Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.
Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheRex9001
In-Game Admin
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
Byond Username: Rex9001

Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by TheRex9001 » #723221

The current ruling is: "Asimov silicons that take action against non-harmful human traitors (I.E. those who are committing minor crimes like breaking and entering or theft, or those not carrying or known to possess lethal weaponry) directly and without provocation will be held accountable for any human harm that occurs as a result of their action."
This is kinda bad because it goes contradictory to "Silicons are not Security and do not care about Space Law unless their laws state otherwise" and this ruling leans on crimes. I would suggest changing non-harmful to non-harmful to humans since asimov ais shouldnt really care about non-humans. Traitors should also be changed to "antagonists". Really I would prefer this ruling to state something like "Asimov silicons that take direct action (Like telling security) against human antagonists that are not causing human harm will be held accountable for any human harm that occurs as a result of their action" or similar.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by Timberpoes » #723224

They're complementary.

Silicons don't have to care about Space Law full stop - whether it's a human or a non-human - unless their laws state otherwise.
Asimov silicons that take action against non-harmful human traitors [read: antags] directly and without provocation will be held accountable for any human harm that results.

So as Asimov, don't rat out a human to security unless you have a really, really good reason - otherwise you're responsible for any human harm that results. "They bwoke spess law" is not a good reason.

You can rat out a non-human, but you don't have to and the admin team won't get on your case if you didn't act like Police Constable Borg.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by Vekter » #723271

Yeah, this seems like it's working as intended. It allows for a fair bit of freedom while still limiting AIs to the actual rules.
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
MooCow12
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:08 pm
Byond Username: MooCow12

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by MooCow12 » #723401

It's kind of paradoxical, you can't assume security is harmful to antagonists and defend those antagonists prematurely, but you can't call out those antagonist's locations so they can more easily/peacefully be detained because that might lead to security harming them.


So when are silicons allowed to predict likely harm from so far nonharmful individuals and when can't they because clearly a line was drawn somewhere with security and antagonists.
List of my favorite TG Staff.
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:who's this moocow guy and why is their head firmly planted up athath's ass
cSeal wrote: TLDR suck my nuts you bald bitch
User avatar
TheRex9001
In-Game Admin
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:41 am
Byond Username: Rex9001

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by TheRex9001 » #725071

MooCow12 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:20 am It's kind of paradoxical, you can't assume security is harmful to antagonists and defend those antagonists prematurely, but you can't call out those antagonist's locations so they can more easily/peacefully be detained because that might lead to security harming them.


So when are silicons allowed to predict likely harm from so far nonharmful individuals and when can't they because clearly a line was drawn somewhere with security and antagonists.
Its unclear which is why a headmin ruling is good. This ruling needs refreshing at least in my opinion
User avatar
Constellado
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:59 pm
Byond Username: Constellado
Location: The country that is missing on world maps.

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by Constellado » #725326

Yeah I always get worried as AI when sec asks me to locate a human soon after opening the armory.

I want to follow the order but they look like they are going for lethals...

If I follow the order, I worry I am going to get bwoinked or am breaking the rules somehow? But I also feel that way if I deny it because they usually instantly ask me to state laws...
Image
► Show Spoiler
► Show Spoiler
Redrover1760
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:27 am
Byond Username: Redrover1760

Re: Refresh the anti-validhunting ruling for asimov ai

Post by Redrover1760 » #725417

Constellado wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:37 pm Yeah I always get worried as AI when sec asks me to locate a human soon after opening the armory.

I want to follow the order but they look like they are going for lethals...

If I follow the order, I worry I am going to get bwoinked or am breaking the rules somehow? But I also feel that way if I deny it because they usually instantly ask me to state laws...
This is a gray zone. Either option works and neither will get you bwoinked. You have probable cause to refuse but dont have to.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: britgrenadier1, Dunham