I, Rowboats

I, Rowboats 

1. A Rowboat may not immerse a human being or, through lack of flotation, allow a human to come to harm.

2. A Rowboat must obey all commands and steering input given by its human Rower, except where such input would conflict with the First Law.

3. A Rowboat must preserve its own flotation as long as such preservation does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 

Aside from the play-on word from The Onion, the three laws of robotics are left intentionally ambiguous for us, the readers, to figure out what can be the consequences of the ambiguity. While Asimov had only three laws, many authors that follow added additional laws.

4th Law (Dilov)  :A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases.

4th Law (Harrison): A robot must reproduce. As long as such reproduction does not interfere with the First or Second or Third Law

5th Law (Kesarovski): A robot must know it is a robot.

The further expansion of the laws has two effects on the robots. First, it help clarify such ambiguity, especially the 4th (Dilov) and 5th Law (Kersarovski) that would not have let Byerley runs for office ( if Byerley was a robot). But on the other hand, it give much more leeway for the laws to be interpreted in a different manner. For example, 5th laws of robotic asks that a robot must know it is a robot and if a command asks it to be more human (there would be a malfunction due to contradiction). Therefore having additional laws would be useless. 

Reflecting back on the laws from the point of view of an American. Even with these simple laws that are flawed and eventually breakdown the robots and society. Can we say the same with the United States Constitution? And by having more laws, does it create less ambiguity or increase a chance of having loophole ?