I, Robot

The positronic brain is the device that controls a robot. The name comes from “positron,” a type of atomic particle newly discovered at the time the author wrote the book. The author does not explain how it works, but the main characters understand that, because of the mechanism’s positronic structure, robots cannot disobey the Three Laws of Robotics that constrict their behavior: “It’s a mathematical impossibility” (8).

After I, Robot was published, positronics became a feature of many sci-fi stories by other authors. Star Trek spaceships rely on positrons—electrons with reversed electric charge—as propulsion fuel.

Robopsychology is the study of robot minds. The first robopsychologist, Dr. Susan Calvin, begins her career examining the mental complexities of mechanical men on behalf of her employer, US Robots, and ends it as a strong advocate for robots as boons to society. Robots must resolve dilemmas that arise from their obedience to the Three Laws of Robotics; their solutions sometimes alter their character. In any case, different robot models tend to have different personalities, and robopsychology attempts to understand those variations, anticipate problems caused by such uniqueness, and prescribe solutions.

Robopsychology is part of the book’s frame story: It underlies Dr. Calvin’s participation in the plot lines and makes clear that the subplots concern robots’ psychological problems.

The most famous conceptual framework from I, Robot is the Three Laws of Robotics, which define the limits within which robots must function. The Laws are meant to protect humans from rogue robots. The First Law forces robots to prevent harm to humans. The Second Law requires them to obey human commands; the Third Law orders them to protect themselves unless this violates the First or Second Law.

The Three Laws form the foundation for most of the stories in I, Robot. In each chapter, a robot struggles with a different aspect of the Laws and how to obey them correctly. The Three Laws not only undergird the psychology of robots and the philosophy behind using them safely, but they also present an intriguing alternative to human ethical systems. Implicitly, they question why people do not behave in a manner similar to the robots they create.