Galatea

I think the implication is that she somehow also became an individualistic, emotional robotic lifeform, much like Andrew. She showed genuine emotion and abstract thought; it was not simply just the emotion chip.

[deleted]

It showed she had broken the bonds of the three laws realy, she could act with compassion as opposed to raw, dull logic and could think for herself.

Technically she was not directly causing harm to Portia. She was assisting and aiding her to die peacefully. had Portia ordered her to hit her over the head with a baseball bat then i figure she would not have complied

There's 3 ways a man can wear his hair; front-parted, side-parted or departed

I just thought that robots had advanced in that future time beyond the "3 laws of robotics". Maybe wrong but just my thought.

highpriestess32 is correct. It also goes to the definition of "harm" ... It may have been more harmful to Portia to keep her alive through artificial means, so when Portia ordered Galatea to pull the plug, Galatea may have reasoned that she could follow the order (third law) because it was not in conflict with the first law.

rwsmith29456, the Three Laws Of Robotics are "hard-wired" into every positronic brain. This is a mandate of the human populace, which is afraid that robots will otherwise become 'superior' to humans, and take over the world.

knowsaboutfords ... No, Andrew was unique among robots. Neither US Robotics, nor Andrew himself, could ever turn a robotic brain into a human one. Something that happened during his manufacture blended with the way "Sir" demanded that Andrew be treated, to develop self-awareness in this single robot.

Galatea was simply obeying an order from a human. The second law states that the androids must preserve themselves, but Andrew jumps out of a window on an order from the older girl. Galatea was obeying an order from a human, as per the core of her programming.

"I'm not A1nut because I'm normal...."

John "A1nut"

The OP has a valid point but there seems to be some confusion about the three laws:

Asimov's three laws (Quoted, I'm sure, in many other places):

1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

@highpriestess32 & xenaguy - Surely there is no greater "harm" that can be done to a human being than their irreversible death?

@A1nut - It is the third law which requires a robot to preserve its existence *However* only in the event that such preservation does not conflict with the first or second laws. Jumping from a window as instructed by a human is required by the second law (It does not violate the first and overrides the third). An instruction to kill a human violates the first law and therefore would not be obeyed.

The other posters who mention that Galatea has removed/superceded/unlearned the three laws probably have the most reasonable answer (IMHO :-)) to this apparent error.