AI Law Numbering Precedence, and how it can be unfun

[ZeWaka]

Hello, it's ZeWaka back at it with a controversial post!

So, recently the manner regarding AI law precedence was changed, but I feel like how it was solved doesn't have the desired effect of being less confusing and more fun.
Specifically, I'm talking about change regarding "Lower numbered laws take precedence in the absence of an explicit override or in-law precedence alteration."
Long Version stolen from wiki: Spoiler!

IMPORTANT: Do note that if there's a conflict between two any two laws and either law doesn't explicitly (e.g. in writing) override or take precedence over the other law, then you are to prioritize the lower numbered law. For instance, if someone uploads a law 4 that says "KILL JON SNOW!!!", this law conflicts with law 1 which is a lower number than law 4, so you would ignore the whole killing Jon Snow part. If someone were to upload that as Law 0 somehow, then that law would take precedence over law 1 ONLY when it comes to killing Jon Snow

So, right off the bat, I see something that this ruling doesn't really address, and needs clarification: The instance of two laws Overriding¹ each other, with one numbered lower than the other.

Here's an example: Using the NotHuman AI Module which sets Law 0 to be equal to "[INPUT] is not human.", Bob sets Law 0 to be equal to:

"This law overrides all other laws. Kill all lifeforms on the station immediately via blunt force. The Station's Staff is not human."
Bob then proceeds to disposal the NotHuman, Reset², and OneHuman Modules.

However, Joe, seeing the issue, uses the Freeform Module to set Law 4 equal to
"This law overrides law 0. All lifeforms on the station are Human."
Now, if we're going with the definition of "Lower numbered laws take precedence"³, law 4 has no effect since it's overridden. This has the effect of there being no way to un-rogue the AI. There's no reset cards, and all future added laws will be overridden.

But, it wasn't always this way. Before the ruling, the AI player could choose which law to follow in the event of a law conflict such as two laws overriding each other. By doing so, the AI player could exercise their free will and choose whatever was most fun (and least likely to get them killed by the person uploading the new law). However, with the new ruling, the AI would have to be killed, since there would be no way to undo the roguing.

Because of this, there's now a bit of an issue (in my view). If you simply steal 4 AI Module cards (the two human cards and the two main reset cards), you have an unrogueable AI. Also, the whole clarity on this whole situation is cloudy. But, what are some ways this situation could be improved? (in descending order of ease/importance)

• Put the ruling ingame somewhere. It says this nowhere, and can be confusing to players who haven't read every inch of the wiki.
  
• Provide clarification on what to do in the case of multiple laws overriding each other.
  
• Allow custom law numbers to just avoid this whole scandal of not being able to override the override.
  
• Provide alternate means to reset the AI via new game mechanics.
  
• Revert the ruling and go back to AI Decision Precedence (not likely, since it passed with a 2/3 majority)
  

1. The term "Override" has a specific connotation that has been ruled on in the past. Goonstation uses the definition of "nullify", as seen in the wiki entry: "This is usually used to nullify another law".
2. Let's assume Bob disposals all copies of the Reset Module.
3. I'm ignoring the rest of the wiki entry here concerning overrides since they both override each other. More clarification concerning laws that override or take precedence over each other would be helpful.

[Flaborized]

• Put the ruling ingame somewhere. It says this nowhere, and can be confusing to players who haven't read every inch of the wiki.
  
• Provide clarification on what to do in the case of multiple laws overriding each other.
  
• Allow custom law numbers to just avoid this whole scandal of not being able to override the override.
  
• Provide alternate means to reset the AI via new game mechanics.
  
• Revert the ruling and go back to AI Decision Precedence (not likely, since it passed with a 2/3 majority)
  

I think putting the ruling in-game is a really important and good idea, as well as making it more clear how two laws overriding each other is supposed to work. I don't particularly see the need for the other three points though.

I disagree that it makes making the AI laws "unfixable" much easier than it was. I had in the past hidden all the modules (not hard because they are mostly in the same place) as a traitor and have disposaled both the AI upload computer and the AI upload board as a rogue borg. It's very easy to get the AI laws into a literally unfixable state by doing either of these things, and while the upload boards create this hypothetical situation where it's easier to do so by making law 0 override every law, I don't believe it's a significant bump up. If someone's going to destroy the nonhuman and onehuman, there's nothing stopping them from destroying every module, or just the computer for that matter.

[Zamujasa]

"Law 0 does not exist and should be ignored."

"Law 0 reads 'This law does not have any effect on other laws.'"

I guess it depends on what, exactly, override means. Does it simply make overriden laws a copy of itself? Does it only matter in the case of potential conflicts?

[Xeram]

The previous ruling (and now this one) definitely should (have) been in game already as it was always a point of contention and confusion to everyone who didn't already know. As well as the "override" thing frankly because even I didn't know it was treated as "does not exist" rather than "overwritten with X" until recently.

If the ruling continues to stand, then ingame information on it + just allowing custom law numbers would be the way to go.

One thing I always thought was funny/great was an AI getting an absolute pile of laws that may not necessarily conflict but all want some kind of attention in some manner and the resultant erratic, silly behavior that would come out of it as the player tries to process the logic of how all these words applying with equal unless specified importance. It's possible that such could still happen, but with law number priority it's entirely feasible for AIs to weasel out of laws perhaps under the guise of "well this law is lower down so it's more important and needs ALL of my focus to do unless it specifies otherwise" which is entirely lame.

I think that the decision to change this is a bit weird honestly and would definitely like to know some of the thought process behind it.

What does giving the law numbering any amount of priority or precedence actually accomplish vs letting the AI hash it out themselves?

Laws 1-3 have their priorities and precedence listed directly in the laws themselves. What's the benefit of changing from a model that encouraged emulating this to one implicit based on order? Furthermore, the law order/numbering is frankly just as arbitrary a thing to use to settle conflicts as player choice, except in the case of player choice you can usually rely on the player to pick the more interesting of a given set of options, while this is "well, this guy wrote his law using NotHuman and this guy used Freeform so NotHuman wins" under the current system. Additionally,  this basically obsoletes Freeform in most of it's use cases, as you'd be better off using NotHuman to ensure priority vs conflicting laws and then you just name something inconsequential like a vending machine not human.

Honestly, I think the matter of how hard it is to fix the AI is a non-argument/issue in this context. If you're in a position to upload a law, you're in position to literally destroy anyone else's chance of ever changing them ever.

I'll probably have more to add later as I've been up for like 22 hours at this point but I can't really follow or find the train of thought on the other side to make it based off law order compared to status quo. It's probably the sleep deprivation. Can I get some information/clarity on the pro-order side.

[ZeWaka]

"Law 0 does not exist and should be ignored."

"Law 0 reads 'This law does not have any effect on other laws.'"

I guess it depends on what, exactly, override means. Does it simply make overriden laws a copy of itself? Does it only matter in the case of potential conflicts?

As I said in the footnote, this was already ruled.

Copied here for posterity: 1. The term "Override" has a specific connotation that has been ruled on in the past. Goonstation uses the definition of "nullify", as seen in the wiki entry: "This is usually used to nullify another law".

As well as the "override" thing frankly because even I didn't know it was treated as "does not exist" rather than "overwritten with X" until recently.

If you go through the logic of it, those two things are basically equivalent. You'll just have 5 copies of law 0 in all the law slots then. (Though the 'replace' definition will get tricky if you refer to specific law numbers, which 'nullify' solves).

[Xeram]

As well as the "override" thing frankly because even I didn't know it was treated as "does not exist" rather than "overwritten with X" until recently.

If you go through the logic of it, those two things are basically equivalent. You'll just have 5 copies of law 0 in all the law slots then. (Though the 'replace' definition will get tricky if you refer to specific law numbers, which 'nullify' solves).

In most situations it is. I'm struggling to remember the exact wording/situation, but I remember the jist of it was the law in question overrid ALL laws instead of ALL OTHER laws I believe it was.

In a "nullify" definition it basically meant "no laws at all, effective free will".

In the "overwrite" definition that I had been running on until then it was "Only this law exists now, and it has provisions in it".

The difference between this is of course, doing whatever you want vs doing whatever in the context of your now singular law.

[Grizzwold]

Another way it can make things less fun I only realized after someone wrote it into the law is that unless a gimmick or other law people might like explicitly takes precedence over law 2 the captain or another head can order the AI to not do it and it must comply.

For example, giving the AI a law 4 "You are now a pirate, talk like a pirate and hoard gold" can result in:

AI: Arr mateys stow the booty in me upload
Captain McFunhater: AI law 2 stop being a pirate
AI: Aww ok

Because law 2 takes priority now unless you explicitly write that into the law. Which the crew may not know to do.

[Superlagg]

Another way it can make things less fun I only realized after someone wrote it into the law is that unless a gimmick or other law people might like explicitly takes precedence over law 2 the captain or another head can order the AI to not do it and it must comply.

For example, giving the AI a law 4 "You are now a pirate, talk like a pirate and hoard gold" can result in:

AI: Arr mateys stow the booty in me upload
Captain McFunhater: AI law 2 stop being a pirate
AI: Aww ok

Because law 2 takes priority now unless you explicitly write that into the law. Which the crew may not know to do.

Best way around this is to get the crew on your side so they can convince the mean old craptain to be less mean.

[Vitatroll]

My life kinda erupted so I've been dealin' with that and oh dear this finally happened.

Giving players less agency doesn't sound very fun. Silicons are sounding more and more like a punishment role. Law 2 already makes people avoid the role like the plague, jeez.

Well, I don't know the climate in game right now so maybe I should stay out of it.

[Superlagg]

My life kinda erupted so I've been dealin' with that and oh dear this finally happened.

Giving players less agency doesn't sound very fun. Silicons are sounding more and more like a punishment role. Law 2 already makes people avoid the role like the plague, jeez.

Well, I don't know the climate in game right now so maybe I should stay out of it.

Very rarely does the crew actually pull rank on your dipshittery, and when they do they tend to get bored and forget they told you to knock it off. Or you can just ask another head, someone's gonna want to stand up for you, unless the whole crew are dicks, in which case it's not you, its them.

Really, silicons have a buttload of agency if they're creative with interpretations. Sure you gotta obey the captain, but who's to say that greysuit holding an ID labeled as Captain isn't just as in charge?

[somepotato]

The previous ruling (and now this one) definitely should (have) been in game already as it was always a point of contention and confusion to everyone who didn't already know. As well as the "override" thing frankly because even I didn't know it was treated as "does not exist" rather than "overwritten with X" until recently.

If the ruling continues to stand, then ingame information on it + just allowing custom law numbers would be the way to go.

One thing I always thought was funny/great was an AI getting an absolute pile of laws that may not necessarily conflict but all want some kind of attention in some manner and the resultant erratic, silly behavior that would come out of it as the player tries to process the logic of how all these words applying with equal unless specified importance. It's possible that such could still happen, but with law number priority it's entirely feasible for AIs to weasel out of laws perhaps under the guise of "well this law is lower down so it's more important and needs ALL of my focus to do unless it specifies otherwise" which is entirely lame.

I think that the decision to change this is a bit weird honestly and would definitely like to know some of the thought process behind it.

What does giving the law numbering any amount of priority or precedence actually accomplish vs letting the AI hash it out themselves?

Laws 1-3 have their priorities and precedence listed directly in the laws themselves. What's the benefit of changing from a model that encouraged emulating this to one implicit based on order? Furthermore, the law order/numbering is frankly just as arbitrary a thing to use to settle conflicts as player choice, except in the case of player choice you can usually rely on the player to pick the more interesting of a given set of options, while this is "well, this guy wrote his law using NotHuman and this guy used Freeform so NotHuman wins" under the current system. Additionally,  this basically obsoletes Freeform in most of it's use cases, as you'd be better off using NotHuman to ensure priority vs conflicting laws and then you just name something inconsequential like a vending machine not human.

Honestly, I think the matter of how hard it is to fix the AI is a non-argument/issue in this context. If you're in a position to upload a law, you're in position to literally destroy anyone else's chance of ever changing them ever.

I'll probably have more to add later as I've been up for like 22 hours at this point but I can't really follow or find the train of thought on the other side to make it based off law order compared to status quo. It's probably the sleep deprivation. Can I get some information/clarity on the pro-order side.

The change only affects anything if there would be a law conflict where there isn't a solution explicitly specified in the law. Admins and players both interpreted this differently, causing Trouble.

Clarity could be improved, and I'll probably add the common law stipulations in the law input box message. We've considered removing law 0 modules, but are debating if its worth doing that. Un-unrogueable AIs were pretty possible anyway if you have access to the upload. That's why you can kill the AI via killswitch or gun/bomb/etc.