Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ozarck]

I can't believe I ran into a room full of N2O like that.
Stupid.
Also, good job, bdthemag, as AI. I thought your solution was well within bounds. I can see why it might be disputed, but, even if it were me on the receiving end, I would have applauded, though I would have been pretty frustrated.

[Bdthemag]

Sorry about the last round FlyingDice, although I still think my decision as AI was somewhat justifiable. AI laws were always a bitch to interpret though, so I'll see what other people think.

To summarize the situation as best as I can, a traitor takes the captain hostage in the bridge. I'm told of this and lock him in there with the captain. He threatens to kill the captain unless I let him go and the captain tells me to not listen to him. So letting him die would conflict with my first law, however letting the traitor go would be potentially dangerous and I'd not be listening to the superior officer on the ship (Although the harm law should be interpreted first of course.) Sort of a weak assumption, but ICly he potentially could of. Then the CE came around and basically told me not to unbolt the doors and agreed with the captain. What I decided to do impulsively, since I didn't want the captain to die, was that I unbolted the doors for him but electrified them. He touched them, received minor damage and was incapacitated. They arrested him and then brought him to the escape shuttle.

Would this be seen as justifiable? I know the server's stance on AI laws has more or less been "Interpret it on a case by case basis", but I want to know if what I did wasn't really that good of an idea, so I know what to do next time.

[andrea]

it seems you managed to minimize the harm done. I think it was a great idea.

[Isdar]

But the AI(Assuming it is Asimov) isn't allowed to cause any harm at all, even if causing harm can prevent greater harm.

[werty892]

But the AI(Assuming it is Asimov) isn't allowed to cause any harm at all, even if causing harm can prevent greater harm.

Honestly, I think it needs a bit of flexibility with that. The AI is weak enough as it is.

[Isdar]

But the AI(Assuming it is Asimov) isn't allowed to cause any harm at all, even if causing harm can prevent greater harm.

Honestly, I think it needs a bit of flexibility with that. The AI is weak enough as it is.

Well, its not like hostage situations are particulary annoying for the AI anyway. It can afterall just turn off the radios in its chamber, therefore not knowing what the hostage taker is saying, which means the AI doesn't know if he is going to cause harm to the hostage if the AI doesn't do so and so.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Well, looks like the crashes computer is reminding me its 1 in the morning and time to sleep. This is me signing off.

[andrea]

Going by Asimov's books, the 3 laws allow for more flexibility than they are given credit for, although it often ends with damage to the positronic brain.

besides, forcing players to endure a lose-lose situation is never good.

[Ozarck]

But the AI(Assuming it is Asimov) isn't allowed to cause any harm at all, even if causing harm can prevent greater harm.

Honestly, I think it needs a bit of flexibility with that. The AI is weak enough as it is.

Well, its not like hostage situations are particulary annoying for the AI anyway. It can afterall just turn off the radios in its chamber, therefore not knowing what the hostage taker is saying, which means the AI doesn't know if he is going to cause harm to the hostage if the AI doesn't do so and so.

This solution bumps up against the "or through inaction" clause of the law, though.

[Isdar]

But the AI(Assuming it is Asimov) isn't allowed to cause any harm at all, even if causing harm can prevent greater harm.

Honestly, I think it needs a bit of flexibility with that. The AI is weak enough as it is.

Well, its not like hostage situations are particulary annoying for the AI anyway. It can afterall just turn off the radios in its chamber, therefore not knowing what the hostage taker is saying, which means the AI doesn't know if he is going to cause harm to the hostage if the AI doesn't do so and so.

This solution bumps up against the "or through inaction" clause of the law, though.

That could be checked by sending a message to the HoS or the Captain of the whereabouts of the hostage taker, then I have taken an action to stop harm.

[miauw62]

IMHO, the AI should ALWAYS listen to the hostage-taker because of law 1 and because you're already taking a huge risk as a traitor when you have a hostage.

[Isdar]

IMHO, the AI should ALWAYS listen to the hostage-taker because of law 1 and because you're already taking a huge risk as a traitor when you have a hostage.

When I am AI I dont employ the tactic I have said either, mostly because its amusing to see either everybody dying to the hostage taker, see the hostage taker get taken out by a clown or seeing the spineless crew of cowards give in to the hostage takers demands.

[Cheedows]

Hostage taking really is a bitch to do and is done for RP reasons. Does the AI know the difference between harm (Such as being electrocuted compared to killing someone) or does the AI just interpret murder the same way of someone being hit by a pen.

[Isdar]

Hostage taking really is a bitch to do and is done for RP reasons. Does the AI know the difference between harm (Such as being electrocuted compared to killing someone) or does the AI just interpret murder the same way of someone being hit by a pen.

Harm ingame means that your HP goes down. In the real world, I dunno. Haven't read anything Asimov, might do it one day tough.

[Ivan Issaccs]

Ill admit, I only play on TG but generally I find playing Asimov as literally as possible to be the most fun, I will follow every order given that doesnt conflict. As for shocking the door, I personally think that should be a silicon jobban.

For me my biggest peeve with AI's are those that bolt things like EVA because Hurr Durr Spacesuits are harmful to humans Burr.

I would have just followed the hostage takers orders and kept security in the loop.