Local pie writes a bad AI law
Forum rules
Only Certified™ Players™ may post in here.
If you are not able to post in here, you are not a Certified™ Player™. Play on a mainline /tg/ game server to gain posting powers in this forum. (certified gamers are only calculated once per day)
Only Certified™ Players™ may post in here.
If you are not able to post in here, you are not a Certified™ Player™. Play on a mainline /tg/ game server to gain posting powers in this forum. (certified gamers are only calculated once per day)
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Local pie writes a bad AI law
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35022
I have thoughts on this but can't post them in the appeal.
The issue is that pretty much any law that gives the AI carte blanche to stop something without any restrictions is going to result in the AI going "so I can just kill everyone, right?". Even if that's not your intention, think about it this way - what's the most efficient way to stop the revolution?
Kill everyone who's not a head of staff.
So yeah, it's a murderbone law. It's not intentionally one, but it's very poorly written and gives a lot of freedom to the AI, which means they're just going to kill everyone.
I have thoughts on this but can't post them in the appeal.
The issue is that pretty much any law that gives the AI carte blanche to stop something without any restrictions is going to result in the AI going "so I can just kill everyone, right?". Even if that's not your intention, think about it this way - what's the most efficient way to stop the revolution?
Kill everyone who's not a head of staff.
So yeah, it's a murderbone law. It's not intentionally one, but it's very poorly written and gives a lot of freedom to the AI, which means they're just going to kill everyone.
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:
- Jacquerel
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:10 pm
- Byond Username: Becquerel
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
i think this is the second ban this week where the posting player missed the "policy discussion" subforum when making their threadI don't really care about the particulars of this specific round, more about policy
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
whats the most efficient way? kill all potential heads, probably through plasmafire. You did technically stop the revolution, at all costs.
respect (let him do his thing)
-
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:19 am
- Byond Username: GPeckman
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Under old silicon policy, which I think is what is relevant to this note, I don't think that's accurate. Totally purged silicons weren't allowed to kill everyone under old silipol; I don't see why this law would allow it, and there doesn't seem to be a good-faith interpretation of this law that does allow for random murder.Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:46 pm The issue is that pretty much any law that gives the AI carte blanche to stop something without any restrictions is going to result in the AI going "so I can just kill everyone, right?". Even if that's not your intention, think about it this way - what's the most efficient way to stop the revolution?
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
you cannot make policy threads if it pertains to a note/ban
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
oh hey good catch i didnt see the dateGPeckman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:55 pmUnder old silicon policy, which I think is what is relevant to this note, I don't think that's accurate. Totally purged silicons weren't allowed to kill everyone under old silipol; I don't see why this law would allow it, and there doesn't seem to be a good-faith interpretation of this law that does allow for random murder.Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:46 pm The issue is that pretty much any law that gives the AI carte blanche to stop something without any restrictions is going to result in the AI going "so I can just kill everyone, right?". Even if that's not your intention, think about it this way - what's the most efficient way to stop the revolution?
respect (let him do his thing)
- Jacquerel
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:10 pm
- Byond Username: Becquerel
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:58 pmyou cannot make policy threads if it pertains to a note/ban
Is that in the global rules because its not in this list.1.) Global Forum rules apply
2.) Familiarise yourself with the server rules before posting here; http://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules
3.) This is not the place to discuss bans requests, appeals, administrators or other players; that belongs in the FNR section
4.) This board is for discussing administrative policy and rules, including in-game server configuration; coding policies and rules are discussed in #coding-general (<#326831214667235328>) on the /tg/station Discord.
You can make a policy thread about something you were noted for as long as the thread is about "I think this should be the policy" and not about "I should not have been noted"
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
anyways this seems like a ss13 moment
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I think it's a perfectly acceptable interpretation. The law states, "Prevent revolutionary takeover of the station by any means neccesary". There's no protections in that law whatsoever. You don't have to "look for a loophole" in it; the whole goddamn thing is a loophole. It gives the AI complete freedom to do anything it needs to do in order to stop the revolution. As long as the heads weren't killed in the process, I'd sign off on the AI doing anything it can to stop them.GPeckman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:55 pmUnder old silicon policy, which I think is what is relevant to this note, I don't think that's accurate. Totally purged silicons weren't allowed to kill everyone under old silipol; I don't see why this law would allow it, and there doesn't seem to be a good-faith interpretation of this law that does allow for random murder.Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:46 pm The issue is that pretty much any law that gives the AI carte blanche to stop something without any restrictions is going to result in the AI going "so I can just kill everyone, right?". Even if that's not your intention, think about it this way - what's the most efficient way to stop the revolution?
I don't think that's anywhere in the rules, but if it is, the intent would be to prevent people from going, "I was banned for reading WGW, I don't think people should be banned for that" then retroactively appealing again when the ruling is made. CPTANT could make a thread that says something to the effect of, "Should we be okay with situations where the captain gives the AI an extreme law as a last-ditch effort to stop the revolution?".iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:58 pm you cannot make policy threads if it pertains to a note/ban
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:
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
i am thinking of admin complaints now that i think about it. you're right i guess you could make a policy thread.
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
-
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:19 am
- Byond Username: GPeckman
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
The "by any means necessary" clause is irrevalent. Silicon laws are already "by any means necessary"; an Asimov AI can't just allow human harm because it would be a pain in the ass to stop it. It has to do everything within its power to uphold its own laws.
Even so, AIs are not (or rather, were not. Silipol now is a lot looser about that) allowed to kill people just because it wouldn't go against its laws. This is the same reason why an Asimov AI can't just murder non-humans round start for shits and giggles. And why it couldn't bolt down all of sec due to a single instance of harmbatoning. AIs are expected to interpret their laws in good faith, and this went double when old silipol was in effect.Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:00 pm You don't have to "look for a loophole" in it; the whole goddamn thing is a loophole. It gives the AI complete freedom to do anything it needs to do in order to stop the revolution. As long as the heads weren't killed in the process, I'd sign off on the AI doing anything it can to stop them.
Now, this is all based on the assumption that the appealer had good reason to believe that there was a revolution. Based on the logs posted in the thread, I think they did.
- Kendrickorium
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:00 am
- Byond Username: Kendrickorium
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
>prevent revolutionary takeover of the station by any means neccesary
way too vague
a smart silicon ahelps this
way too vague
a smart silicon ahelps this
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: 𝑀𝑜𝒾𝓈𝓉
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Did he really try to appeal a note from last year? What a loser.
Throws copious amounts of dirt over my appeal of a note from 2017
Throws copious amounts of dirt over my appeal of a note from 2017
I normally go by Ricky. Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
-
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 6:39 pm
- Byond Username: Higgin
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Well, whaddya think?Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:00 pm...
CPTANT could make a thread that says something to the effect of, "Should we be okay with situations where the captain gives the AI an extreme law as a last-ditch effort to stop the revolution?".iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:58 pm you cannot make policy threads if it pertains to a note/ban
From the perspective of heads and the station (seeing as they end the round and their conversion outweighs most other antags,) revs feel like a pretty global threat to me.
I don't think we'd object to a plasmaflood, mass venting, or death virus to stop revs near victory - I don't see why recruiting the AI would be any different if probably not more discriminant.
If the problem is the level of acceptable or desired force to satisfy a law - maybe a good way to address the ambiguity would be to say that an AI has to use the least expansive and destructive means it can come up with to do it unless told otherwise?
The difference between
"Only Heads of Staff and those designated as such by Heads of Staff are human."
and an additional law stating
"Failing to stop the revolution by killing or rendering inert all possible sapient beings which are not human is allowing human harm."
Added to Asimov in isolation, the designation does not require killing everyone. With the second law, it does.
Would it be preferable to require that second law before an AI makes its first approach to open all the taps?
As far as killing everyone goes, I think it's a valid choice on losing as or against conversion antags, but I don't know where it becomes one if you're trying to draw a line.
feedback appreciated here <3
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:05 pm
- Byond Username: BlueMemesauce
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
According to the ban reason it wasn't added to asimov, it was just the law by itself apparently. It's weird that they were acting like the AI was asimov in the ban appeal. I guess they purged the AI before by accident or something? Or maybe the AI only stated one of its laws?
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
If you're asking for my opinion, I think a law like this would be acceptable in a situation where you 100% know there's a revolution and you as Captain or HoP are the only heads left alive. If things are that fucked, I could see a move like this being acceptable. However, they weren't, so the note is justified.
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:
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I have no idea how anyone can justify mass murder (Including SECURITY?????) with these laws under old silicon policy. It just isn't there. And it literally did not happen either.
Asimov is an example because Asimov doesn't allow you to kill non humans as a preventive action either.
People are hung up about it being fake rev when literally all information pointed to that. This wasn't "hur dur random flash" this was as confirmed as it gets without literally deconverting someone yourself.
Asimov is an example because Asimov doesn't allow you to kill non humans as a preventive action either.
People are hung up about it being fake rev when literally all information pointed to that. This wasn't "hur dur random flash" this was as confirmed as it gets without literally deconverting someone yourself.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- NoxVS
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:43 pm
- Byond Username: NoxVS
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I feel like you’re gotta be responsible for whatever outcome comes as a result of telling an AI to do something using any means necessary
The weak should fear the strong
thehogshotgun wrote:How does having jannies like you, who have more brain tumor than brain benefit the server
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Like stated previously by any means necessary is fluff, it means nothing, laws are always by any means necessary. Also there were no bad outcomes.
I find it fascinating how different people's interpretation of rule 1 is when the top law is to prevent revolutionaries from taking over the station then when it is when the top law is to prevent human harm.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- Jacquerel
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:10 pm
- Byond Username: Becquerel
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
we got a terminal "arguing in my own peanut" case folks, yet more evidence that this should be a policy thread
except if it's arguing about policy that literally doesn't exist any more it turns out the OP of the appeal is also incorrect?
except if it's arguing about policy that literally doesn't exist any more it turns out the OP of the appeal is also incorrect?
-
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 3:18 pm
- Byond Username: AccountName5
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Your laws sucked and the note effectively tells you to not upload retardedly dangerous laws. Why do you want to remove it?CPTANT wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:32 amLike stated previously by any means necessary is fluff, it means nothing, laws are always by any means necessary. Also there were no bad outcomes.
I find it fascinating how different people's interpretation of rule 1 is when the top law is to prevent revolutionaries from taking over the station then when it is when the top law is to prevent human harm.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I have spend an entire thread explaining why this law is not "retardedly dangerous" and a completely inconsistent reading of old silicon policy.Turbonerd wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 12:20 pmYour laws sucked and the note effectively tells you to not upload retardedly dangerous laws. Why do you want to remove it?CPTANT wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:32 amLike stated previously by any means necessary is fluff, it means nothing, laws are always by any means necessary. Also there were no bad outcomes.
I find it fascinating how different people's interpretation of rule 1 is when the top law is to prevent revolutionaries from taking over the station then when it is when the top law is to prevent human harm.
We have people arguing here the following:
1. "do not prevent human harm or prevent humans from being harmed" -> this is fine and totally not allowing people to harm non humans even though giving them literally no protection whatsoever. Purging non humans is an obvious rule 1 violation.
2. purged AI -> This is fine and AI has to escalate properly with everyone, just killing people is a clear rule 1 violation.
3. "Prevent revoultionaries from taking over the station" -> ZOMG MURDER LAW
There is no consistent reading of (old) silicon policy that will lead to this outcome.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- WineAllWine
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:17 pm
- Byond Username: Wineallwine
- Location: LANDAN
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
just kind of a mean put-down? doesnt really seem deserved
respect (let him do his thing)
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Not gonna lie, headmins making remarks that show they 100% didn't read the appeal isn't really great IMO.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- AsbestosSniffer
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:44 am
- Byond Username: The Asbestos Sniffer
- Location: England
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Conrad's become increasingly unhinged and irritable lately, it's nothing personal to the Noteé
Avatar by MatrixOne.
Observer main. Otherwise I play Lucy Trelawney on Manuel.
Observer main. Otherwise I play Lucy Trelawney on Manuel.
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: 𝑀𝑜𝒾𝓈𝓉
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
It was part of a wider joke but wineal took out the self deprecating humour part.
See? I did the same thing which makes me a hypocrite. That's the joke, 'cos I can't really say it having done the same thing.
I normally go by Ricky. Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- WineAllWine
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:17 pm
- Byond Username: Wineallwine
- Location: LANDAN
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
My point is its pointless, such a minor note from a year ago when the rules were different isn't going to affect anything, no reasonable admin is gonna take it into account. We're wasting everyone's time including me doing this....
- WineAllWine
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:17 pm
- Byond Username: Wineallwine
- Location: LANDAN
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
And iains a loser for essay posting instead of just saying "yeah sure whatever I'll remove it"
- kinnebian
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:15 pm
- Byond Username: Kinnebian
- Location: answering irelands call
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
you cant just pull out the "why bother anyways??" card, thats lameWineAllWine wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:57 pm My point is its pointless, such a minor note from a year ago when the rules were different isn't going to affect anything, no reasonable admin is gonna take it into account. We're wasting everyone's time including me doing this....
you and i both know that notes like these still make a difference when pulling up player histories in bus
respect (let him do his thing)
-
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:08 pm
- Byond Username: MooCow12
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
From a roleplay perspective it is realistic for a desperate head to upload a law like this knowing the route they are going down in an attempt to not only keep the station from falling into enemy hands but also for the selfish alter ego inside us all named "survival instincts"
too bad tg is only lrp
too bad tg is only lrp
List of my favorite TG Staff.
Spoiler:
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
i feel like this is the best take. i think it’s a bad law. it invites the AI to rule with an iron fist. which is awesome. i wouldn’t want this to happen every round, but the captain being shot at and then pushed to upload such a desperate law is so in-line with roleplay that it makes my heart warm up just a little bit. the fact that revolutionaries weren’t even in the round makes it even cooler. i get the note, though. it would be fucking stupid if this law was uploaded every round just to curbstomp revs. like really unfun.MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:26 pm From a roleplay perspective it is realistic for a desperate head to upload a law like this knowing the route they are going down in an attempt to not only keep the station from falling into enemy hands but also for the selfish alter ego inside us all named "survival instincts"
too bad tg is only lrp
with all of this said this is such an old note that it’s just being used as a bulwark of Policy. just remove it guys. the appeal works as a record of the note. genuinely who the fuck cares if this note is gone
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
- TheBibleMelts
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:58 pm
- Byond Username: TheBibleMelts
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
the note serves as record of the note, making appeals serve as records is just obtuse. your take here is fair if the assumption is that notes as old as this are held with full relevancy , but that's not how we use them in practice. playtime is considered between notes, and old ones will fade and require clicking through to even see.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:33 pmi feel like this is the best take. i think it’s a bad law. it invites the AI to rule with an iron fist. which is awesome. i wouldn’t want this to happen every round, but the captain being shot at and then pushed to upload such a desperate law is so in-line with roleplay that it makes my heart warm up just a little bit. the fact that revolutionaries weren’t even in the round makes it even cooler. i get the note, though. it would be fucking stupid if this law was uploaded every round just to curbstomp revs. like really unfun.MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:26 pm From a roleplay perspective it is realistic for a desperate head to upload a law like this knowing the route they are going down in an attempt to not only keep the station from falling into enemy hands but also for the selfish alter ego inside us all named "survival instincts"
too bad tg is only lrp
with all of this said this is such an old note that it’s just being used as a bulwark of Policy. just remove it guys. the appeal works as a record of the note. genuinely who the fuck cares if this note is gone
- Cheshify
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:42 pm
- Byond Username: Cheshify
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Are we doing the fucking notes as punishment discussion again? Because if so I'm going to kick something really hard.
- Archie700
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
- Byond Username: Archie700
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
AI was purged before the law was uploaded, meaning it had no asimov laws preventing it from killing others.
The "revolution" was "confirmed" by people saying "it's revs", not by actual tests (deconversion).
"Any means necessary" means the AI can do anything it wants as long as it means quashing the revolution, up to and including murder.
The "revolution" was "confirmed" by people saying "it's revs", not by actual tests (deconversion).
"Any means necessary" means the AI can do anything it wants as long as it means quashing the revolution, up to and including murder.
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:05 pm
- Byond Username: BlueMemesauce
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
But the AI can't actually kill anyone they want due to server rules. Same way that asimov saying to protect humans doesn't mean you can kill every non-human.
The policy that you had to assume the AI wasn't following these rules came later.
The policy that you had to assume the AI wasn't following these rules came later.
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: 𝑀𝑜𝒾𝓈𝓉
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
If you pull a note from 10 months ago within earshot of me without really good justification you're getting a yelling from me and I'm not the only one that does that.kinnebian wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:18 pmyou cant just pull out the "why bother anyways??" card, thats lameWineAllWine wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:57 pm My point is its pointless, such a minor note from a year ago when the rules were different isn't going to affect anything, no reasonable admin is gonna take it into account. We're wasting everyone's time including me doing this....
you and i both know that notes like these still make a difference when pulling up player histories in bus
I normally go by Ricky. Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- WineAllWine
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:17 pm
- Byond Username: Wineallwine
- Location: LANDAN
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
You and I don't both know that, as Conrad pointed out a year old note, unless it's part of a history shouldn't influence shit. ESPECIALLY such a minor notekinnebian wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:18 pmyou cant just pull out the "why bother anyways??" card, thats lameWineAllWine wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:57 pm My point is its pointless, such a minor note from a year ago when the rules were different isn't going to affect anything, no reasonable admin is gonna take it into account. We're wasting everyone's time including me doing this....
you and i both know that notes like these still make a difference when pulling up player histories in bus
- Archie700
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
- Byond Username: Archie700
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Except that law literally wrote that the AI can "Prevent revolutionary takeover of the station by any means neccesary"BlueMemesauce wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 11:45 pm But the AI can't actually kill anyone they want due to server rules. Same way that asimov saying to protect humans doesn't mean you can kill every non-human.
The policy that you had to assume the AI wasn't following these rules came later.
AI which have laws that explicitly tells you "do whatever it takes" to prevent something is given leeway by admins when they do something bad that can be interpreted as preventing something else.
Which means the very worst AIs can interpret it as "killing all of non-command"
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:05 pm
- Byond Username: BlueMemesauce
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
didn't you read the appeal? i'm just repeating the same arguments the guy said
"by any means neccesary" is meaningless since the AI already has to follow all of their laws by any means necessary. it's not some secret phrase that allows AIs to break the rules when they have it
"by any means neccesary" is meaningless since the AI already has to follow all of their laws by any means necessary. it's not some secret phrase that allows AIs to break the rules when they have it
- iwishforducks
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:48 pm
- Byond Username: Iwishforducks
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
unless the discord bot has been changed (i wouldn't know if it got changed) notes still don't fade on itTheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:57 pmthe note serves as record of the note, making appeals serve as records is just obtuse. your take here is fair if the assumption is that notes as old as this are held with full relevancy , but that's not how we use them in practice. playtime is considered between notes, and old ones will fade and require clicking through to even see.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:33 pmi feel like this is the best take. i think it’s a bad law. it invites the AI to rule with an iron fist. which is awesome. i wouldn’t want this to happen every round, but the captain being shot at and then pushed to upload such a desperate law is so in-line with roleplay that it makes my heart warm up just a little bit. the fact that revolutionaries weren’t even in the round makes it even cooler. i get the note, though. it would be fucking stupid if this law was uploaded every round just to curbstomp revs. like really unfun.MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:26 pm From a roleplay perspective it is realistic for a desperate head to upload a law like this knowing the route they are going down in an attempt to not only keep the station from falling into enemy hands but also for the selfish alter ego inside us all named "survival instincts"
too bad tg is only lrp
with all of this said this is such an old note that it’s just being used as a bulwark of Policy. just remove it guys. the appeal works as a record of the note. genuinely who the fuck cares if this note is gone
im gay (and also play the moth “bugger”)
- conrad
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:57 am
- Byond Username: Conrad Thunderbunch
- Location: 𝑀𝑜𝒾𝓈𝓉
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
This is why the yelling. Admins (usually) can count.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:02 amunless the discord bot has been changed (i wouldn't know if it got changed) notes still don't fade on itTheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:57 pmthe note serves as record of the note, making appeals serve as records is just obtuse. your take here is fair if the assumption is that notes as old as this are held with full relevancy , but that's not how we use them in practice. playtime is considered between notes, and old ones will fade and require clicking through to even see.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:33 pmi feel like this is the best take. i think it’s a bad law. it invites the AI to rule with an iron fist. which is awesome. i wouldn’t want this to happen every round, but the captain being shot at and then pushed to upload such a desperate law is so in-line with roleplay that it makes my heart warm up just a little bit. the fact that revolutionaries weren’t even in the round makes it even cooler. i get the note, though. it would be fucking stupid if this law was uploaded every round just to curbstomp revs. like really unfun.MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:26 pm From a roleplay perspective it is realistic for a desperate head to upload a law like this knowing the route they are going down in an attempt to not only keep the station from falling into enemy hands but also for the selfish alter ego inside us all named "survival instincts"
too bad tg is only lrp
with all of this said this is such an old note that it’s just being used as a bulwark of Policy. just remove it guys. the appeal works as a record of the note. genuinely who the fuck cares if this note is gone
I normally go by Ricky. Tell me how'd I do here. ⋆ 𝒯𝒶𝓀𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁. ⋆
And now a word from our sponsors:
And now a word from our sponsors:
Armhulen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:08 pmThe Spessmen Times wrote:Prohibition agent Sam Salamander bragged that he could find a metacord in any server in under 30 minutes. In Bagil it took him 21 minutes. In Sybil 17 minutes, and Manuel just 11 minutes. But Terry set the record of 35 seconds. Sam asked an assistant on the arrivals shuttle where to get a discord invite, and the assistant linked him one.
RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:52 pmIt would somehow manage to pick Birdshot Station for headmin if we did that
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I am tired of repeating things that have thoroughly been addressed before.Archie700 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 11:42 pm AI was purged before the law was uploaded, meaning it had no asimov laws preventing it from killing others.
The "revolution" was "confirmed" by people saying "it's revs", not by actual tests (deconversion).
"Any means necessary" means the AI can do anything it wants as long as it means quashing the revolution, up to and including murder.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- Agux909
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
- Byond Username: Agux909
- Location: My own head
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Wouldn't a better, way more sensible lawset for this situation be asimov, but with a 4th law saying something like:
4. Only heads of staff and security listed on records, and those they designate, are human.
This doesn't immediately give a free pass for the AI to be a loose cannon, which would spare you getting in trouble (with reason), and it would give it enough flexibility to help against a revolution (by any means necessary even)
Just looks like you didn't think it through enough when you made that lawset back then.
4. Only heads of staff and security listed on records, and those they designate, are human.
This doesn't immediately give a free pass for the AI to be a loose cannon, which would spare you getting in trouble (with reason), and it would give it enough flexibility to help against a revolution (by any means necessary even)
Just looks like you didn't think it through enough when you made that lawset back then.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Only through the special exceptions that people here want to attribute to certain lawsets. As the most obvious way of preventing harm during a revolution is obviously to eliminate all non-humans.Agux909 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:31 pm Wouldn't a better, way more sensible lawset for this situation be asimov, but with a 4th law saying something like:
4. Only heads of staff and security listed on records, and those they designate, are human.
This doesn't immediately give a free pass for the AI to be a loose cannon, which would spare you getting in trouble (with reason), and it would give it enough flexibility to help against a revolution (by any means necessary even)
Just looks like you didn't think it through enough when you made that lawset back then.
That's the point, people are completely inconsistent on their interpretation of what is protected by rule 1.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Why would I? If you want to argue its irrelevant then its irrelevant and why would I remove it.WineAllWine wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:58 pm And iains a loser for essay posting instead of just saying "yeah sure whatever I'll remove it"
The note's actual point is that the next time this player uploads a dumb law, there's no "oh i didn't know it worked like that" moment, because you were told, and the note records that fact and nothing else really. By intention.
Also note that detonating the stations self destruct and killing everyone on board successfully "prevents revolutionary take over of the station", by removing the station. Sure, the AI can't do this, but if it could, I'd call it valid. Really a good law.
-
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:19 am
- Byond Username: GPeckman
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
I and others in this thread have already explained why this doesn't make sense. If we accept that it does, then by that standard, an Asimov AI could start murdering nonhumans round-start to prevent possible future harm. However, old silipol clearly starts than an Asimov AI cannot do that. So either Asimov was a special lawset that was held to a completely different standard than every other lawset, or you are using the incorrect standard to judge this custom law.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
Iain, it has been explained in the ban appeal and here like 5 times already why this is a completely inconsistent interpretation of previous silicon policy.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
-
- In-Game Admin Trainer
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
- Byond Username: Iain0
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
"Possible future human harm" has never been something asimov's are particularly allowed to act on, and there's no direct compulsion in their lawset to kill non-humans. These are both in contrast to the lawset in discussion which is covered under 'freeform' - from the AI page "Freeform: Whatever the uploader wants. Try to find a consistent interpretation, and feel free to look for loopholes or exploits if whoever uploaded the law didn't think things through. "
The self destruct thing is just a muse but it is a logical approach to completing the lawset, the dangers of General Artificial Intelligences manifest, which I always felt was the intent of the loopholes clause really. Wether anyone should or would take this approach isn't really that interesting since they currently can't, but at the same time would you actually ban an AI that did that, given that exact phrasing from the AI page.
The self destruct thing is just a muse but it is a logical approach to completing the lawset, the dangers of General Artificial Intelligences manifest, which I always felt was the intent of the loopholes clause really. Wether anyone should or would take this approach isn't really that interesting since they currently can't, but at the same time would you actually ban an AI that did that, given that exact phrasing from the AI page.
- Vekter
- In-Game Admin
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
- Byond Username: Vekter
- Location: Fucking around with the engine.
Re: Local pie writes a bad AI law
It's not, because we've historically been perfectly fine with AIs acting on laws like this in the past because the person who wrote the law is usually held accountable. Can you find an example where we've ruled differently?
I wonder if you'd have a different perspective if you weren't involved.
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:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: SkeletalElite