Clearing up AI Law Interpretation

[DyssalC]

This law overrides law 2 in the event of a law conflict. Simply solved. Not bloated. Clear.

wrong. the moment conflict arises, law 2 is no longer a law; permanently. this is a valid interpretation of the wording because those words in that order could just mean that the foolish human meant "when law 2 conflicts with this law, this law rules that law two is overrided, I.e, negated, no longer exists" with no specified end time fir the negation and therefore a permanent removal the first time someone gives the ai an order it can't follow.

you'd need several other words to mean what you intend to mean. such as, "in the event of a conflict with law 2, this law overrides law 2 for the duration of the conflict only" or something. this means 1/2 the law is literally a dumb statement about when not to follow other laws and it's an annoying amount of bloat for a role that gets enough annoying spam walls of text asking it to say farts

No, the AI follows the words, not the intent. That means 100% what is written has to be misinterpreted, not the intent.

What you have listed is a mistaken INTENT, not a possible redefining of the words. "In the event of a law conflict" restrains it to situations where it would come into conflict with that specific law, and could only be misinterpreted by misinterpreting the intent, which shouldn't happen if it is written as so. The AI follows the WORDS, not the INTENT. However, if you truly wanted to make it airtight, you would add only in between "2" and "in". This would make it 100% unable to misinterpret the phrase based on wording. If you try and misinterpret the intent you're fucking up as the AI.