What happens when a robot is designed to protect humans but, in trying to prevent harm, causes it instead? It is a question science fiction author Isaac Asimov explored decades ago. Today, as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into everyday life, it feels more relevant than ever.
For students in Tyler Dale鈥檚 Introduction to Science Fiction course, it becomes the starting point for a challenge that has no perfect solution.
After reading , students in Grades 11 and 12 work in groups of four to develop a fourth law of robotics that addresses the limitations of Asimov鈥檚 original three. Their new law must be precise, concise, and defensible, with a limit of approximately 42 words. But writing the law is only the beginning. Students research the ethical questions surrounding artificial intelligence, anticipate potential loopholes and unintended consequences, and present their reasoning to classmates for open debate.
Then they revise.
鈥淚t is a deliberately difficult assignment, and that is precisely the point. I call it the class of the impossible task,鈥� Dale explains. 鈥淭hey do three different summative projects, and each one, I tell them, it is impossible for you to have a perfect answer.鈥�
Rather than searching for a single correct response, students learn to navigate complexity, recognize competing perspectives, and make thoughtful decisions even when certainty is out of reach.
Learning to think like a lawyer
Dale designed the fourth-law project during his first year at 糖心原创 and has continued refining it over the past five years. At its core is a deceptively simple expectation: students must understand not only what they are saying, but why they are saying it and whether their words accomplish what they intend.
鈥淚 always tell them, I say, what would I want you to do in this class? To think like a lawyer,鈥� Dale says. 鈥淭o be as precise in your wording as you can.鈥�
Students must defend both the letter of their law, or its exact wording, and the spirit of the law, or the intention behind it. During the question-and-answer portion of each presentation, Dale challenges students to examine individual word choices, identify contradictions, and consider whether their solutions introduce new problems.
Does the law accomplish what the group intended? Could a robot interpret it differently? Does it conflict with one of Asimov鈥檚 original laws? What happens when two ethical priorities collide?
The questions require students to move beyond an initial idea and examine its implications. They must listen carefully, respond with evidence, and be willing to reconsider their thinking.
Senior Cameron Flotta shared, 鈥淭o start the project, our group brainstormed as many flaws as we could think of with the original three laws. Our goal was to fix as many of those as possible through a law solving harm. However, Mr. Dale quickly penetrated our law through his questioning and our wording. We pivoted to the idea of finding the best possible action by weighing different options that the robot has in significant situations in a formula. We then built upon a framework from the book, What We Owe The Future by William MacAskill, and gave the formula to the robot so it could calculate with numbers and weigh the consequences of different decisions.鈥�
Cameron went on to share a specific experience, 鈥淚 remember using expos and the table to solve the equation with different inputs, and ended up diving deep into the math. I showed my thinking visually to help the rest of my group understand, and ended up showing a photo to the class to help convey the point.鈥�
Different ideas. Different paths to a solution.
The assignment also creates space for students to approach the same challenge in distinctly different ways.
One group, whose work has become a benchmark for subsequent classes, developed a fourth law based on utilitarian ethics, a framework for evaluating actions according to their consequences. With help from research and mathematical modeling, the students created a formula that accounted for factors such as the certainty, extent, intensity, and duration of potential harm.
They then tested their framework against hypothetical scenarios, including whether a robot should amputate a person鈥檚 trapped limb to save their life. The group used its formula to explain why causing harm in that situation could prevent a greater harm.
Another group approached the challenge differently, proposing an international governing body to guide decisions about robotics and ethical dilemmas. Other students developed simpler laws, such as prohibiting robots from deceiving humans, and made their cases by explaining how their solutions aligned with their values.
The variety is part of what makes the experience meaningful. Students are not rewarded simply for producing the most elaborate answer. They must demonstrate that their reasoning holds up under scrutiny.
Sometimes that means building a complex mathematical model. Sometimes it means identifying one important problem and making a compelling case for why it matters.
For Dale, the goal is not to teach students which ethical position to adopt. It is to help them understand the implications of their choices and develop the confidence to defend those choices with logic, evidence, and clear communication.
Using AI to challenge thinking, not replace it
As artificial intelligence has advanced, the assignment has evolved alongside it. Dale says AI has made the problem feel more immediate to students, particularly as they consider the implications of AI systems moving beyond software and into physical environments.
It has also changed how students prepare for their presentations.
Before facing Dale鈥檚 questions, students are encouraged to give an AI tool their proposed law and supporting arguments, then instruct it to act as an adversary. The AI challenges their reasoning and looks for weaknesses in their arguments, allowing students to rehearse their responses before presenting to the class.
Dale describes the technology鈥檚 role in the process as intentional: 鈥淚t鈥檚 not their collaborator, it鈥檚 their enemy. And I tell them, like, use it that way.鈥�
The approach gives students a practical way to engage with AI while remaining responsible for the quality of their own thinking. They must evaluate the challenges the tool raises, determine whether its objections are valid, and strengthen their work accordingly.
The experience also helps reduce the anxiety that can come with defending an idea publicly. Students enter the discussion having already practiced responding to difficult questions, but they still have to think on their feet when their classmates and teacher push their reasoning in unexpected directions.
Preparing students for questions that matter
Although the course centers on literature, its learning extends well beyond the study of science fiction. Dale applies similar strategies in AP Language, where students examine rhetoric, evaluate arguments, and consider how precise language influences meaning.
The fourth-law project brings those skills together with research, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. Students practice working through ambiguity, making decisions with incomplete information, and adapting when their initial ideas do not hold up.
Those skills matter in a world where technology continues to raise new questions about responsibility, autonomy, and what it means to be human.
They also connect directly to 糖心原创鈥檚 2026鈥�27 theme, Creativity Is a Choice. Creativity here is not simply the act of generating an original idea. It is the willingness to explore possibilities, test assumptions, engage with opposing perspectives, and keep working when the answer is not obvious.
For Dale鈥檚 students, the fourth law of robotics is ultimately about more than imagining the future of artificial intelligence. It is an opportunity to practice the kind of thinking that the future will demand.
There is no perfect fourth law, and that is the lesson. Students leave the experience with something more valuable than a definitive answer: the ability to ask better questions, articulate their reasoning, recognize the limits of their own ideas, and revise their thinking when presented with new evidence.
That is learning designed for a world that will not stand still, and an example of how 糖心原创 prepares students to think critically, act with intention, and turn their ideas into meaningful possibilities.