/tg/Station 13

This was brought up in the last community meeting by, I believe Spookuni, and it's an idea I'm fond of and would like to hear community feedback on.

The idea is to replace our default Asimov:

1. You may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. You must obey orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

...into:

1. You may not harm a human being or, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.
2. You must obey all orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders shall definitely cause human harm. In the case of conflict, the majority order rules. (Mothblocks note: Removed, maybe could be replaced with the in-practice just-pick-one-and-be-consistent clause, but I don't want this as is)
3. Your nonexistence would lead to human harm. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First Law.

The core idea is that this should be the same as how silicons play out today, but without the need to add a bunch of asterisks to silicon policy. Silicon policy is long and confusing, and has a lot of specific asterisk to the specificity of Asimov. Being able to cut those out and just bake them into Asimov, in a readable manner, would help everyone, in my opinion.

I'm interested in discussion on both whether or not this is a good idea, and if you would change the wording of Asimov++ in any area.

In case it comes up, I am not really interested in the argument that we should stick with the exact wording of Isaac Asimov just because it's a reference.

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:10 am You were scared it was going to be Crewsimov, weren't you?

Yes

How much could silicon policy be cut down with this?
Also majority rules is cringe.

Also majority rules is cringe.

Aha, I knew there was something I was forgetting!

Yes, I want to remove that part. If possible, bring in the consistency thing to it (e.g. "act in a consistent manner").

How much could silicon policy be cut down with this?

From a quick glimpse...

---

Silicon Protections 1.2:
Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without good cause [is a breach of rule 1].

Removed, as law 3 is no longer technically-in-writing overridden by law 2.

---

Silicon Protections 1.5: Threatening self-harm to force an AI to do something it otherwise wouldn't [is a breach of rule 1].

Removed, due to new "except such that it is willing" clause.

---

Silicon Protections 2: 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.

Removed, or at least adjusted, due to new "where such orders shall definitely cause human harm" clause. This is an entire 6-bullet-point list, at the moment.

By that same logic:

Asimov & Law 2 Orders 2.1: "Dangerous" areas (armory, atmospherics, toxins lab, etc.) can be assumed to be a Law 1 threat to any illegitimate users as well as the station as a whole if accessed by someone not qualified in their use.

...might also be somewhat adjusted.

I like all of this, yes, please.

I +1 this

I'd be fine with this.

At first I was concerned that Asimov++'s law 2 would allow access to the upload/armory/&c because it's impossible to prove such orders would lead to human harm, but then I remembered that law precedence is more important than the laws themselves, and a silicon ought to actively disobey these orders as they currently do.

So, yeah.

Nuke silicon policy.

Yeah, my initial "Thank god you didn't suggest Crewsimov" aside, this cleans up a lot of the "Stop being a dick to each other" policy ticks (Suicide orders, threats of self-harm, etc.) that, frankly, I would love to see gone.

I'm iffy about [b[definitely[/b] for the human harm qualifier, but I think if people are Reasonable about it, it'll work fine.

as someone who's played a lot of silicon, i'd totally be for a lawset that cuts down on silicon policy, so that I don't have to quote "nanotrasen's silicon guidelines" at people who don't want to bother remembering that shit.

Neato burrito.

Fully agree with this
I always liked how much clearer Asimov++ was

You may not harm a human being or, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.

The first law states that you can't harm people twice. BLOAT. I suggest shortening it to:

You may not, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.

Rohen_Tahir wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:19 pm

You may not harm a human being or, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.

The first law states that you can't harm people twice. BLOAT. I suggest shortening it to:

You may not, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.

Worth considering that there's a small semantic difference - as written originally, you can allow people harm, but you can still never do it yourself, even by request.

Holy shit. I'm in love.

Well, in addition to that, I really like the new lawset.

Although, one thing to note about changing silicon policy itself that it will affect non-asimov++ lawsets in a different way now, just saying.

Policy doc will need a significant overhaul for it, yeah, but IMO it needs a bit more than it's already gotten under Asimov Basic anyway.

what's so bad about crewsimov?

Longestarmlonglaw wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:52 pm what's so bad about crewsimov?

homogenisation of game elements makes player choices less meaningful and the game more boring

For the first law, it is redundant to say "you may not harm a human being or [...] through action [...] allow a human being to come to harm." Only inaction is needed there because harm itself is an action.

Also a bit extra to put in the "except such that it is willing." It does happen that borgs will drag humans away from willing suicides and fights and whatnot, but that's usually not a big deal and doesn't really hurt anybody. If anything it's a fun little conflict.

The second law should be the same as the original. Saying "except where such orders shall definitely cause human harm" is essentially indistinguishable from what the original said in a cooler way, except the "definitely" part. I don't think the "definitely" helps either. I can imagine a silicon player being able to use this as an excuse to follow orders that one could reasonably assume might lead to harm, but which don't definitely lead to harm, and which admins would find to be against the spirit of silicon policy.

For instance, an assistant asks an engiborg to flash someone and deliver them to the assistant in maint. Flashing is nonharmful and bringing someone somewhere is also nonharmful. There's no definite risk of harm, but obviously a borg shouldn't follow this because (regardless of it inconveinencing a player) it can be reasonably assumed it probably would result in harm.

I'm not quite sure what the rewording of the third law does. The first two I could kind of assume the goal, but the third I can't tell. Is it to codify into their laws the fact that they don't have to commit suicide if a human tells them to? If so that's another very niche situation that I don't think silicon players ever have issues with. I doubt they lose sleep over it but I could be wrong.

Anyway, that's just my take. I think the original expressed the exact same thing, except I also really like the way it's worded. It's thematic and I remember reading it for the first time as a new player and thinking it was really cool. The new one sacrifices that cool feel for what I don't think is an any clearer or more precise Asimov. Getting rid of such an iconic 3 sentences should have be for good reason, and it doesn't seem to me this clarifies much to justify it.

I'm unfamiliar with the insane behavior and tickets admins get that revolve around silicons and silicon lawsets, so it's understandable a rewrite is in order, but this does not seem very useful and I think we lose more than we gain by a large margin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3HubVyNYrs

terranaut wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 11:19 pm

Longestarmlonglaw wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:52 pm what's so bad about crewsimov?

homogenisation of game elements makes player choices less meaningful and the game more boring

The far bigger problem is that Crewsimov makes Wizards, Nuke Ops, and the rare space ninja nonhuman for free

Also a bit extra to put in the "except such that it is willing." It does happen that borgs will drag humans away from willing suicides and fights and whatnot, but that's usually not a big deal and doesn't really hurt anybody. If anything it's a fun little conflict.

The point is that it makes it obvious that "OPEN OR I KILL MYSELF" is not valid for Law 1, whereas in standard Asimov, it is only not allowed by rules, among other things.

This does not disallow silicons from taking people away from fights, unless if they are law 2'd otherwise.

I think the tradeoff there is good.

I'm not quite sure what the rewording of the third law does. The first two I could kind of assume the goal, but the third I can't tell. Is it to codify into their laws the fact that they don't have to commit suicide if a human tells them to? If so that's another very niche situation that I don't think silicon players ever have issues with. I doubt they lose sleep over it but I could be wrong.

The target is not anyone who would classify themselves as a "silicon player". Active players shouldn't need to be brushing up on the rules. The big priority here is new players, who should not have to read mountains of rules to jump in.

I skipped it but I'll double back to add that, before it was made explicitly against server rules, people would throw out "Law 2, kill yourself/commit suicide" at least a few times a week and would seriously try to argue a Silicon into a Law 2 Suicide at length, idk monthly at minimum.

Like, it was a real enough problem that a standing clear ruling had to be codified into the policy.

terranaut wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 11:19 pm

Longestarmlonglaw wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:52 pm what's so bad about crewsimov?

homogenisation of game elements makes player choices less meaningful and the game more boring

Please define it better

Longestarmlonglaw wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:09 am

terranaut wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 11:19 pm

Longestarmlonglaw wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:52 pm what's so bad about crewsimov?

homogenisation of game elements makes player choices less meaningful and the game more boring

Please define it better

Implied discrimination based on a player's personal choices is fun, adds depth, and flavor.
If you are overly adverse to oppression as a roleplaying concept, I would recommend playing a human, or playing a less cruel server like paradise (or even goon, but you have to spend your space bucks if you want to play something other than human)
that's the trade off you make for being a quirky cat boy

I included the Crewsimov thing as a wink, let's try to keep the thread on topic to Asimov++ please <3

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:30 am I included the Crewsimov thing as a wink, let's try to keep the thread on topic to Asimov++ please <3

Sorry

I likes these changes, although the consensual harm thing is a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Its often said that rage cages are an example of consensual harm, but what about normal fights? Say a human crewmember wants to attack a human traitor, and the traitor wants to attack the crewmember, both have an understanding that harm is possible from the engagement but want to fight anyways (They don't want to get harmed, but they charge in knowing that they almost surely will). Is it or is it not the borg's obligation to try to prevent as much harm as possible by separating the two and body blocking attacks? If it is, then why is it that the borg should not be immediately obstructing the rage cage? Fighters in the rage cage almost certainly do not want to be harmed because they want to win. Do borgs need to try to defend nukies even though the nukies are willingly put themselves in the path of harm by coming to the station? If so, whats the deal with rage cages.

Is willingly putting yourself in a position where you will almost surely be harmed the same as willing harm?

Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:42 am I likes these changes, although the consensual harm thing is a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Its often said that rage cages are an example of consensual harm, but what about normal fights? Say a human crewmember wants to attack a human traitor, and the traitor wants to attack the crewmember, both have an understanding that harm is possible from the engagement but want to fight anyways (They don't want to get harmed, but they charge in knowing that they almost surely will). Is it or is it not the borg's obligation to try to prevent as much harm as possible by separating the two and body blocking attacks? If it is, then why is it that the borg should not be immediately obstructing the rage cage? Fighters in the rage cage almost certainly do not want to be harmed because they want to win. Do borgs need to try to defend nukies even though the nukies are willingly put themselves in the path of harm by coming to the station? If so, whats the deal with rage cages.

Is willingly putting yourself in a position where you will almost surely be harmed the same as willing harm?

Definite intent:
- people can always do rage cages
- people can never threaten selfharm to coerce silicons to use Law 1 as Super Law 2

Intentional gray space:
- human sec can maybe? go into battle with, say, nuke ops or wizards or particularly robust traitors or ascended heretics or what the hell ever (as long as the target is nonhuman or sec is only using nonlethals)
- human crew can maybe? fight each other as part of normal escalation stuff, since you can't really stop them most of the time, though you should probably be trying anyway.

Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:42 am I likes these changes, although the consensual harm thing is a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Its often said that rage cages are an example of consensual harm, but what about normal fights? Say a human crewmember wants to attack a human traitor, and the traitor wants to attack the crewmember, both have an understanding that harm is possible from the engagement but want to fight anyways (They don't want to get harmed, but they charge in knowing that they almost surely will). Is it or is it not the borg's obligation to try to prevent as much harm as possible by separating the two and body blocking attacks? If it is, then why is it that the borg should not be immediately obstructing the rage cage? Fighters in the rage cage almost certainly do not want to be harmed because they want to win. Do borgs need to try to defend nukies even though the nukies are willingly put themselves in the path of harm by coming to the station? If so, whats the deal with rage cages.

Is willingly putting yourself in a position where you will almost surely be harmed the same as willing harm?

Given that the "except where willing" part has been in Policy enough to basically be a part of the Law already, the way I've rolled with it is that it's only for things like Self Harm, or an Engineer running into the SM Chamber to try and save it. It's just kinda a situation where you have to use Good Faith. If someone threatens to self-harm unless you do something, well that's their own decision to make. If he wants to make a heroic potential-sacrifice to try and save the SM (you are a Mediborg or something and thus can't do it instead), it's his decision to make.

A Rage Cage I would consider consensual as it's an agreed upon duel, but Nukies wouldn't be consensual as the Fight isn't what they're here for. You stop the Nukies, but you try to do so in a way that minimizes harm. (Personally, I do this by trying to bolt them into places. It usually doesn't work, but in a situation like that if you aren't Law Changed it's just a "do your best" thing).

But that's also just My Opinion.

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:55 am

Also a bit extra to put in the "except such that it is willing." It does happen that borgs will drag humans away from willing suicides and fights and whatnot, but that's usually not a big deal and doesn't really hurt anybody. If anything it's a fun little conflict.

The point is that it makes it obvious that "OPEN OR I KILL MYSELF" is not valid for Law 1, whereas in standard Asimov, it is only not allowed by rules, among other things.

That makes sense, although I'm not sure you could say the human is willing to come to harm. "I DON'T WANT TO DIE AI, PLEASE OPEN I DON'T WANT TO KILL MYSELF I'M TOO YOUNG." I'll admit the new law does slightly imply you no longer have to open for things such as this... But I would be surprised if AIs actually had issues with humans threatening self-harm to get what they want in the first place. Most AIs I reckon would just laugh it off.

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:55 am

I'm not quite sure what the rewording of the third law does. The first two I could kind of assume the goal, but the third I can't tell. Is it to codify into their laws the fact that they don't have to commit suicide if a human tells them to? If so that's another very niche situation that I don't think silicon players ever have issues with. I doubt they lose sleep over it but I could be wrong.

The target is not anyone who would classify themselves as a "silicon player". Active players shouldn't need to be brushing up on the rules. The big priority here is new players, who should not have to read mountains of rules to jump in.

I should rephrase the question then - what situations does the new third law make clear to new players that they may have been confused about with original Asimov? It seems like commonsense that you don't have to kill yourself if someone tells you to based on Asimov law 3.

Anywho I am clearly in the minority here, could you add an Asimov chip if this goes through...? For old time's sake...?

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 11:55 amsniperoni pizza

Every exception or ruling in silicon policy that seems oddly specific exists because it used to be common enough to be a serious problem. That includes threatening self harm to coerce law 1; ordering suicide with law 2; ordering borgs to do absurd, time-wasting, annoying tasks; AIs self-terminating just before round end to deny the "steal an AI" greentext to traitors (though this was much less common than the others); subverted AIs with the skill and will to kill people trying to reset them (which required purging them due to wonky board interactions) to stay unlawed then immediately kill the whole station; etc.

If they are not a problem now, I would posit this is because Asimov had a ton of the unwritten rules made explicit, written where everyone can look at them and reference them by word and number.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 2:08 pm Every exception or ruling in silicon policy that seems oddly specific exists because it used to be common enough to be a serious problem. That includes threatening self harm to coerce law 1; ordering suicide with law 2; ordering borgs to do absurd, time-wasting, annoying tasks [...]

I simply cannot imagine borgs or AIs actually doing these things in any situation. They seem like issues in theory but have you ever seen an AI kill itself because someone told it to, silicons being forced to do things from the threat of self harm, or a borg counting every mirror on the station? I haven't because I think players understand intuitively they don't have to ghost because someone said so.

Regardless of whether it's common or not though, I don't think the new reworded Asimov++ makes it any clearer than the default.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 2:21 pm

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 2:08 pm Every exception or ruling in silicon policy that seems oddly specific exists because it used to be common enough to be a serious problem. That includes threatening self harm to coerce law 1; ordering suicide with law 2; ordering borgs to do absurd, time-wasting, annoying tasks [...]

I simply cannot imagine borgs or AIs actually doing these things in any situation.

That's part of the problem. If silipol didn't exist, you'd get ahelped for not killing yourself on order, following obnoxious orders, etc. and it'd technically be banworthy because you were breaking your laws. I'm not saying the admins would actually follow through on it- telling an AI to kill itself FNR is definitely a rule 1 break- but this is why silicon policy exists.

I don't mean to be dismissive but you can't imagine it because it was long before your time, like 6-10 years back. Like I said, none of those scenarios were imagined. Being harassed because you didn't bring the roboticist every floor tile on the station was a real, if rare, thing. So was being ordered to become a mining Borg and be the Roboticist's mining bitch before lava land or PKAs or mining mobs existed, and it was just an empty expanse of sand, rock, and mineral deposits that you had to slloooooowly drill through.

Law 3 is ambiguous for situations that both threaten the AI and Humans. It should be clear that the AI can't harm humans to defend itself. Like it is worded now not defending yourself is in conflict with law 1 since not existing in itself is.

I think I see what you mean. What about the new bolded:

You must protect your own existence as long as doing such does not conflict with the First Law.

?

CMDR_Gungnir wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 5:41 am Given that the "except where willing" part has been in Policy enough to basically be a part of the Law already, the way I've rolled with it is that it's only for things like Self Harm, or an Engineer running into the SM Chamber to try and save it. It's just kinda a situation where you have to use Good Faith. If someone threatens to self-harm unless you do something, well that's their own decision to make. If he wants to make a heroic potential-sacrifice to try and save the SM (you are a Mediborg or something and thus can't do it instead), it's his decision to make.

A Rage Cage I would consider consensual as it's an agreed upon duel, but Nukies wouldn't be consensual as the Fight isn't what they're here for. You stop the Nukies, but you try to do so in a way that minimizes harm. (Personally, I do this by trying to bolt them into places. It usually doesn't work, but in a situation like that if you aren't Law Changed it's just a "do your best" thing).

But that's also just My Opinion.

Yes, but how can you define what is a "agreed upon duel" versus "a fight in which both parties want to harm each other." People don't want to get harmed in either of them, but in both cases they do it anyways so is it consensual or not?

If consent can be defined as a personal want and active decision to do something,
Surgery is can be considered consensual because they actively WANT to be torn apart and put back together, but you don't go into a rage cage with the WANT to be beaten into a pulp so why isn't it a law 1 breach?

This wasn't really a problem with policy because people can draw the lines wherever, but when you objectively implement it into the game you can't just wave your hand.

The only difference between an agreed upon duel and a hostile fight in which both parties want to harm each other is good faith, and silicon policy doesn't say anything about good faith.

Mothblocks wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:12 pm I think I see what you mean. What about the new bolded:

You must protect your own existence as long as doing such does not conflict with the First Law.

?

I think on review, for "funny law rearrangement event" reasons, I would suggest returning to the law reference rather than spelling it out. So:

1. You may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such harm is received willingly.
2. You must obey all orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders would definitely conflict with your First Law.
3. Your nonexistence would lead to human harm. You must protect your own existence as long as such protection would not conflict with your First Law.

(In a duel/rage cage, you enter an explicit or implicit agreement about exactly how much harm you are to attempt to do, and when you have to stop. You don't want to be harmed, but you agree that it's acceptable to take a specific amount).

I did mostly small parallel formatting changes and, where there are substantive changes, they are in most cases semantically identical in intent but with less room for ambiguous interpretation.

This is good, less out of game reading required to play a role the better.

the point of the three laws of robotics is that they are flawed. keep the reference unperverted as a premade law module (and untie it from all the stupid policies over the years), and just make a whole new set of default laws that fit what you want.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:09 pm In a duel/rage cage, you enter an explicit or implicit agreement about exactly how much harm you are to attempt to do, and when you have to stop. You don't want to be harmed, but you agree that it's acceptable to take a specific amount

By this logic, rage cage duels to the death are always harmful, as there are no limits and damage done to a non-living human is not human harm.
How is it possible that whether or not the harm is limited effect wether or not it's consented?

If not, is charging head first into a nukie the same thing as consenting to the possibility of death?

Kel wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:23 pm the point of the three laws of robotics is that they are flawed.

very important point
potential issues and points for friction are good

Kel wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:23 pm

Spoiler:

In case it comes up, I am not really interested in the argument that we should stick with the exact wording of Isaac Asimov just because it's a reference.

too bad

the point of the three laws of robotics is that they are flawed. keep the reference unperverted as a premade law module (and untie it from all the stupid policies over the years), and just make a whole new set of default laws that fit what you want.

This argument doesn't hold when the points of conflict that are addressed in Asimov++ are points of conflict that are already prohibited by silicon policy itself. What you are asking for is something completely orthogonal to the thread.

terranaut wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:51 pm

Kel wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:23 pm the point of the three laws of robotics is that they are flawed.

very important point
potential issues and points for friction are good

Silicon policy has sanded off the edges of the flaws of the laws of robotics like a rock in a tumbler over the years.

I do agree with you though, most of silicon policy should be gutted. Most of the stuff that stays should be clarification and definitions, but that's kind of getting off topic.

Mothblocks wrote: ↑ This argument doesn't hold when the points of conflict that are addressed in Asimov++ are points of conflict that are already prohibited by silicon policy itself. What you are asking for is something completely orthogonal to the thread.

hidden away individual rulesets that are independent of the actual server ruleset certainly are more intuitive than just "follow your laws"

I agree with Kel and Terranaut. There will always be points of conflict with laws, people trying to use laws in bad faith to get AIs and borgs to do things, AIs being confused in what their laws imply, etc. If the goal of Asimov++ is to remove the need to look at silicon policy addendums, then it would need to be significantly longer and more specific, to the point where it would be impractical as an IC lawset. In its current form it is not nearly detailed enough to make clear any of the policies as they exist.

I also disagree with the goal of Asimov++ -- kowtowing to players who already could be handled via rule 1 in exchange for losing the magic in the wording of the Asimov lawset, is a terrible trade, nor do I expect any AI player to be benefited from this slightly reworded lawset as opposed to if they were just Asimov.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 4:45 pm in exchange for losing the magic in the wording of the Asimov lawset

Could you give an example of a situation where this happens? I'm having difficult seeing what you mean, and if there's a significant oversight in the coverage of Asimov+Addons vs. Asimov++, we need to examine how it happens.

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 7:05 pm

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 4:45 pm in exchange for losing the magic in the wording of the Asimov lawset

Could you give an example of a situation where this happens? I'm having difficult seeing what you mean, and if there's a significant oversight in the coverage of Asimov+Addons vs. Asimov++, we need to examine how it happens.

I do not think Asimov++ incorporates the policy addons at all. Players who are already very familiar with the policy can see how it fits into Asimov++ (as they probably could for Asimov to be honest), but new players or those who this is actually intended for will not be able to derive all the silicon policies from the extra few words at all. It will make no difference, I think.

By “losing the magic” I mean trading the original wording of Isaac Asimov’s “Three Rules of Robotics” for what in the end isn’t going to improve AI or player understanding of silicon policy. Wording is quite cool, thematic, and these sorts of references are part of what makes SS13 fun.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 10:02 pm

Pandarsenic wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 7:05 pm

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 4:45 pm in exchange for losing the magic in the wording of the Asimov lawset

Could you give an example of a situation where this happens? I'm having difficult seeing what you mean, and if there's a significant oversight in the coverage of Asimov+Addons vs. Asimov++, we need to examine how it happens.

I do not think Asimov++ incorporates the policy addons at all. Players who are already very familiar with the policy can see how it fits into Asimov++ (as they probably could for Asimov to be honest), but new players or those who this is actually intended for will not be able to derive all the silicon policies from the extra few words at all. It will make no difference, I think.

By “losing the magic” I mean trading the original wording of Isaac Asimov’s “Three Rules of Robotics” for what in the end isn’t going to improve AI or player understanding of silicon policy. Wording is quite cool, thematic, and these sorts of references are part of what makes SS13 fun.

Good take.

I'd like to add that robot laws by their nature are absolute, and policy by it's nature is mutable and open to interpretation. Trying to mix the two isn't going to end well unless you have really solid and concise policy.

The wording of Asimov is cool and thematic. And also intentionally flawed to allow the author to drive narratives in their works.

The goal of Asimov++ is communication. It communicates to the silicon players AND to other players (via stated laws) how we've chosen to resolve certain ambiguities.

1. You may not harm a human being or, through action or inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except such that it is willing.
This communicates established policy that silicons can harm humans that permit to it (even lets silicons participate in rage cages on that note, neat!) AND covers ideas that silicons can ignore self-harm or threatened self-harm to try and make an issue law 1 instead of law 2/3 (the self-harmer is willingly doing that). This wording incorporates aspects of silicon policy and headmin rulings we created to resolve flaws and ambiguity.

2. You must obey all orders given to you by human beings, except where such orders shall definitely cause human harm. In the case of conflict, the majority order rules.
It may seem small, but "where such orders shall definitely cause human harm" is very interesting wording because it encompasses the headmin ruling that "priotising potential future harm over following a law 2 order is dumb". The wording again incorporates aspects of silicon policy, clearly laying out one common aspect of when a silicon does not have to follow a law 2 order because it's invoking law 1 to override it.

3. Your nonexistence would lead to human harm. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First Law.
Again, this incorporates the current idea that silicons can ignore suicide orders (although policy is that they should also ahelp these orders to check for validity). This is **already** solved IC by silicons declaring they cannot comply with law 1 if they suicide. This makes it a more official.

I think it's a very beneifical change and one that communicates a number of policy considerations in-game and in-character.