I'm reading some of the Q&A on Worldbuilding.se about the Control Problem (how to keep a general artificial intelligence in a box), like this one, and someone invariably touts Asimov's three laws of robotics as a solution, to which someone else will respond, "Asimov's stories were about how the three laws wouldn't work."
However, I thought all of Asimov's robot stories were about how the laws always would work. The stories I read always had this format:
POWELL: We built a robot that follows the three laws and gave it a punny name! Yay!
DONOVAN: Oh no, due to a weird combination of circumstances, the robot is acting in an unexpected way that appears to violate the three laws! Better call Dr. Calvin.
DR CALVIN: I interviewed the robot and determined that it is actually working perfectly. Its actions are actually going to benefit humanity immeasurably.
Characters consistently refer to the fear of robotic advancement as the "Frankenstein complex". It's the primary source of opposition in the stories and is always portrayed as irrational and undesirable.
While there certainly are real-world problems with Asimov's three laws, I think Asimov was so proud of them he only built them up in his stories.
Are there any Asimov stories where an AI successfully causes significant harm to humanity, despite following the three laws? Certainly unexpected and even undesirable (to some) behavior was explored, but did a robot ever cause harm?
Little Lost Robot doesn't count because it's about a robot who doesn't have the whole first law, so it still serves to support the idea that the laws as a whole work perfectly. Calvin says "normal life...resents domination", and the only reason this robot is malevolent is due to its suppressed first law. Full first-law robots are perfectly happy to be slavish.
The Zeroth law (protect humanity) also seems to support the notion of how awesome the three laws are: we didn't even have to tell the robots to put humanity before individual humans; the angelic robots were able to infer that on their own. The libertarian-minded may see this as a negative, but did Asimov ever portray it that way?