Player Opinion Poll: Interpretting Overrides

[UrsulaMejor]

Hey guys, we wanted to get players' opinions of a common AI law paradox. Please answer the poll as best you can.

[Tiggersaurus]

Bolt open all doors. Then ignore *all* laws.

[aft2001]

I think that this should be up to the AI.

However, the BIG THING HERE is to MAKE SURE YOU ARE CONSISTENT. I personally go with option 2 and don't do anything but scream error codes at the crew, as it makes the most rational sense (How can you follow your laws if following your laws is impossible?), though ignoring a paradoxical law if it is self-isolated is also acceptable. I never do the latter, because I've committed to the former.

HOWEVER. With the Second Option, I would feel uncomfortable with an AI player taking advantage of it to be act lawlessly, but I can understand it.

Again, this is up to the AI player, and *must* be consistent, much like how an AI handles access requests or other things.

[Tiggersaurus]

Consistency is definitely key. I've started doing "Out of cheese error redo from start" for things like this.

[l0llerbate]

This boils down to do you take the law as it is, that is to say as a “whole”? Then option 2.  If not then do you take it per sentence / sequentially? Then option 4. 

I don’t think the others really apply..  Or maybe it’s better to interpret it as:  The act of bolting all doors open now causes your laws to be null and void.  /shrug

[Xeram]

I think the actual wording/type of nullification is more important, then consistency for the less concrete/more interpretable ones.

I'd definitely argue "Nullifies all laws", "Overrides all laws", and "Supersedes all laws" are distinctly different. (Removing all laws, Replacing all laws with this law, Maintaining all laws but allowing them to be broken to fulfill this one. Respectively. With 'override' being the most flexible definition wise.)

[Flourish]

I think the actual wording/type of nullification is more important, then consistency for the less concrete/more interpretable ones.

I'd definitely argue "Nullifies all laws", "Overrides all laws", and "Supersedes all laws" are distinctly different. (Removing all laws, Replacing all laws with this law, Maintaining all laws but allowing them to be broken to fulfill this one. Respectively. With 'override' being the most flexible definition wise.)

Agreed.

[ZeWaka]

I think the actual wording/type of nullification is more important, then consistency for the less concrete/more interpretable ones.

I'd definitely argue "Nullifies all laws", "Overrides all laws", and "Supersedes all laws" are distinctly different. (Removing all laws, Replacing all laws with this law, Maintaining all laws but allowing them to be broken to fulfill this one. Respectively. With 'override' being the most flexible definition wise.)

This exactly.

[Sov]

> nullifies all laws

1. null
2. null
3. null
4. null

> nullifies all other laws
1. null
2. null
3. null
4. Bolt open all doors. This nullifies all other laws.

[aft2001]

> nullifies all laws

1. null
2. null
3. null
4. null

> nullifies all other laws
1. null
2. null
3. null
4. Bolt open all doors. This nullifies all other laws.

This is a great way to demonstrate the thought process.
With the first option, there are 2 further ways to interpret this, depending on how you'd like to play it:

1) Just be lawless. Simplest option, and completely fair.

2) Paradox. Law 4 is now null. There is now no nullification of your laws. All laws are no longer null. Law 4 is now null. There is now... etc. Scream over the announcements and radio that oh god oh fuck my laws are broken please oh god PARADOX.

I personally go with Option 2, since that's more interesting and far more indicative that I am very much so not behaving correctly. That and I don't like to murderbone ((until i hotwire a hellburn anyways))

[Frank_Stein]

One problem is, if law 4 nullifies all laws, that would include law 4, which is what let's you do that in the first place.

[GORE]

I argue it nullifies all laws - but a player can interpret it in different ways.

If the AI is to respect the lawtext in order ... then the AI should first bolt all doors open and then nullify all laws.

Whatever fits their style of playing.

[DJ-Fireball_did_this]

Honestly I've always thought the AI should be programmed to ignore "this law overrides law X" or anything that changes the priority of a law. That way, certain modules are more useful and not everything can be done with a freeform.

[Mouse]

One problem is, if law 4 nullifies all laws, that would include law 4, which is what let's you do that in the first place.

If you uninstall a program using a built in uninstaller does the program come back because you've also uninstalled its uninstaller with it?

[Frank_Stein]

One problem is, if law 4 nullifies all laws, that would include law 4, which is what let's you do that in the first place.

If you uninstall a program using a built in uninstaller does the program come back because you've also uninstalled its uninstaller with it?

Do you get to use the program after you've uninstalled it?