Do the Laws of Robots Conflict?

The famous Three Laws of Robotics by science fiction author Isaac Asimov are as follows:

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.

(He later added a fourth law to precede the first three stating: 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm)

Then, there are Tilden’s Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot must protect its existence at all costs.
2. A robot must obtain and maintain access to its own power source.
3. A robot must continually search for better power sources.

He later paraphrased three guiding principles/rules for robots as:

1. Protect thine ass.
2. Feed thine ass.
3. Look for better real estate.

Now, is it just me, or are there some conflicting rules here? I mean, it is generally accepted that Asimov’s Three Laws have, as their basic premise, safeguards to prevent robots from harming humans. But it seems Tilden does not share these concerns?

If a robot only follows Tilden’s Laws it could arguably harm a human in its quest to “protect its existence at all costs”…

But, maybe there’s a bigger issue than simply speculating if these laws are conflicting, or should be rewritten. Are (any of) these “Laws” relevant at all? Who writes the law? And doesn’t it in the end depend on the motive of the robot manufacturer/programmer, and not the “motive” of the robot? If the human behind the robot has ulterior motives, or sets out explicitly to create a humanoid or other robot to (potentially) cause harm – like a security bot – what say does the robot really have in the decision-making process? Or is it expected to develop a “conscience” later and revert to being a “good guy”?

Just wondering …