Before reading I, Robot I had read the first three Foundation books from Isaac Asimov. Comparing these I have found I, Robot as more entertaining, but Foundation to be more compelling. Most of the stories in I, Robot are very gripping with the characters narrowly avoiding complete disaster. It made for a fun read and easy to get sucked in.

Though the main issue I found was that the logic these stories were based on seemed inconsistent, the rules and limitations of the robots set up in one story would be different from the others. Maybe they are not meant to be consistent, I am not sure if that was Asimov's intent, so this might be unfair. Even so it still left me a bit unsatisfied.

My main point of reference for this is how the robots had adhered to the "3 Rules of Robotics" laid out by Asimov, the first of which being that a robot could not allow a human to come to harm either through action or inaction. Sometimes a robot would refuse to do something not because that action itself is harmful, but would lead to future harm through a domino effect. Other times, this reasoning was not followed at all. They would make an immediate action despite there being certain eventual harm. If the rules were not made to appear completely infallible this would not have mattered so much, but they were.

I still found it very enjoyable overall. It was interesting to see how much his predictions for humanity's progress deviated from our actual progress. Around now in his book I think his estimated population for Earth was about 3.3 billion people, a number we have most definitely blown out of the water. Technology for AI and robots are leagues ahead in the book versus where we actually are. The story of course is completely fictional in the end and not meant to be true predictions, but the comparisons are still fun to make.