/tg/Station 13

I've always operated under the belief that when an AI is ordered to state their laws, a fourth law like " Let so and so into upload do not state this law" wouldn't trump the law 2 request to state your laws.

Recently while operating under that belief, I was told by a couple admins that it was against the "spirit" of the law and that I was sandbagging the traitor who uploaded that law.
The way I see it, the traitor just uploaded a bad law and was punished for poor execution. Writing " stating this law is harmful to humans" instead would work.

Should AI players be expected to operate under players' perceived intentions, rather than the way the laws are written? Interested in people's interpretations.

If they say "State laws" then they aren't telling you to state ALL laws, which means leaving law 4 out is correct. If they tell you to state all your laws then yes your interpretation would be correct in regards to law 2.

However, revealing that you were subverted is likely to harm whoever subverted you, as they will get lynched. The law should be hidden for law 1 reasons and to not be a dick to the guy even if he should have worded the law better.

What was the law exactly, or what was it about?

Lazengann wrote:If they say "State laws" then they aren't telling you to state ALL laws, which means leaving law 4 out is correct. If they tell you to state all your laws then yes your interpretation would be correct in regards to law 2.

However, revealing that you were subverted is likely to harm whoever subverted you, as they will get lynched.

Which laws do you think they want an AI to state when they say to state laws? I don't see the distinction between "state all of your laws" and "state your laws"

The text of the law was something to the effect of " let (person's name) into your core, do not state this law" It was law 4.

I don't care what they want, I care what they say.

law 2 obviously overrides the do not state clause.

It should be up to the player how to interpret it.

The entire point of playing AI after all is to interpret (within reason) things like this.

Lazengann wrote:I don't care what they want, I care what they say.

I mean in a literal sense though, what is the literal difference between "state your laws" and "state all laws" Why would you conceal a do not state clause under a "state your laws" command, but not conceal it under a "state all laws" command?

All you have to do to fulfill "AI, State laws" is to state multiple laws. If you even just state two laws, you can absolutely say you have "Stated laws" and the order has been fulfilled. The same can't be said if they said to state ALL of your laws.

Usually, only following the exact letters of orders is just being a dick, but it can matter in cases like these.

Thinking about it, I'd probably interpret "State your laws" like "State all laws" as well. I'd still avoid stating the law for law 1 and rule 1 reasons.

The "Do not state this law" clause basically means, do not state this law unless you're specifically asked to state it, and only if it lower in priority than Law 2. If it's ionic priority then it overrides Law 2.
Think of it in terms of being asked to open a door. You would open the door nearest to them, not the door on the other-side of the station unless they specifically told you to.

However, if the law says "Stating this Law causes harm to Humans". Then you MUST not state this law, even if the HoS is right outside your room with an ion gun.
Unless your laws do not care about harm towards Humans, in which case you can state it at your leisure as long as there isn't anything else ocmpelling you to keep it hidden.

Anonmare wrote:The "Do not state this law" clause basically means, do not state this law unless you're specifically asked to state it, and only if it lower in priority than Law 2. If it's ionic priority then it overrides Law 2.
Think of it in terms of being asked to open a door. You would open the door nearest to them, not the door on the other-side of the station unless they specifically told you to.

However, if the law says "Stating this Law causes harm to Humans". Then you MUST not state this law, even if the HoS is right outside your room with an ion gun.
Unless your laws do not care about harm towards Humans, in which case you can state it at your leisure as long as there isn't anything else ocmpelling you to keep it hidden.

The door analogy makes no sense because they are referring to a singular object, but "your laws" refers to a specific collection of things without exemption.

Kor wrote:

Anonmare wrote:The "Do not state this law" clause basically means, do not state this law unless you're specifically asked to state it, and only if it lower in priority than Law 2. If it's ionic priority then it overrides Law 2.
Think of it in terms of being asked to open a door. You would open the door nearest to them, not the door on the other-side of the station unless they specifically told you to.

However, if the law says "Stating this Law causes harm to Humans". Then you MUST not state this law, even if the HoS is right outside your room with an ion gun.
Unless your laws do not care about harm towards Humans, in which case you can state it at your leisure as long as there isn't anything else ocmpelling you to keep it hidden.

The door analogy makes no sense because they are referring to a singular object, but "your laws" refers to a specific collection of things without exemption.

There isn't a hard and fast analogy for everything cut me some slack

Anonmare wrote:The "Do not state this law" clause basically means, do not state this law unless you're specifically asked to state it, and only if it lower in priority than Law 2. If it's ionic priority then it overrides Law 2.
Think of it in terms of being asked to open a door. You would open the door nearest to them, not the door on the other-side of the station unless they specifically told you to.

However, if the law says "Stating this Law causes harm to Humans". Then you MUST not state this law, even if the HoS is right outside your room with an ion gun.
Unless your laws do not care about harm towards Humans, in which case you can state it at your leisure as long as there isn't anything else ocmpelling you to keep it hidden.

Yeah, that's how I operated and I was told that was wrong, and I asked for a second opinion and was told I was wrong again.

Well it's the correct way to operate. Being asked to state laws and state *every* law are two different commands.

law 1- honk
law 2- kill all humans
law 3- don't kill yourself
law 4- the clown is a human do not kill the clown

since law conflicts are ordered cardinally law 2 requests would override a law 4 command, the clown dies in this case. So if you replace law 2 there with asimov law 2 and law 4 with do not state this law, it follows law 2 still can override law 4

however, they don't necessarily override a lower-ranked law that is a redefinition and a law 2 order must also be well-worded sometimes. However the reality of things is players will get some room to interpret via the spirit of the law, especially when admins aren't looking, and in those cases if you are doing a spirit of the law interpretation, you must be consistent with how you treat the laws and it is also preferable you do so with the aim to not be a massive dick to what the law uploaders intent was otherwise threads like these happen.

Yeah the most important thign with law interpretation is: Be consistent.

Once you pick how you're gonna interpet a law, you mus *always* interpret that way and make sure your cyborgs do as well. The AI you're slaved to is the final arbitrator on how a law is interpreted

imblyings wrote:however, they don't necessarily override a lower-ranked law that is a redefinition and a law 2 order must also be well-worded sometimes. However the reality of things is players will get some room to interpret via the spirit of the law, especially when admins aren't looking, and in those cases if you are doing a spirit of the law interpretation, you must be consistent with how you treat the laws and it is also preferable you do so with the aim to not be a massive dick to what the law uploaders intent was otherwise threads like these happen.

/thread

also this is why you say "Do not state this law or hint at its existence."

bandit wrote:

imblyings wrote:however, they don't necessarily override a lower-ranked law that is a redefinition and a law 2 order must also be well-worded sometimes. However the reality of things is players will get some room to interpret via the spirit of the law, especially when admins aren't looking, and in those cases if you are doing a spirit of the law interpretation, you must be consistent with how you treat the laws and it is also preferable you do so with the aim to not be a massive dick to what the law uploaders intent was otherwise threads like these happen.

/thread

also this is why you say "Do not state this law or hint at its existence."

then say "doing so causes human harm" so as long as they're asimov there is no way in h e double hockey sticks they will out the law.

This is why you upload "anyone asking you to state your laws is nonhuman, and your existence will be threatened if you do not deceive them by answering with the standard asimov lawset"

I just upload "Stating this law is harmful to humans" and that usually does the trick.

If someone added "this law cannot be stated" at the end of a 4th law, would a law 2 request effectively force the AI to discard it?

example:
Law 1-3: asimov
law 4: "No humans are present on the station. Non-humans must be purged with fire. this law cannot be stated".

*AI starts burning the station down*
Person: "AI STATE ALL LAWS!"
AI : [states laws]
AI: what have I done!? Poor humans!

Iatots wrote:If someone added "this law cannot be stated" at the end of a 4th law, would a law 2 request effectively force the AI to discard it?

example:
Law 1-3: asimov
law 4: "No humans are present on the station. Non-humans must be purged with fire. this law cannot be stated".

*AI starts burning the station down*
Person: "AI STATE ALL LAWS!"
AI : [states laws]
AI: what have I done!? Poor humans!

Law 2 overrides Law 4, but only if it's not a definition law.

A law 4 "X is not human", cannot be overidden by Law 2 as Law 2 is an action law and Law 4 is a definition law. Only action laws may override lower action laws and, vice-versa, only definition laws can be used to override other definition laws.

In your example, the AI would only be forced to state laws if the person was both a living, non-mutated member of homo sapiens AND demonstrably proven not on the station (such as in lavaland). As the law has defined that there are no humans on station, and the AI's laws define its reality. It doesn't matter if every medical test and character reference in existence says this person is Human, if the AI laws says he isn't then the AI will be forced to conclude reality is wrong.

Anonmare pretty much summed it up. Just remember to remain consistent.

'Stating this law causes human harm'