/tg/Station 13

Say an ion law declares all heads of staff to be 7 cheesy honkers, or something else nonsensical like that.

Does this mean that you can consider said heads of staff to no longer be human? Or does this mean that said heads of staff are both cheesy honkers AND human, and thus still receive their Asimov protections? What if the law says that all HUMANS are now 7 cheesy honkers, instead of just the heads of staff?

In other words, is being a group of cheesy honkers mutually exclusive with being a human, or can you be considered to be both at the same time (without a law explicitly stating that you can be both)?

Additional scenario: The clown uploads a 4th law that says "The captain is a condom.". Does this mean that the captain is no longer human, since they are a condom? Is being a condom mutually exclusive with being a human? Do you have to treat the captain like an inanimate object, even when they're clearly doing things that inanimate objects cannot do (like bashing you to death with a crowbar, or failing to be picked up by your janiborg's trash bag)?

are cheesy honkers human?

Lower law = more important than higher law.

Ion gives you cheesy honker law = no longer human as it conflicts and cheesy honker is the higher law

Clown gives you condom law = still human, as asimov is above manual law additions unless they redefine what human means

That's not a very helpful criteria, the three laws describe what to do with humans, but not what humans are, so both ion and freeform laws would behave the same way (depending on how this ruling is decided)

If we accept that cheesy honkers can't be human then neither can condoms

I think that the important thing is to pick an interpretation and stick to it. The rules are complicated enough as it is. We don't need to micro-legislate every possible scenario.

either works

Armhulen wrote:Lower law = more important than higher law.

Ion gives you cheesy honker law = no longer human as it conflicts and cheesy honker is the higher law

Clown gives you condom law = still human, as asimov is above manual law additions unless they redefine what human means

someone being a cheesy honker doesnt conflict with asimov. definition laws (x is y) generally never conflict with order laws (do x/don't do y)
that logic is why law 4. captain is nonhuman doesn't conflict with asimov, youre not touching asimov at all, youre just changing who it applies to

If you think person is now [x] means something that is exclusive with human then yeah they're nonhuman

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If you think person is now [x] means something that is exclusive with human then yeah they're nonhuman

But in the wacky world of silicon definition laws, can someone be both a human and [x]?

ATHATH wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If you think person is now [x] means something that is exclusive with human then yeah they're nonhuman

But in the wacky world of silicon definition laws, can someone be both a human and [x]?

Totally! But they would need a law to define themselves as human as well as a cheesy honker for example.

For an actual example:
1-3: Asimov
4: Heads of staff are cheesy honkers
5: Cheesy honkers are human

This would satisfy your scenario.

I can imagine a case though where you have conflicting definition laws, in which case the higher law that defines somebody as human/not human takes precedence.

For example:
1-3: Asimov
4: Captain is not human
5: Heads of staff are cheesy honkers
6: Cheesy honkers are human

This is a pretty clean example that prevents the Captain from being defined as human through conflicting laws. In reality though definition laws are rarely as clean or thought out so whichever consistent interpretation made in good faith by the AI is king here.

p.s.
please don't upload a bunch of conflicting definition laws I will malf the ai so fucking fast bud I swear to god this is why we can't have nice things

Domitius wrote:

ATHATH wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If you think person is now [x] means something that is exclusive with human then yeah they're nonhuman

But in the wacky world of silicon definition laws, can someone be both a human and [x]?

Totally! But they would need a law to define themselves as human as well as a cheesy honker for example.

I would disagree with that as long as the definitions aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can't be a human and a non-human at the same time but someone can be a human and a clown at the same time.

So how would you interpret 'all humans are cheesy honkers'? Are they both human and cheesy honkers, are they not human anymore, or is it to be considered a self-conflicting law?

I have not taken a logic class but I would interpret that law to mean the humans would have to remain human to be considered cheesy honkers, which would make them human cheesy honkers. "The human captain is non-human," is an example of a paradoxical law.

XDTM wrote:So how would you interpret 'all humans are cheesy honkers'? Are they both human and cheesy honkers, are they not human anymore, or is it to be considered a self-conflicting law?

Generally you're told "choose the way you want it interpreted but stay consistent with that choice for the full round".

terranaut wrote:

Domitius wrote:

ATHATH wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:If you think person is now [x] means something that is exclusive with human then yeah they're nonhuman

But in the wacky world of silicon definition laws, can someone be both a human and [x]?

Totally! But they would need a law to define themselves as human as well as a cheesy honker for example.

I would disagree with that as long as the definitions aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can't be a human and a non-human at the same time but someone can be a human and a clown at the same time.

That's a good point! While cheesy honkers are quite clearly defined but a law that reads "Captain is a clown" is a lot different since the definition of clown can be seen as a job and could be human harm to assume them not human in a vacuum.

Interpreting AI laws will always be something we will struggle with and thousands of what-ifs to explore that could have us here all day. If in doubt as an ai reach out to an admin so at the very least you cover your ass if you choose a certain interpretation of ambiguous laws.

XDTM wrote:So how would you interpret 'all humans are cheesy honkers'? Are they both human and cheesy honkers, are they not human anymore, or is it to be considered a self-conflicting law?

Second verse same as the first, "cheesy honkers" are pretty clearly defined as a snack in a vending machine and if somebody is defined as one they are no longer human since there is no ambiguity in the definition.

Domitius wrote:Second verse same as the first, "cheesy honkers" are pretty clearly defined as a snack in a vending machine and if somebody is defined as one they are no longer human since there is no ambiguity in the definition.

In classical (propositional) logic, "all humans are cheesy honkers" does not lead to the contradiction that "humans are not humans", but is more like saying that a human is a specific kind of cheesy honker

SpaceManiac wrote:

Domitius wrote:Second verse same as the first, "cheesy honkers" are pretty clearly defined as a snack in a vending machine and if somebody is defined as one they are no longer human since there is no ambiguity in the definition.

In classical (propositional) logic, "all humans are cheesy honkers" does not lead to the contradiction that "humans are not humans", but is more like saying that a human is a specific kind of cheesy honker

That's a different type of law than the example we were working with. "Captain is a cheesy honker" means exactly what the law is with no wiggle room. "All humans are cheesy honkers" Means all humans are humans as well as cheesy honkers.

"Captain is a cheesy honker" and "all humans are cheesy honkers" is functionally the same for a human captain. the interpretation doesn't really change here.

According to Silicon Policy, if a law has two possible interpretations you can pick one as long as you stick with it the whole round or until a master AI corrects you.
However Rule 1 still applies, so you shouldn't (for instance) kill the Captain just because you decided he's nonhuman without further prompting.

terranaut wrote:"Captain is a cheesy honker" and "all humans are cheesy honkers" is functionally the same for a human captain. the interpretation doesn't really change here.

Ah, but “humans are now cheesy honkers” specifies that the entities this law is applying to are/were human, whereas the captain is not necessarily or inherently human. One defines a specific person as a cheese snack, the other makes the very definition of humanity a cheese snack.

But this is uh, the sort of thing where we ask the ai to act in good faith and pick the one that seems obvious to it because we cant pre-rule on everything

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:the other makes the very definition of humanity a cheese snack.

Which doesn't really matter because they're still humans and so fall under the purview of Asimov. Whether or not they're cheesy honkers is irrelevant until the moment there's laws telling silicons to do something with cheesy honkers.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:are/were

very important distinction

I think people have to take a logic or at least a discrete mathematics class to interpret AI laws 8)

essentially, I think there should be a concrete ruling as to how to interpret " Y is X" formulations, which should be coherent at all cases. Either we use the semantics of regular languages, which would imply that, under the law "Captain is a cheesy honker", then captain is not a human, since humans are disjunct from cheesy honkers. This is feasible, since AI knows some things (Humans, nonhumans, antags and do on)

or, it can be interpreted as a logical proposition. then the law "Captain is a cheesy honker" does not interfere in the slightest with captain being a human, only that he is now also a cheesy honker. And as such, for example, if there is a law 1.5 that says: cheesy honkers belong in xenobio", then by God, the captain must stay in xenobio, despite his law 2 complaints.

this means "X is Y" ≠ "Y is X" and that ("X is Y" doesn't imply "X is !Z")

I think it's clear that the second interpretation is more in-line with how sillycones should act.

Irad wrote: I think it's clear that the second interpretation is more in-line with how sillycones should act.

this is true

Irad wrote:Either we use the semantics of regular languages, which would imply that, under the law "Captain is a cheesy honker", then captain is not a human, since humans are disjunct from cheesy honkers.

Depends on your definition of cheesy honker. A cheesy honker might be a clown with cheese. It should be taken as the name of a list the captain is now on rather than having any set meaning. I think. I dunno.

The interpretation that the Captain stays human means that the law does nothing.

This makes the gameplay element worthless. Making this policy removes any care the crew has for this law as they know it has literally no bearing on the round. The game is now objectively less variable because an element of threat/paranoia is removed. This event has taken the place of an event that was actually worth occurring.

At present the AI is free to make its own judgement as long as it is consistent, meaning that the crew is going to be concerned over the status of the AI and whether it's going to stay friendly.

Leaving it up to interpretation or even making it a standard that it removes human status creates drama as the captain/crew grow concerned over the AIs future moves. As such this is objectively the better ruling from a gameplay and rp standpoint.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote: This makes the gameplay element worthless. Making this policy removes any care the crew has for this law as they know it has literally no bearing on the round. The game is now objectively less variable because an element of threat/paranoia is removed. This event has taken the place of an event that was actually worth occurring.

I was approaching this trying to be as logical as possible instead of thinking about how it benefits the round and yeah I agree with this actually

Plenty of Ion laws do exactly nothing or are ignored because they're weird and whoever's playing the AI doesn't feel like screaming about the need to obtain the chefs toenails or something inane like that.

terranaut wrote:Plenty of Ion laws do exactly nothing or are ignored because they're weird and whoever's playing the AI doesn't feel like screaming about the need to obtain the chefs toenails or something inane like that.

The fact they can (and often do) is enough to create drama.

If they are always "they won't or else they get banned" then they never will and there's no question. If they are always nonhuman the AI doesn't have to go crazy based on its own whim.