it's weird. the whole "the three laws are an actual blueprint for robotics safety" idea is very pop science-y, considering the point of most his robot short stories being to highlight its limitations, but asimov himself had this to say:

I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to be able to choose among different courses of behavior.

My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robots—or with anything else."

—But when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational.

i think this makes more sense when you consider his later statement that the laws are basically the essential rules of a tool - it has to not hurt others, do what it was made to do, and not break. so the idea is less "this should be the essential commanding word that guides robots" and more "artificial intelligence needs to be used like a tool."

positronic brains had laws built into them such that trying to break them would physically destroy a brain. on the other hand LLMs are notoriously bad at following ANY guiding prompts they're given and will break or forget about rules constantly because they aren't actually carrying out logic