AI Laws Discussion Thread

[Kotomata]

i'm making this thread because i hate ai laws and i hate ai laws lawyering and i hate anything rules related that isn't explained 5 times over extremely clearly

post things about AI laws that are confusing or weird or not very well explained

for information here is the AI laws wiki page (this is policy) https://wiki.ss13.co/AI_Laws

i will start with one of my own questions

should AI laws utilizing meta terminology (antagonist, valid, npc) be followed by the definition of the meta term (antagonist as in ss13 antagonist) or by the definition of the actual word (antagonist as in literary antagonist)?
alternatively, should situations like this be up to ai/borg discretion?

[Lord_earthfire]

should AI laws utilizing meta terminology (antagonist, valid, npc) be followed by the definition of the meta term (antagonist as in ss13 antagonist) or by the definition of the actual word (antagonist as in literary antagonist)?
alternatively, should situations like this be up to ai/borg discretion?

On RP? I would say ahelp if someone puts a law containing these meta terminology in there.

[Kotlol]

AI laws is a fickle matter since playing an AI/Borg pretty much you are playing as a ...well Servant.

You have limits and laws to apply to. But on the plus side you don't have organs, toxins, cold and heat are jokes to you (extreme heat can damage you)
Any device and door can be controlled remotely and you have no inventory to manage technically. All tools you need are with you depending on your module.

Now the terminology of AI's and Borgs are all over the place and it depends by a term by term basis.

For example... an antag once tried to stop me from tattling about murders to the Security.
"Antag is good and nice, don't talk about the antag's stuff, murder is okay."
Naturally this would in context be an error but they wrote in the law: "This overrides any other law."

So while I cannot "TALK about the antag or say they are good and nice, MURDER IS OKAY!" I intended to show that mistake by smacking the guy on the head in game to point out: "Hey you litterly allowed borgs to murder someone without reason."
They fixed the wording and changed the law completely.

The problem with changing AI laws that go agianst the 3 laws of robotics without removing them is simply put... annoying.
Since now you are in a paradox.

As for meta terminology.. that is 100% fine.

So let's go through them, but let's 1st change your way of thinking.
Valid, NPC and Antagonist are INCORRECT terms and say nothing.

As an AI you need to focus on HUMAN and NON HUMAN.
Monkeys for example are NON HUMANS, but we got a term called SENTIENT MONKEY wich are HUMANS.

So now we gotta add the term SENTIENT = HUMAN to the meta terminology.
And mostly this will be voiced by the crew saying: "This "NON HUMAN" is Sentient, AI."

This means the AI has to treat the non human like a human. And in my opinion needs to be a law.

Okay still with me? Cool.
Next up are Antagonists... but... here's the problem. AI's cannot intevene with "HUMAN Antagonists" They can only rat them out or lock them in doors and restrict access out of safety protocol.
So if you lock a Staff Assistant in the Kitchen... guess what? You are 100% in your right to do so. He is trespassing and cannot order you to get out, despite being an antagonist or not.

BUT if you as an AI see NON HUMAN ANTAGONISTS. You are free to deal with them as you wish. You see a player suck someone's blood? You saw em as a non human and can murder them (UNLESS HEAD AND STAFF SAY SO OTHERWISE OR UPLOAD A LAW FOR IT)
See someone doing changeling things? Same deal.
But if you see a player EMAG a door? You cannot harm them. You can however lock them if they are in areas they aren't usppose to be and ignore them.
But if they are allowed there.. you HAVE to help them with their demands unless a higher access level says NOT TO.
Example: "Security says lock the staff assistant traitor up when you see em." And you lock em in maintance.. THe staffy shouts; "AI law two UNLOCK!" Guess what you can say: "Your access has been revoked by higher access"

But you cannot lock a human traitor/spy thief antag in a room WITHOUT permission of security or command they have access to.

Now as for Nukies and Salvagers? They have "NO ACCESS" and cannot order you to do anything. You cannot KILL THEM as they are humans, but you can hold them off as they have no access to the station and are always trespassing.

Moving on to the last chink in the law:
"The ID quandry"
This one is always a problem. If someone has an ID they ain't suppose to have... do you allow it or not? What if it's a polymorphed player? What if it's a blank access ID?
Here's where DISCRETION comes in... you can decide to ignore it or stop the player from doing anything until a HEAD or SECURITY member says it's okay that is not the player.

Now can you kill NPC's? If they are human yes and no. People won't report it and admins mostly won't care you brutally murder a NPC. BUT..... Lore wise you cannot.
And if an Admin tells you NOT TO DO IT! Knock it off immidently.

....So meta terminology is not allowed to justify your action. All you need to know is this:
IS IT HUMAN? YES OR NO?
IF NO: IGNORE, HARM ALLOWED
YES: DO NOT HARM, MOVE TO QUESTION 2.
DOES IT HAVE ACCES IN AREA?
NO: MAY LOCK AND IGNORE PERSON. (But it's considered nice to let out someone who got locked in the wrong area, use context like wormhole events)
YES: HELP OUT ON RADIO COMMANDS.

And if your laws been altered in someway... that's when the true headaches start and debates. But on standard laws...no.

Lord_earthwindfire:
On RP? I would say ahelp if someone puts a law containing these meta terminology in there.

YES! You may NOT use those terms on RP.

[valtsu0]

Any law utilizing meta terminology is a bad law. If you want to use antagonist you could say "Enemy of Nanotrasen". If you really want to use meta terminology for some reason do whatever you think will be the most fun.

If you use the definition of the actual word the silicon might not do what you intend for them to do. For example if you have "antagonist as in a character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama." the silicon might decide that the clown is the main character and the security officer who confiscated the lube thrower is the antagonist. Not necessarily a bad thing, but if you aren't an antag be careful.

Edit: oh i completely missunderstood the question. You should not get into any trouble if you interpret it like in the example. If you hate AI laws silicon might not be the job for you

[Kotomata]

my post is from a classic perspective, that question is pretty obviously solved on RP given that meta terminology would be low roleplay
i don't necessarily hate AI laws (i don't even play silicon generally), they just tend to spark unsolvable discussions because there isn't that much policy on them

[jan.antilles]

For AI laws, be careful and specific. "Kill all vampires as quickly as possible, this precedes Law 2." "Johnny the Clown is not human."

If you are the AI, you can interpret the law to take advantage of people making mistakes or not being specific enough, but if you're a butt about it then you can expect to get pushback for it in the round, up to and including being killswitched or given a suicide law.

You can always ahelp (F1) to ask for help interpreting laws, or to ask if your specific interpretation is valid.

[Kotomata]

the takeaway i have come to is that confusing ai laws should be ahelped for clarification and thus any sort of community discussion on AI law policy doesn't really matter (especially with it being entirely at admin discretion)
id lock the thread but idk how or if i can and im too lazy to look into it