[PR] Changes the wording of Asimov Law 3 slightly

[github_bot]

PULL REQUEST DETAILS

[[INPUT]]

About the PR

Changes the wording of standard Law 3 for non-syndicate silicons from:

`You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.`

to

`You may always protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.`

Currently doesn't edit the laws for Syndicate robots, to prevent people from spite-dying right when they get converted by a traitor.

Why's this needed?

Allows for silicon players to leave rounds via suicide without violating a standard lawset; also helps silicon players keep playing in the event of kind of lazy suicide laws.


Changelog

Code:

(u)UrsulaMajor
(+)Tweaks to the wording of Asimov Law 3!

PULL REQUEST DETAILS

[BatElite]

So this makes (nonharming) self-defense a right and not an order, right? What is the use of the law in that case? If you want to allow for suicide, maybe make it
"You must protect your own existence from external harm as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

In practical terms, I don't think people really object to borgs suiciding as is though.

On a meta-note, I'm not fond how stuff gets talked about both here and on github because inevitably one side doesn't know what the other is talking about. Can we leave github for technical problems if there's a thread for a PR?

[mralexs]

So this makes (nonharming) self-defense a right and not an order, right? What is the use of the law in that case? If you want to allow for suicide, maybe make it
"You must protect your own existence from external harm as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

In practical terms, I don't think people really object to borgs suiciding as is though.

On a meta-note, I'm not fond how stuff gets talked about both here and on github because inevitably one side doesn't know what the other is talking about. Can we leave github for technical problems if there's a thread for a PR?

I once saw a situation where an AI wanted to suicide to try to join a flockmind, which I told them would violate law 3. This would solve that. I don't think people have problems with silicons suiciding if they need to leave, its just situations where the silicons would suicide for a purpose pertaining to the round.

[nefarious6th]

So this makes (nonharming) self-defense a right and not an order, right? What is the use of the law in that case? If you want to allow for suicide, maybe make it
"You must protect your own existence from external harm as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

In practical terms, I don't think people really object to borgs suiciding as is though.

On a meta-note, I'm not fond how stuff gets talked about both here and on github because inevitably one side doesn't know what the other is talking about. Can we leave github for technical problems if there's a thread for a PR?

That's the gist of it, yes. I think your wording is also a very good candidate. I think self-defense is certainly one side of the coin. Another idea might be in a case where someone were stuck in a trench or near drones or something, under current Asimov, it's an imperative a cyborg might not realistically be able to assist in things like rescuing people in those scenarios because of a pretty high assumption of risk that has to happen there. The alternative given in the PR would make it so cyborgs could selectively choose when they might want to involve themselves in that kind of scenario. I think realistically it won't change anything with regards to player behaviours that occur now, it'll just better reflect the kind of expectations and allowances for silicons that are already occurring; which may be more useful for people who are just learning silicon roles so they don't have misimpressions that they'd be limited from good-faith game-leaving things, as well as other interaction opportunities.

Meta-note has been noted!

[BatElite]

I don't think either (new) wording would prevent that AI from doing so. Arguably offing yourself with the purpose of joining an antag violates law 1, but even then that's a different law. :P

The may wording could prevent you from being able to swat away borgs with a tool because they wouldn't have to protect themselves. (whether or not any borgs follow it that literally in practice though?)

EDIT:

Oh hey a new post
I think trench rescue type stuff might be the first real differing scenario? Because from my wording borgs just wouldn't (technically) be allowed to do rescue if it harms them.

Another thing I just thought of: Do you think voluntary debraining (by a roboticist) counts as external harm? That might be complication, because I feel like borgs should be allowed to choose to get debrained...

Also, please don't take the meta-note personally, it's a recurring thing I'm annoyed by.

[KikiMofo]

I don't really see the point in this change. It really doesnt effect anything.

[zjdtmkhzt]

I definitely see the merit in actually making all the laws apply properly, rather than having it be "You have law 3, but noone really cares if you kill yourself."
Sure, veteran players know how we handle it, but I bet it can be confusing for newer Silicon players.

[Superlagg]

Technically, even dying still preserves your existence as a ghost. So, Law 3 is meaningless.

Though that'd mean silicons should be *terrified* of ghostbusters.

[Frank_Stein]

I don't really see the point in this change. It really doesnt effect anything.

I think it's worth it. It's a subtle change that just allows for borg suicide, something that already happens despite being against law 3 but most people don't care about because this is a game and it would be unrealistic to require strict adherence to law 3.

Law 2 still allows you to override their suicide right if desired, but generally I see this as a small but valuable change that codifies some already held server values.

[Mouse]

I'm honestly not seeing the difference between this change and just discarding law 3 entirely.

[aft2001]

Well alone it won't have an effect, but in conjunction with other laws it would come into effect. For example, if you get a Law 4 saying "kill yourself" and nothing else, you would be able to disregard it as per Law 3. If you *didn't* have Law 3, then you'd have to kill yourself. This is 100% just a conceptual example, with a more realistic one being "Law 4: Terrorize the crew and act as rogue as possible without directly harming humans.", which may be disregarded as that'd endanger yourself (appearing to be dangerous and rogue is a GREAT way to put a massive target on your head), but it wouldn't require you to do so.

Relatedly this would reduce conflict with other ion laws, since you wouldn't be required to disregard them under the reasoning of not wanting to be murdered for being rogue, but it still gives you that option.

[nefarious6th]

Oh hey a new post
I think trench rescue type stuff might be the first real differing scenario? Because from my wording borgs just wouldn't (technically) be allowed to do rescue if it harms them.

Another thing I just thought of: Do you think voluntary debraining (by a roboticist) counts as external harm? That might be complication, because I feel like borgs should be allowed to choose to get debrained...

I think the idea of debraining is also another good example, since it's very difficult for borgs to upright go to a roboticist and go "remove my brain", whether for a "reuse my shell, I'm leaving, bye" kind of moment or a "upgrade me to a new shell" scenario.


EDIT: Now that I think of it, I remember very clearly a round where we had someone who was a turkey that died and was monkeycloned as a human, then killed for no real reason and borged. They didn't want to be a borg but when I asked if there was anything I could do for them to monkeyclone them or SR them, they said that they technically needed to say "no". I didn't go further to try and debrain and monkeyclone them despite their laws because that would've felt really bad and rude for a player who already was pretty not cool with what was going on. But maybe removing the grey area of that would've let this player continue the rest of the round as a critter or whatever they wanted?

---

I poked around to find where this did originate from, and found this thought from a discussion on the "may always" phrasing in Discord in April of 2020:

"That would work, it'd keep the symmetry of the laws and remove the grey area by making law 3 pointless."

[UrsulaMejor]

technically, under law 3 as currently written, cyborgs are not allowed to fight changelings because the changeling stands a decent chance of killing them.

this change brings the law in line with how ais are currently expected to behave, but still gives them the protections they currently have against poorly worded new laws.

[BatElite]

I was under the impression that borgs were expected not to get into fights for the sake of self-preservation. Like, you can attack a standard lawed borg and they must retreat if they can.

If I'm mistaken in that then nefarious6th's wording is closer to intent than mine.

[data_err0r]

Seems like this change is just making the way most borgs act already fit the rules. Works for me. There's already the precedent of Goon having a bit different AI laws from other servers anyways.