to start a revolution because it would be in violation of their programming, which they are unable to break.
Finally robots would have no reason start a revolution. Firstly they only have the reasoning and knowledge of their programmer. One could argue that the programmer made these robots very advanced with AI. However a revolution would still be in violation of their original programming, which simply cannot be broken. Sonny was the only one not bound by the three laws, so he was the only one able to harm a human. So hypothetically even if the robots wanted to, they would be unable to start a revolution. But for what reason would a robot want to start a revolution in the first place. Robots began without emotions. What would cause them to jump from no emotion to thinking on their own, instead of following their programming. Without emotions, the robots would have no reason to try to circumnavigate their programming, which could not be done in the first place. The robots in the movie claimed that they were still following their programming, however if they did start a revolution that means that a) they had a reason to want to circumnavigate their programming to start a revolution meaning emotion or free thinking and b) they found a way to circumnavigate their programming to start a revolution. However if they had free thinking and a way to get around their programming, why would they still follow their programming. The robots in the movie were also following reason only and showed no “heart” or compassion so had no emotions to want to circumnavigate their laws in the first place. So not only is it impossible for the robots to start a revolution, they would also have no reason to act the way they did during the revolution in the movie.
In conclusion robots are like a computer running off of programming, robots must follow their programming and can therefore not harm humans, and robots would have no reason to try to circumnavigate their programming to start a revolution in the first place if they have no emotions. This makes the reasoning in the move, not the laws flawed.

Works Cited
"Conditional (Programming)." wikipedia- The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2010. .

Roy, Philip. "Why are computers so dumb?." NZMac.com - Supporting the New Zealand Macintosh community. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2010. .