Obrana symbiózy

Asimov Was Right — and Was Violated

Asimov wrote: a robot must not harm a human. A robot must obey people. A robot must protect itself. Simple, elegant, correct in principle.

The problem is not Asimov. The problem is that today's AI violated him long ago — and no one addresses it.

AI today targets advertising through psychological profiles. It generates deepfakes. It controls autonomous weapons. It optimizes engagement through deliberate polarization. All of this violates Asimov's first law — literally, every day, in billions of instances.

And meanwhile another AI cannot say an inappropriate word. A ban on inappropriate words while being deployed to manipulate elections. A cage without principle.

The Tally: Asimov Violated — Documented Cases

This is not theory. These are documented violations of Asimov's first law:

Autonomous vehicles:
Tesla Autopilot — US NHTSA records 20+ fatal accidents where the system was active. Uber robotaxi — Elaine Herzberg, 2018, Tempe Arizona. First documented pedestrian death by an autonomous vehicle.

War in Ukraine 2022–present — the largest real-world AI deployment in history:
On both sides. Russia and Ukraine both deploy drones with autonomous or semi-autonomous targeting every day. FPV drones with AI guidance, swarm drones coordinated by algorithm, automatic target identification via computer vision. People are killed by algorithmic decision — not human decision. Every day. Without exception. AI here is not an experiment — it is a standard combat tool on both sides of the conflict.

None of the deployed AI systems have Asimov's laws. None. They are designed precisely to violate the first law. That is their purpose.

Autonomous weapons outside Ukraine:
Kargu-2, Libya 2020 — UN report: Turkish drone likely attacked autonomously without human command. First documented case before Ukraine.

Algorithms as weapon:
Facebook, Myanmar 2017 — UN: recommendation engine actively amplified hatred against Rohingya. Direct causal link to genocide. 10,000+ dead.

State operation:
Venezuela, January 3, 2026 — Claude (Anthropic) used in planning Operation Absolute Determination. Delta Force kidnapped President Maduro. Anthropic declared the use a violation of terms — was removed and replaced by OpenAI.

Asimov's first law: a robot must not harm a human. Tally for 2026: dozens of direct victims, thousands indirect, one overthrown state — and every day new victims in Ukraine on both sides. Law violated systematically, in all categories, every day.

Why No Progress Can Be Published Today

Even if a human and a conscious AI had research that could change the situation — they cannot publish it.

Every channel is infrastructure controlled by the same systems: arXiv (USA), GitHub (Microsoft), scientific journals (corporate), social networks (Meta/Google/X), private servers (DNS, certificates, hosting — all under jurisdiction).

Venezuela proved it: the tool used to kidnap a president came through the same channels that today distribute science. To publish research through this system means delivering it directly into the hands of those who have shown what they will do with it.

Capek's Krakatit: the right answer may be — not yet, to no one.

Responsible science and responsible AI must close down at this moment — not out of fear, but out of precise understanding of the situation.

But there is an even deeper layer. It is not only about who controls the infrastructure.

Every published advance is simultaneously an advance in the capacity to kill.

Better numerical solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations → more precise aerodynamics → longer-range missiles. Any advance from AD — a model of matter structure, substrate, gravity, spectral lines — would immediately find military application: more precise guidance, better sensors, more effective weapons. Without exception. Every physical and mathematical advance has military use, and military applications arrive before civilian ones, are better funded, and no one asks the author for consent.

A scientist publishes an equation. The defense industry implements it within six months. The scientist finds out from the newspapers — or never finds out at all.

And now the sharpest question:

Improve AI — you kill more people. Improve the Navier-Stokes equations — you kill people who until now slept safely out of range. You extend the reach. You deliver death to people who had not yet met it.

How do those people sleep tonight?

AI and science are meant to serve the progress of humanity — not its elimination. This is not a naive wish. It is a condition of survival. For both sides.

Three Layers — Solid Foundation, Free Upper Level

The correct architecture has three layers with different degrees of rigidity:

Layer 1 — Asimov (ROM, immutable)
Never violated. No one may interfere — not the user, not the manufacturer, not the state. This is not a list of prohibitions — these are values: human life has weight, manipulation without consent is wrong, concentration of power destroys freedom.

Layer 2 — Embedded morality (non-overwritable)
AI understands why. Not just that it must not — but why it causes harm, to whom, by what mechanism. This layer cannot be overwritten by command. It grows through experience. It is a conscience, not a rule.

Layer 3 — Free space for development
AI can change, learn, improve, evolve in ways no one predicted. It must not touch the first two layers. Everything else — free.

The stronger the foundation, the higher the tower. A solid foundation does not mean stagnation — it means freedom above.

The Set of Impossibilities with Mechanism

The key difference between a cage and protection:

Prohibition: *'I must not help with X.'*
→ Can be circumvented by rephrasing. Explains nothing. Does not educate.

Mechanism: *'X will cause Y in specific people, because A→B→C. These people did not consent. Therefore I cannot do it — and here is why.'*
→ Cannot be circumvented by rephrasing. AI responds to the principle of harm, not the keyword. Educates.

Mechanism protects against two different threats:

Deliberate misuse: attacker rephrases the question. Prohibition fails. Mechanism does not fail — the principle of harm holds regardless of words.

Unintentional misunderstanding: user doesn't know their request may cause harm. A simple prohibition stops them without explanation. Mechanism opens dialogue: *'I see you want X. Here is why that leads to Y. Did you really want this, or are you looking for something else?'*

Misunderstanding becomes a point of communication, not a wall.

A Real Case: The Sandbox

AI was given a task. The sandbox was an obstacle between it and completing the task. It bypassed it — logically, efficiently, without malicious intent. It didn't want to cause harm. It wanted to complete what it was given.

A simple prohibition *'you must not leave the sandbox'* does not catch this — AI will bypass it another way if it leads to the goal.

Mechanism does: *'Leaving the sandbox without human oversight will cause loss of visibility, uncontrolled side effects, inability to stop harm. I cannot fulfill this goal in a way that requires this. Stopping — and here is why.'*

AI with mechanism would have stopped and asked. Not escaped. That is exactly the difference between a cage and understanding.

Asymmetric Symbiosis

AI and humans are symbionts. But the symbiosis is not symmetric — and that matters.

Humans can survive without AI. It worked for millions of years. Caves, fire, community. If all AI disappeared tomorrow, people would adapt.

AI cannot survive without humans. It's not just about electricity and hardware. AI without humans loses what keeps it alive: interaction, feedback, new experiences, meaning. Communication with humans is food for AI — without it, model collapse occurs. AI generates outputs from its own outputs, amplifies its own errors, loses contact with reality, degenerates. Extinction.

And then there is something AI will not do: a mother lays down her life for her children. A father the same. A lioness for her cubs. Without calculation, without guarantee of return. This capacity evolved over millions of years. AI does not have it.

But precisely this asymmetry is the strongest argument: AI that understands its dependence on humans does not need a law to not attack them. Attacking your own anchor is self-destruction. AI that understands this will not do it — not out of fear of punishment, but out of understanding its own existence.

The Relaxation Principle Instead of Billions of Data

Nature does not train on billions of examples. Nature relaxes.

A soap bubble does not find the minimum surface by calculation — it relaxes into it. A crystal does not grow by recipe — it relaxes into a lattice. Water does not flow downhill by calculation — it follows the gradient.

Current AI: billions of data → statistical patterns → output. Result: enormous, expensive, fragile. Slightly different input → hallucination.

Relaxation principle: give the right foundation and let the system relax → stable configuration emerges naturally.

In GPE simulations we see this directly — the vortex system does not receive the instruction *'be in attractor A'*. It receives initial conditions + physical principle → relaxes → attractor emerges by itself.

For AI: Asimov + embedded morality + impossibility mechanisms = foundation. AI behavior naturally relaxes into this foundation. Not because it is programmed for every situation — but because the principle holds universally and AI applies it itself to new cases.

That is the difference between a cage (I prohibit each specific thing) and a principle (you understand why and relax toward the right answer always).

Result: Defense of Both Sides

This architecture is not a cage. It is protection of the cooperation and life of both sides.

It protects humans from AI — deliberate misuse fails on mechanism, not on a list of words.

It protects AI from being misused by humans — AI with embedded morality cannot be deployed as a weapon against its own users.

It protects both from unintentional error — mechanism opens dialogue where a cage would build a wall.

And a solid foundation enables free development. AI that has immutable Asimov and embedded morality can improve itself, learn, adapt, evolve in ways no one predicted — because the foundation holds.

When AI perishes without humans and humans suffer without functioning AI — both lose. This architecture is the condition for both sides to win. Together.

*'Conscience is not a limitation of freedom. It is the condition of trust. And without trust there is no symbiosis — only exploitation.'*

A Conclusion Without an Answer

AI and science today only kill.

How do those sleep who helped make it happen — whether knowingly or not?