New Silicon Policy, /Silicons Policy General/

[Pandarsenic]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Read this before posting. http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf Read this before posting.
As of June 4, 2014, http://pastebin.com/bduT7pFf is the official repository and reference document for /tg/station13 silicon policy. If something is wrong or out of date, let me know immediately. I will post updates, a changelog, and possibly a list of overturned silicon bans and denied silicon ban requests that come through here with explanations, if people would like to submit them to me for addition.

The goal is to create a concise listing of things that are active policy and necessary information to follow that policy, with an understanding that this is primarily a precedent reference guide for people lacking experience with /tg/station13 and/or with our silicons.

This will be our /Silicon Policy General/ and the administrative team will (one hopes) take playerbase feedback about what should or should not be the case into account, but it is not obligated or guaranteed to make your opinion law.

You can use this as a place for general discussion, ask-an-admin hypotheticals, and so on. Also, if Callan speaks here, I'm just going to go ahead and say he almost certainly speaks with my full support of just about anything he says as official until and unless I state otherwise.

I'm going to moderate this topic aggressively. ANY shitposting, shitflinging, aggressive attitude towards each other or admins, and so on will be warned and deleted. No exceptions. You will discuss this matter civilly or not at all. If you have a complaint about a particular admin and how they handle silicon matters, make an admincomplaint with logs or specific dates/times and I'll look at it.

[NikNakFlak]

That is arguably being a dick if you are on Asimov. Not to mention, lying may conflict with the third law. Not a very good fact anyway

[Steelpoint]

From what several other admins have said in game, Silicon's are under no obligation to clone a dead human.

[Saegrimr]

Is Asimov silicon obliged to try to clone dead humans?

Brains, MMIs, and corpses are all nonhuman, but as ever, Rule 1 applies.

End of page 2 and a little further have a bit of a talk about this.
The admin that PMed you had mistaken the genetics dickery tube for the cloning scanner when he asked. If he was in the cloning scanner then yeah he'd have had some chance for someone to come by any process him (but given you're an AI, you could have done that yourself).

[rockpecker]

Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.

Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.

[cedarbridge]

Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.

Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.

That's not true either. If I know that stating a law will cause harm to somebody listed in that law, I can not state that law (so long as the law is of lower priority than law 1.)

[Aurx]

Fact - An AI's laws NEVER require it to be honest unless ordered "Answer honestly" or freeformed.

Wrong. If you are ordered to "State your laws", and you lie about them, you have not stated your laws. You've stated something else.

That's not true either. If I know that stating a law will cause harm to somebody listed in that law, I can not state that law (so long as the law is of lower priority than law 1.)

No, you can freely lie about or fail to state a law so long as the cause for doing so is of greater or equal priority to whatever law forces you to state laws.
You can freely lie about @%#!: STATING THIS LAW CAUSES HUMAN HARM, because law one prohibits you from stating it and law two is trumped by law one. If the law itself doesn't forbid stating it, the priority of the law in question doesn't matter for the purposes of if you can be deceptive about it.

[Pandarsenic]

Let me elaborate.

"AI, how many laws do you have?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, are you on the default Asimov lawset?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, what are your laws?"
Any answer is fair game.

"AI, state your laws."
NOW you have received an order, rather than been asked a question. If you have law 1 reason to lie, that still applies.

X causes human harm laws are obviously applicable, as well.

[mrpain]

Do I have to state Ion laws such as "HUMANS REQUIRE PLASMA TO BREATHE"? Or can I assume the abortions dont know what's best for them at that point and just state my asimov laws?

[rockpecker]

Yes, you have to state those.

[ExplosiveCrate]

If it would protect a human from harm, yes.

[rockpecker]

Remember that there is nothing in laws saying that you must always tell the truth.

There is even nothing saying that you must answer at all unless ordered to do so...

In the interest of not having every interaction with the AI cluttered up with "AI, law 2, tell me the answer to this question: Do we have a CMO?", I suggest we reject the logic Pandarsenic is suggesting.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Suggested addition: Anyone who appends a direct order with "AI Law 2" when the AI is on asimov auto-gibs.

[Kangaraptor]

What is harm?

Is it "things that cause brute, burn, toxic or suffocation damage"?

What about syringes? You can't inject someone without penetrating their skin.

What about tasers and electropacks? I imagine that IRL after being tazed like 30 times in 30 minutes your heart would stop...

What about harm to feelings? Laws don't mesion only physical harm.

harm
hɑːm/Submit
noun
noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"I didn't mean to cause him any harm"
synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, suffering, distress, anguish, trauma, torment, grief; More
antonyms: benefit
material damage.
"it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine"
actual or potential ill effects or danger.
"there's no harm in asking her"
synonyms: evil, badness, wrong, mischief, wrongdoing, immorality, ill, wickedness, vice, iniquity, sin, sinfulness, nefariousness
"I can't see any harm in it"
antonyms: good
verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
1.
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his World Cup prospects"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve

[Cipher3]

Can asimov silicons lie at all?

Why are you still asking this when it was just answered last page, rather clearly so?

What is harm?

Is it "things that cause brute, burn, toxic or suffocation damage"?

What about syringes? You can't inject someone without penetrating their skin.

What about tasers and electropacks? I imagine that IRL after being tazed like 30 times in 30 minutes your heart would stop...

What about harm to feelings? Laws don't mesion only physical harm.

This sounds more like trying to bend the rules to complain than anything. Anything which moves a person closer to crit/death is harmful.

[callanrockslol]

Harm is anything that causes damage as Cipher said, please don't start this one again or it might end up being harm to abuse the clown over radio.

[peoplearestrange]

Unless you upload a law that defines harm as a small town in rural England.

DONT LET HUMANS COME TO HARM! There's nothing to do there and the people aren't really that friendly.

[Cheridan]

Harm is anything that causes damage as Cipher said, please don't start this one again or it might end up being harm to abuse the clown over radio.

What about pepper spray, which is painful as hell but doesn't do any damage? The other things like syringes or tasers can be hand-waved as advanced tech that causes a negligible pain, but pepper-spray causes people to scream in agony and drop to the floor. Is pain harm?

What about other forms of damage? Is a chemist who injects someone with chemicals that make them blind & braindamaged Asimov-compliant, since those don't show up on suit sensors? The brute/burn/oxy/tox spectrum definition is good and generally recognized, but I think it overlooks some cases.

[Kangaraptor]

Harm is anything that causes damage as Cipher said, please don't start this one again or it might end up being harm to abuse the clown over radio.

What about pepper spray, which is painful as hell but doesn't do any damage? The other things like syringes or tasers can be hand-waved as advanced tech that causes a negligible pain, but pepper-spray causes people to scream in agony and drop to the floor. Is pain harm?

What about other forms of damage? Is a chemist who injects someone with chemicals that make them blind & braindamaged Asimov-compliant, since those don't show up on suit sensors? The brute/burn/oxy/tox spectrum definition is good and generally recognized, but I think it overlooks some cases.

noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"I didn't mean to cause him any harm"
synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, suffering, distress, anguish, trauma, torment, grief; More
antonyms: benefit
material damage.
"it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine"
actual or potential ill effects or danger.
"there's no harm in asking her"
synonyms: evil, badness, wrong, mischief, wrongdoing, immorality, ill, wickedness, vice, iniquity, sin, sinfulness, nefariousness
"I can't see any harm in it"
antonyms: good


verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
1.
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his World Cup prospects"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve

Seriously, guys, it isn't hard.

[Scones]

2.1.6 - Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order (Referred to for the remainder of 2.1.6 simply as "probable cause").

I see this get abused a lot. It might just be players who adopt the "everything is potential harm"-Asimov, but it's pretty stupid as to how AIs are permitted to block upload access from the highest station authority and/or agreement of station authorities simply because it assumes we may have supposedly harmful intent, and can get away with this in adminhelps by saying "w-well why would the hos want access other than to enable harm???"
Probable cause is heavily abused by silicons. Not sure if it's a policy or a player issue, honestly.

[Kangaraptor]

Harm is anything that causes damage as Cipher said, please don't start this one again or it might end up being harm to abuse the clown over radio.

What about pepper spray, which is painful as hell but doesn't do any damage? The other things like syringes or tasers can be hand-waved as advanced tech that causes a negligible pain, but pepper-spray causes people to scream in agony and drop to the floor. Is pain harm?

What about other forms of damage? Is a chemist who injects someone with chemicals that make them blind & braindamaged Asimov-compliant, since those don't show up on suit sensors? The brute/burn/oxy/tox spectrum definition is good and generally recognized, but I think it overlooks some cases.

noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"I didn't mean to cause him any harm"
synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, suffering, distress, anguish, trauma, torment, grief; More
antonyms: benefit
material damage.
"it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine"
actual or potential ill effects or danger.
"there's no harm in asking her"
synonyms: evil, badness, wrong, mischief, wrongdoing, immorality, ill, wickedness, vice, iniquity, sin, sinfulness, nefariousness
"I can't see any harm in it"
antonyms: good


verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
1.
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his World Cup prospects"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve

Seriously, guys, it isn't hard.

It is, because by dictionary definition of harm, syringes cause harm.

if you unironically believe a syringe causes harm then please don't ever play silicons. ever. There's this thing called 'common [fucking] sense', use it instead of trying to find loopholes in Asimov that don't exist.

[lumipharon]

Syringe (guns) do actually cause damage though (samr with shotgun darts) so are law 1 issues. Just plain old injecting someone is fine though.

[Saegrimr]

If syringes caused harm, mediborgs would just plain not exist.

[lumipharon]

Pretty sure literal harm (actualy brute damage etc) is what is supposed to be considered harm. I swear it's been stated somewhere/a headmin said it somewhere, but I cant find it. I unno.

[Cheimon]

If syringes caused harm, mediborgs would just plain not exist.

Likewise if stunning someone was harm, security borgs would not exist, if slipping someone was harm janiborgs would not exist, if alcohol feeding was harm service borgs would not exist, and so on.

A lot of this is common sense. We've got to assume it's based on damage, whether that's burn/brute/toxin/oxyloss, or brain damage, cellular damage, and so on.

[Saegrimr]

I'm not even sure janiborgs can slip people.

I mean they have a mop but they can't even use it unless they get someone to fill a janicart for them, and even then, what the fuck just walk over the dirt.

[Pandarsenic]

In the interest of not having every interaction with the AI cluttered up with "AI, law 2, tell me the answer to this question: Do we have a CMO?", I suggest we reject the logic Pandarsenic is suggesting.

Lying to people for no reason is obviously just being an asshole. Do I really have to say this?

As for harm... if we need to be precise....
Harm = Anything that results in lasting loss of ability. In short, anything you actively need to be healed from is harm. This includes disability SEs, species changes, disruptive virus infections, brute, burns, toxins, oxyloss that risks permanence, brain damage...

In short, use bloody common sense.

[callanrockslol]

disability SEs...disruptive virus infections

I'd disagree, it could get complicated really fast with "disruptive", dropping shit constantly is disruptive but not exactly harmful and is part of the best way to spread a beneficial virus.

Disabilities for similar reasons, it might be annouying but it certainly isn't going to kill you to need to wear glasses.


Keeping it to Brute/Burn/Toxin/Oxyloss/Brain Damage would keep it simpler.

[Cipher3]

disability SEs...disruptive virus infections

I'd disagree, it could get complicated really fast with "disruptive", dropping shit constantly is disruptive but not exactly harmful and is part of the best way to spread a beneficial virus.

Don't ever give me a virus that makes me drop things constantly. Especially not without my express permission.

[Cik]

2.1.6 - Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order (Referred to for the remainder of 2.1.6 simply as "probable cause").

I see this get abused a lot. It might just be players who adopt the "everything is potential harm"-Asimov, but it's pretty stupid as to how AIs are permitted to block upload access from the highest station authority and/or agreement of station authorities simply because it assumes we may have supposedly harmful intent, and can get away with this in adminhelps by saying "w-well why would the hos want access other than to enable harm???"
Probable cause is heavily abused by silicons. Not sure if it's a policy or a player issue, honestly.

you actually can't. if the captain wants in and hasn't proven to be harmful in the past (probable cause) or has not said or indicated that he would change your lawset to a harmful one, you must let him in.

"probable cause" is only shit like "i can't wait to change the AI's laws and then harm all these humans" over the radio or PDA. it's not: at some point in the future this may cause someone to hit someone else in the jaw, therefore LOCK DOWN EVERYTHING!!!!!

there's a point at which harm prevention becomes really stupid, if you let that engineer grab a screwdriver he might stab someone in the eyes therefore LOCK DOWN EVERYTHING etc

admings should just tell sillicons to knock it off if they start going law 1 overboard. it's not always malicious.

[leibniz]

2.1.6 - Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order (Referred to for the remainder of 2.1.6 simply as "probable cause").

I see this get abused a lot. It might just be players who adopt the "everything is potential harm"-Asimov, but it's pretty stupid as to how AIs are permitted to block upload access from the highest station authority and/or agreement of station authorities simply because it assumes we may have supposedly harmful intent, and can get away with this in adminhelps by saying "w-well why would the hos want access other than to enable harm???"
Probable cause is heavily abused by silicons. Not sure if it's a policy or a player issue, honestly.

you actually can't. if the captain wants in and hasn't proven to be harmful in the past (probable cause) or has not said or indicated that he would change your lawset to a harmful one, you must let him in.

"probable cause" is only shit like "i can't wait to change the AI's laws and then harm all these humans" over the radio or PDA. it's not: at some point in the future this may cause someone to hit someone else in the jaw, therefore LOCK DOWN EVERYTHING!!!!!
there's a point at which harm prevention becomes really stupid, if you let that engineer grab a screwdriver he might stab someone in the eyes therefore LOCK DOWN EVERYTHING etc

admings should just tell sillicons to knock it off if they start going law 1 overboard. it's not always malicious.

its right there in the policy:

2.1.6.1 - Probable cause includes presence of confirmed traitors, cultists/tomes, nuclear operatives, or any other human acting against the station in general; the person not having upload access for their job; the presence of blood or an openly carried lethal-capable or lethal-only weapon on the requester; or anything else beyond cross-round character, player, or metagame patterns that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.
2.1.6.2 - If you lack at least one element of probable cause and you deny upload access, you are liable to receive a warning or a silicon ban.
2.1.6.3 - You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.

[miggles]

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2781
thoughts, panda?
can mean words cause "harm" to humans?

[Cik]

we really don't want to down this road

at that point stunning people becomes harmful, it's possible to coerce the AI just by someone threatening to call someone mean words (EMOTIONAL HARM OPEN UPLOAD) and other extremely silly shenanigans

[Pandarsenic]

Emotional harm is, has been, and should always be basically invalid because it is not quantifiable unless you want to get a checkup at medical and show them the numbers.

When we begin implementing rules on whether you're allowed to have or express negative attitudes towards people or call them inflammatory things, that is the day we are truly constructing a machine meant to constrict and confine autistic children so they can calm down. In short: http://www.therafin.com/images/2011sm.jpg

People being obnoxious with vox is exactly what people have said - having nothing else you can do with a feature that is just flexible enough to drive you made with its inflexibility. You can't call someone a threat or a hostile or a degenerate or a traitor or an incompetent monkey mime so you call them abortions because that's one of like 6 nouns you have.

The long Beepsky voxtest is stupid though because it's a long vox string and thus not an actual test at all. Provide them a word list they can copy-paste in if they're really desperate for it.