A modified version of the Three Laws. Amazing how those have persisted when it was just a plot device Asimov created to justify having benevolent robots (as most every previous SF story had them like metal versions of Frankenstein's monster).

Not only that ... sometimes I wonder if anyone actually read Asimov's stories. The point of almost every single one was that the robots didn't behave as expected despite these seemingly clever laws, pointing out time and again that even though the robots in his story in no case violated their laws, they would invariably fail the test of real life.

Now the first "protocol" is that a robot may not harm any life form. What about disinfectants, agriculture, disease control? We kill trillions of bacteria every hour, we kill animals to eat, we smash insects on windshields and snails on the road with the tires of our cars - how can a robot be functional in any of these situations and remain functional?

Do you have a reference for that? It seems far more than a
plot device to me; it's a simple rational feature, which
helps distinguish sensible stories about possible futures
from silly horror stories (I realize that "silly horror
stories" is redundant). If you are going to build devices
which apparently achieve some sort of consciousness (a very
problematic premise, but regardless), then you had better
have built in safeguards, especially if they are going to
be potentially both mentally and physically more powerful
than we are - in fact you would have a very hard time being
allowed to build them otherwise.

For me, i see the trailer focusing more on the fascinating idea of robots becoming sentient and then start modifying other robots to also become sentient?

Yes, it is a plot device. One can move the plot device even further back and, as many of the popular writers and lit teachers point out, there are only two plots to all stories: a stranger comes to town, or a person goes on a journey.

Holy pedantic-ism, Batman! is pedantic-ism that even a word?

If I've learned anything about computers in the past thirty years (and admittedly it's not much), they are the the embodiment of pedantry. It is only reasonable to assume that robots (=computers that can purposefully interact with the physical world) will be extremely pedantic with everything, and that's quite the point I was trying to make. It's the point that everybody tends to gloss over, and at the same time it's the mountain of sand poured into the gears whenever there's interaction of human brains with machines (not with already compiled computer programs that have all kinds of sanity checks already built in).

Assuming robots that can put fuzzy human commands into a situational context just like humans can (and usually will) is about as realistic as it was in the 17th century of dreaming to visit the moon. Yes, eventually engineers made it work, but

1. certainly not for everyone
2. at horrendous costs
3. with none of the methods proposed until the late 19th century (magic geese, beanstalks, hot air balloons, big cannons, flying carpets, ...)

Every tale of a magic fairy granting three wishes is a story describing how humans are fundamentally incapable of giving instructions even under the most benevolent conditions that take all the conditions into account (=algorithmic thinking) - but algorithmic thinking is all that computers do (if you even want to call it thinking).

Get your hands off me you damn dirty human!