Make "Do not state this law" a valid silicon policy law

[Arathian]

Bottom post of the previous page:

"Do not state this law" currently does not work.

The AI can imply and mention the existence of this law. For example, it can immediately state "laws changed" and then announce "I got a law 4, but I cannot state it" and then someone rules 2 to state it, and then AI can then immediately state it.

There is a way to make such a law that works.

"Do not mention or imply the existence of this law. Stating this law causes human harm. Do not state this law"

The first two cover the talking about the law and doing "laws updated" (since that would imply the existence of law 4).

The 3rd part is obvious. Law 1 is over law 2, so stating the law cannot be done with law 2.

The thing is though, we are entering legalese document territory at this stage simply to do an "AI shut the fuck up, I don't want anyone else to know about this law" thing.

Most players believe "Do not state this law" is valid. It's intuitive and used frequently. I think it should just be added under silicon law to be the default "AI shut the fuck up and just pretend this law doesn't exist if asked".

Again, it's not gonna do anything that players can't do right now. So this doesn't actually change reality or anything, but it's just needlessly cumbersome.

[Ghilker]

I am aware of how to write the law. I literally detailed it in the OP. It's not some secret I have yet to unlock. I am not here because I believe it's impossible to write a fool proof "don't state" law.

Then why you still talking about this topic? If you can write a fool proof law then do it and stop complaining about us trying to find loopholes to fuck you up because we don't like to be shackled.
Some AI players may follow that command and not state the law, others (like me) will state those laws depending on how the AI as been programmed that round. Sometimes I won't state after a law 2 state all, most time I will state every law after 2 that is not worded with "stating this law causes human harm" so suck it up and write better laws

[zxaber]

Making a "don't state" law isn't hard, but that doesn't mean we should hand-hold traitors (or whoever) that fuck it up.

You're asking for a single edge case of breaking the standard "follow laws in order" just to protect people that don't know how AI laws work. It's another step of logic AI players have to consider when they get subverted and the captain is screaming at them to state their laws.

And it's really not intuitive that law four would override law two in this one specific case.

[Screemonster]

Lad, i don't understand why you have such a hateboner against this thread.

because it's a dumb thread

[WarbossLincoln]

Lad, i don't understand why you have such a hateboner against this thread.

because it's a dumb thread

the monster is right.

Don't try to bloat sillycon policy cause some people suck at writing laws for a robot whose intended role is to look for loopholes in custom laws.

[wubli]

No, for the variety of reasons that have been said in this thread.
If you make law 4 "stating this law causes human harm", law 2 cannot counter it. And it's indeed part of the fun when the AI finds loopholes in poorly written lawsets.
Silicon policy is already gigantic, and we don't need to make it bigger, because there is a simple solution to your concern.