Personally, I prefer another set of rules I once saw posted on a wall:

1. No matter what the issue, remember that your wife is always right.

2. When in doubt, refer to Rule #1.

All joking aside, thanks for the reminder of Asimov's laws. In that
case as in this one, the important thing is to craft a set of
guidelines that are proportionate to the true (rather than perceived)
risk, bearing in mind that humankind has survived extraordinary
challenges before and will certainly survive E2.0.

- Mary

VMaryAbraham
AboveandBeyondKM.com

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 any orders given to 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 Law.

Not to trivialize, either. You are making what I think is a very important point regarding the need for some direction or guidance when venturing off in uncharted territory, which is what an E2.0 project or implementation is. We wouldn't set off on a trek in unfamiliar woods without a compass and a map. To do otherwise would be foolish, even dangerous. On the other hand, it isn't necessary to have one's trip limited to a particular path regardless of what happens or what is encountered along the way.

BTW – “If the tent's rocking don't come knocking” seems a bit ribald for a Mother & Father not to worry a bit about, eh? I swear, I'm not a prude. Just sayin'.