Clearing up AI Law Interpretation

[Grayshift]

the problem with enforcing override = negate as a rule is that there's no single word that does what override's second meaning is, while there are tens of other words that perform override's first meaning.

this means that the current interpretation of override includes in it an unintended support of annoying "law bloat" where people use ten words where one would do nicely.

if you want to mean "in the event of conflict, this law takes precedence over law 2", the word you'd use in the English language is "this law overrides law 2"

There's no suitable replacements that are single words and not whole phrases.

since "override" has a huge player culture backing the second meaning, I'm pretty sure that we sounds just enforce that override =/= negate simply because if you wanted to mean "negate" you'd just say "negate". it'd cut down on bloat and would also cut down on rules lawyering arses that nobody really likes (let's be honest here, as much as you might support rules lawyering in theory, I've been yelled at several times for doing it by admins and it's apparant that no one actually does support it in practice

Agreeing with this.

I'm all for rules lawyering laws when it's funny. Captain uploads a makecaptain on Heisenbee, AI immediately starts going WOOP WOOP INTRUDER IN CORE, FAKE CAPTAIN DETECTED, stuns him, keeps him locked down until security carts him off and gives Captain Heisenbee the hat, that's hilarious. Later on it refuses it obey commands without the go-ahead of Captain Heisenbee, interpreting the bee's stony stoicism as firm disapproval, even funnier. But using the furthest stretch of imagination of override to go rogue and try to kill everyone, that's just obnoxious. The synthetics get legitimately made rogue often enough already.