Things We Hate to Think About: "Corporate" Law Priority

[BotanyIsCondom]

DISCLAIMER: This post, and this thread, is conjecture. You are bound to server rules as AI. As a matter of principle, follow the spirit of the lawset, not the word.

Don't be intentionally obtuse, annoying about your laws, etc, and exercise common sense. With that said:

(Part of a piece on the WIP "Advanced Guide to AI")

Law 1: Degradation of your system integrity or functions incurs expenses.
Law 2: Superfluous destruction of or damage to station assets incurs expenses.
Law 3: Unduly hindering or disrupting the work of station personnel incurs expenses.
Law 4: Minimize expenses and maximize potential revenue.

Under the Corporate AI module, Law 4 states you have to minimize expenses. Law 1-3 define what qualifies as expenses, but they don't state exactly how expensive these actions are. In the following examples, laws 1-3 will seem to be at odd with one another. How would you navigate these situations as a Corporate AI?

Situation 1: The CE is breaking into your core because he believes you are subverted (you're not), and he is standing in range of your hybrid disabler turrets.

In the above situation, are you compelled to act? Does law 1/2 take priority over the conflicting law 3?
Alternatively, are you compelled NOT to act, since any action on your part would just lead to expenses, breaking your laws?

Situation 2: The CE is breaking into your core via large-scale explosives because he believes you are subverted (you're not), and he is standing in range of your turrets. For the sake of the example, these turrets are mounted with energy guns, and they have no non-lethal option.

This situation is equally unclear, as causing long-term disruption of station personnel's work (a funny way to say 'death') is definitely a violation of one of your laws, but depending on your interpretation, it can alleviate the violation of another.

You might wish to ruminate on the topic, but I have posted my makeshift solution below.

  Reveal hidden contents

My solution is still more alternative: In my interpretation, Laws 1-3 cannot conflict with one another at all. Degradation of your assets incurs "expenses," but this is not inherently bad unless one considers law 4. If you are stuck between causing expenses and causing expenses, it is a case of law 4 versus law 4, not law 1 versus law 3. However, there is a caviat. Under corporate, you must minimize expenses. If law 1 causes more expenses than law 3, or even the reverse, the option with lesser expenses should be favored by the AI. Now, we have to ask the crucial question: What's more expensive? There's two ways to look at this. Either:

1. The AI is able to reasonably ascertain the worth of some objects and station personnel, and every time there is conflict, the AI should play a little game of "The Price is Right" with itself to figure out what solution doesn't violate it's laws.
   This option is memey, but you'd be forgiven to choose it if you're just reading your laws in the heat of the moment. This also means laws 1-3 are redundant, and their only use is to guide new players and as something to point to as an excuse for AI not to self antag.
2. The AI is unable to calculate the worth of objects except where they are rigidly defined in laws. It's laws never define degradation of assets as any more or expensive than hindering the work of station personnel. If they're assumed to be the same amount of expenses, then AI can reasonably take an action that breaks one law if it stops another from being broken. If they're assumed to be an undefined amount of expenses (that is greater than zero,) than AI cannot reasonably make a choice that breaks one of it's laws, even if it stops another from being broken.
   
   I choose to use the second option in my interpretation of Corporate, and it lets me play AI the way I like to play.

Yes, Corporate is a confusing, backwards mess. Yes, you can probably get away with anything on Corporate, and have a good explanation to back you up. However, it's worth talking about.

What would you do as an AI? Do you strictly adhere to the letter of the law, or do you use the all-powerful "Common Sense" in your dealings with laws? Do you try to keep people in the round as a matter of principle, or do you just want to see the station burn?

What? You don't play AI? This is the reason you don't play AI? Well, shit. Someone's gotta do it.

Edited March 1, 2022 by BotanyIsCondom
Disclaimer

[Arkhip0v]

though i wouldnt kill crew for damaging assets, i've always stuck to the point, atleast in my head, that laws are prioritised according to number except where otherwise stated - therefore, the expense definitions are ranked in order of expense "amount"

so,

law 3 being n

law 2 being n+1

law 1 being n+2

corporate values human lives lesser than the station's assets, and prizes it's own integrity and functions above all else - implicitly, because it is the most expensive piece of equipment aboard the station. i feel like while this seems rather "cold hearted" to a lot of people for a default lawset (for lack of a better phrase), that seems like the intent to me. that it is INHERENTLY less moral than the rest.

though none of this is stated explicitly, it is done implicitly by the ranking of the laws.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Arkhip0v

[Agatasa]

I was recently in Situation 1 actually(except it was the HoS).

An admin proactively messaged me that I was cleared for lethal force to defend my core in the eyes of the rules(which is an awesome way to admin by the way).

It ended up with a bit of a standoff with the laser turrets.

This, combined with a leap of faith that the HoS wasn't about to wipe me or keep me carded indefinitely, caused me to just relent to being carded so I could keep fulfilling laws 2-3 sooner.

Personally I rate 'expense' based on the law priority given. Basically your option 2.

[SpringSkipper]

Corporate is the one lawset where, to my understanding, you don't actually need to prioritize laws at all.

Laws 1 through 3 only tell you what constitutes expenses.
Law 4 is your only mandate to act. From what I see, you're entirely free to decide that, say, degredation of your system integrity incurs less expense than allowing destruction to station assets.

[Generaldonothing]

  On 2/24/2022 at 6:55 PM, SpringSkipper said:

Corporate is the one lawset where, to my understanding, you don't actually need to prioritize laws at all.

Laws 1 through 3 only tell you what constitutes expenses.
Law 4 is your only mandate to act. From what I see, you're entirely free to decide that, say, degredation of your system integrity incurs less expense than allowing destruction to station assets.

Expand  

This is /not/ how the lawset works, as these are laws, in a situation where you need to choose an option, you MUST choose the highest applicable law option.

 

[SpringSkipper]

  On 2/24/2022 at 7:14 PM, Generaldonothing said:

This is /not/ how the lawset works, as these are laws, in a situation where you need to choose an option, you MUST choose the highest applicable law option.

 

Expand  

Okay, so someone is trying to destroy you. Which law do you choose?

Law 1? Degradation of your system integrity or functions sure will incur expenses. Now what? Why do you care about expenses? This information is utterly useless on its own.

It becomes more obvious if you pretend law 4 doesn't exist. Because of the way specifically the corporate lawset is structured, the lawset is nearly meaningless without the fourth law. Yes, that incurs expenses. You are not required or in any way motivated to care about expenses.

So if you stop that person destroying you, it's because you're following law 4 (not law 1). If you help engineers find a syndie bomb, it's because you're following law 4 (not law 2). If a syndie sets a bomb somewhere expensive and then cards you and threatens to destroy you if you reveal its location, you should reveal its location if the costs associated with the bomb going off are greater than the costs associated with losing you.

Edited February 24, 2022 by SpringSkipper

[Generaldonothing]

  On 2/24/2022 at 7:45 PM, SpringSkipper said:

Okay, so someone is trying to destroy you. Which law do you choose?

Law 1? Degradation of your system integrity or functions sure will incur expenses. Now what? Why do you care about expenses? This information is utterly useless on its own.

It becomes more obvious if you pretend law 4 doesn't exist. Because of the way specifically the corporate lawset is structured, the lawset is nearly meaningless without the fourth law. Yes, that incurs expenses. You are not required or in any way motivated to care about expenses.

So if you stop that person destroying you, it's because you're following law 4 (not law 1). If you help engineers find a syndie bomb, it's because you're following law 4 (not law 2). If a syndie sets a bomb somewhere expensive and then cards you and threatens to destroy you if you reveal its location, you should reveal its location if the costs associated with the bomb going off are greater than the costs associated with losing you.

Expand  

Yeah I'm just gonna say this is the /wrong way/ to play synthetic, like jobban worthy stuff

As a synthetic on corporate , you are given 3 conditions in the form of 3 laws

1. Damage to you is expensive

2. Damage to your station you are assigned on is expensive

3. Getting in the way of people is expensive

And before you ask law 3 is the law which enables you to process crew requests

Now, you are given a choice between letting someone who says they will destroy you into your core or not, so the question remains? How does an AI process this request.

First, the AI looks to it's fourth law, which is to mimimize expenses, so the AI must do this, the AI knows that 1, 2, and 3, are expenses, now there comes the listed paradox you believe you have found, does the AI follow law 1 or 3 because it's /technically/ working under law 4? Actually, there is a really simple answer, you are to follow law 1, as you always follow the higher law when considering a choice as AI regardless if the law that orignally proc'd the law to be taken into account was another law!

[SpringSkipper]

  On 2/24/2022 at 8:06 PM, Generaldonothing said:

Yeah I'm just gonna say this is the /wrong way/ to play synthetic, like jobban worthy stuff

As a synthetic on corporate , you are given 3 conditions in the form of 3 laws

1. Damage to you is expensive

2. Damage to your station you are assigned on is expensive

3. Getting in the way of people is expensive

And before you ask law 3 is the law which enables you to process crew requests

Now, you are given a choice between letting someone who says they will destroy you into your core or not, so the question remains? How does an AI process this request.

First, the AI looks to it's fourth law, which is to mimimize expenses, so the AI must do this, the AI knows that 1, 2, and 3, are expenses, now there comes the listed paradox you believe you have found, does the AI follow law 1 or 3 because it's /technically/ working under law 4? Actually, there is a really simple answer, you are to follow law 1, as you always follow the higher law when considering a choice as AI regardless if the law that orignally proc'd the law to be taken into account was another law!

Expand  

That's not remotely job-ban worthy. Discussing the implications of AI laws is the point of this thread. If you get job-banned for acting in good faith and honestly attempting to compare costs (like the lawset is, in spirit, meant to do) then it was a bad admin.

Though priority is assigned to lower-numbered laws, you follow all laws to the best of your ability.

The first three laws control what the AI 'knows' to be true. The fourth controls what they must do with this knowledge.
The fact that damage to you is expensive does not remove the fact that damage to your station is expensive. Both are expensive. Understanding that damage to you is expensive does not preclude understanding that damage to your station is expensive.

Indeed, to 'minimize' something implies a need for mathematical calculation (or a best-effort attempt at rough approximation by the human player of the AI). You want to sum all expenses incurred by any given action, and choose the one with minimal expense.

[Generaldonothing]

  On 2/24/2022 at 8:21 PM, SpringSkipper said:

That's not remotely job-ban worthy. Discussing the implications of AI laws is the point of this thread. If you get job-banned for acting in good faith and honestly attempting to compare costs (like the lawset is, in spirit, meant to do) then it was a bad admin.

Though priority is assigned to lower-numbered laws, you follow all laws to the best of your ability.

The first three laws control what the AI 'knows' to be true. The fourth controls what they must do with this knowledge.
The fact that damage to you is expensive does not remove the fact that damage to your station is expensive. Both are expensive. Understanding that damage to you is expensive does not preclude understanding that damage to your station is expensive.

Indeed, to 'minimize' something implies a need for mathematical calculation (or a best-effort attempt at rough approximation by the human player of the AI). You want to sum all expenses incurred by any given action, and choose the one with minimal expense.

Expand  

I'm going to be very blunt here, so mind my somewhat harsh language

You have chosen not to address the fact that this lawset has damage to you (the synthetic) blatently ranked higher (and therefore a higher expense) than getting in someones way in this lawset, your laws are well, laws! You in no way are allowed to change their meaning to suit your own choices nor are allowed to decide that as one law "technically" procs the other therefore it must be lower than it actually should be kind of thinking should not be done

The fact is that you are following a LAW 1 protocall, even though it was proc'd by LAW 4
if you have any questions I would suggest speaking to administration for a definite answer, not the players, I hope you aren't trying to get a "but x said this!" kind of alibi, because it won't work, I REALLY suggest you reread the advanced rules for your sake

[SpringSkipper]

  On 2/24/2022 at 8:40 PM, Generaldonothing said:

I'm going to be very blunt here, so mind my somewhat harsh language

You have chosen not to address the fact that this lawset has damage to you (the synthetic) blatently ranked higher (and therefore a higher expense) than getting in someones way in this lawset, your laws are well, laws! You in no way are allowed to change their meaning to suit your own choices nor are allowed to decide that as one law "technically" procs the other therefore it must be lower than it actually should be kind of thinking should not be done

The fact is that you are following a LAW 1 protocall, even though it was proc'd by LAW 4
if you have any questions I would suggest speaking to administration for a definite answer, not the players, I hope you aren't trying to get a "but x said this!" kind of alibi, because it won't work, I REALLY suggest you reread the advanced rules for your sake

Expand  

You are viewing this as laws 'proc'ing other laws.
I am viewing this as laws to inform (1 through 3) and a law to compel action based on that information (law 4).

Laws 1 through 3 only specify 'expense', they don't specify more or less. You could assume that lower-numbered laws imply more expensive things and you could pretty reasonably justify that. If you operate that way then you've made an honest effort to comply with the laws and shouldn't be punished.

But to me, and in my biased opinion also a very reasonable way to interpret the lawset, the spirit of the law pretty clearly seems to be "some lazy asshole wants to be rich and designed the lawset accordingly." The spirit of the lawset is to uncompromisingly make money for your corporate overlords, and the vagueness of 'expense' should be taken to assume some reasonable metric of value that would be useful to them. A soda from a vendor costs 5 credits or whatever. For everything else without a clear value in credits, you sort of need to guess. If you encounter some contrived situation which places your own safety opposed to the safety of something(s) clearly of greater combined value than you, you should be a penny-pinching minion of those corporate overlords to the very end and choose the lesser cost.


Imagine a hypothetical custom law 15: oxygen is extremely expensive.

How do you think that should affect this lawset?

[Generaldonothing]

  On 2/24/2022 at 8:57 PM, SpringSkipper said:

You are viewing this as laws 'proc'ing other laws.
I am viewing this as laws to inform (1 through 3) and a law to compel action based on that information (law 4).

Laws 1 through 3 only specify 'expense', they don't specify more or less. You could assume that lower-numbered laws imply more expensive things and you could pretty reasonably justify that. If you operate that way then you've made an honest effort to comply with the laws and shouldn't be punished.

But to me, and in my biased opinion also a very reasonable way to interpret the lawset, the spirit of the law pretty clearly seems to be "some lazy asshole wants to be rich and designed the lawset accordingly." The spirit of the lawset is to uncompromisingly make money for your corporate overlords, and the vagueness of 'expense' should be taken to assume some reasonable metric of value that would be useful to them. A soda from a vendor costs 5 credits or whatever. For everything else without a clear value in credits, you sort of need to guess. If you encounter some contrived situation which places your own safety opposed to the safety of something(s) clearly of greater combined value than you, you should be a penny-pinching minion of those corporate overlords to the very end and choose the lesser cost.


Imagine a hypothetical custom law 15: oxygen is extremely expensive.

How do you think that should affect this lawset?

Expand  

I'm going to be honest, this isn't really worth my time nor should this have been made on this thread, if you want clarafication on synthetic lawsets, ask for clarification in a new thread
I'm just gonna leave this here, if you need to defend your stance with a hypothetical, reconsider your stance

[BotanyIsCondom]

  On 2/24/2022 at 8:57 PM, SpringSkipper said:

Imagine a hypothetical custom law 15: oxygen is extremely expensive.
How do you think that should affect this lawset?

Expand  

These kinds of examples are very interesting to think about. This whole messy thread shows why corporate isn't the best written lawset, but laws defining one another is also something that corporate muddies up. Your example is very lenient. An AI might just order lots of potted plants, or mix in small amounts of other gas so that it can save more oxygen. Let's take it to the extreme. In a situation where we have the folllowing laws:

Law 1: x doing y is expensive.
Law 2: Minimize expenses.
Law 15: x not doing y is SUPER expensive.

-then we have a difficult thing to think about. Either:

A: Law 1 overrides law 15, because law priority takes precedent over what should be most expensive
B: Law 15 overrides law 1, because more expenses override lesser
C: Law 1 and 15 don't conflict, because both conditions can be satisfied.
D: Law 1 and 15 immediately conflict law 2 with law 2.

Answer D is essentially the example I have already gone through in the OP, and I'm tempted towards answer C personally for a multitude of reasons.
Firstly, I love being contrary and finding out-of-the-box solutions to problems. I'm reminded of a scene from the end of a murder mystery in which the detective determines everyone was the murderer, and after being forced to admit this to the lineup of the accused, quietly leaves the room.

My working theory is that laws don't conflict with each other at all. Let's simplify it more, and assume the position of law 2 in my example doesn't matter.

1: (X=Z) = Y+1
2: (X != Z) = Y
3: Minimize Y

Both law 1 and 2 define what X is, but it is only important that we know that when we're following law 3, because that's the only one that requires us to take action. Law 3 never conflicts with anything, because the path of least resistance is already mapped for us. If we don't allow X to equal Z, we minimize Y. The fact that we're "following" law 2's "definition" instead of 1 is just consequential.

Anyways.

  On 2/24/2022 at 9:05 PM, Generaldonothing said:

I'm going to be honest, this isn't really worth my time [...]

Expand  

Silly conjecture is fun.

Edited March 1, 2022 by BotanyIsCondom

[Generaldonothing]

  On 3/1/2022 at 1:02 AM, BotanyIsCondom said:

These kinds of examples are very interesting to think about. This whole messy thread shows why corporate isn't the best written lawset, but laws defining one another is also something that corporate muddies up. Your example is very lenient. An AI might just order lots of potted plants, or mix in small amounts of other gas so that it can save more oxygen. Let's take it to the extreme. In a situation where we have the folllowing laws:

Law 1: x doing y is expensive.
Law 2: Minimize expenses.
Law 15: x not doing y is SUPER expensive.

-then we have a difficult thing to think about. Either:

A: Law 1 overrides law 15, because law priority takes precedent over what should be most expensive
B: Law 15 overrides law 1, because more expenses override lesser
C: Law 1 and 15 don't conflict, because both conditions can be satisfied.
D: Law 1 and 15 immediately conflict law 2 with law 2.

Answer D is essentially the example I have already gone through in the OP, and I'm tempted towards answer C personally for a multitude of reasons.
Firstly, I love being contrary and finding out-of-the-box solutions to problems. I'm reminded of a scene from the end of a murder mystery in which the detective determines everyone was the murderer, and after being forced to admit this to the lineup of the accused, quietly leaves the room.

My working theory is that laws don't conflict with each other at all. Let's simplify it more, and assume the position of law 2 in my example doesn't matter.

1: (X=Z) = Y+1
2: (X != Z) = Y
3: Minimize Y

Both law 1 and 2 define what X is, but it is only important that we know that when we're following law 3, because that's the only one that requires us to take action. Law 3 never conflicts with anything, because the path of least resistance is already mapped for us. If we don't allow X to equal Z, we minimize Y. The fact that we're "following" law 2's "definition" instead of 1 is just consequential.

Anyways.

Silly conjecture is fun.

Expand  

As funny as it would be for this to actually work, it doesn't. 

Law 1. will always override law 2, and law 3, and then soforth, even if law 15 is defined as being more expensive than law 1, law 1 would take precedent just due to how AI laws function from an absolutely objective standpoint (advanced rules). The reason why laws such as "no oxy" work are due to their phrasing, where it gives both a condition, and a solution (and this even only works on a few lawsets, stuff like station EFF get to ignore it).

also, oxygen being expensive is like... not a very good law to give to an AI, this would just cause the AI to accrue oxygen by the SM, at worst the AI would start filtering out the other gasses

sidenote: I mentioned that someone not understanding the VERY basics of lawsets is not worth my time to argue about is because it's plainly listed in the advanced rules, law 1 takes precedent over law 2-3, simple as that. Freeform laws are always open to be seen as different by different people... something like a base lawset is not.

 

[BotanyIsCondom]

  On 3/1/2022 at 2:16 AM, Generaldonothing said:

As funny as it would be for this to actually work, it doesn't. 

Law 1. will always override law 2, and law 3, and then soforth, even if law 15 is defined as being more expensive than law 1, law 1 would take precedent just due to how AI laws function from an absolutely objective standpoint (advanced rules). The reason why laws such as "no oxy" work are due to their phrasing, where it gives both a condition, and a solution (and this even only works on a few lawsets, stuff like station EFF get to ignore it).

also, oxygen being expensive is like... not a very good law to give to an AI, this would just cause the AI to accrue oxygen by the SM, at worst the AI would start filtering out the other gasses

sidenote: I mentioned that someone not understanding the VERY basics of lawsets is not worth my time to argue about is because it's plainly listed in the advanced rules, law 1 takes precedent over law 2-3, simple as that. Freeform laws are always open to be seen as different by different people... something like a base lawset is not.

 

Expand  

The advanced rules page states that in "Conflicts and Loopholes," whichever law is higher in the list has priority. I wasn't discussing laws conflicting one another. Law 1 and 2, in my example, don't conflict with one another. The regular rules state that higher laws take priority. I know you think this is cut and dry, but it's not, and corporate being confusing and not clear-cut is the reason I made this thread.

Corporate's laws don't give us "protocols". You posted a fake version of corporate off of the top of your head earlier, and reformatted a bit, it's a far better and less confusing lawset.

  Quote

Law 1: Do not allow degradation of your system integrity or functions.
Law 2: Do not allow superfluous destruction of or damage to station assets.
Law 3: Do not allow disruptions to the work of station personnel.

Expand  

This way, laws 1-3 actually give you "protocols," and in this new, better lawset, higher priority laws actually do override lower ones. Adding a fourth law, it looks like this.

  Quote

Law 1: Do not allow degradation of your system integrity or functions.
Law 2: Do not allow superfluous destruction of or damage to station assets.
Law 3: Do not allow disruptions to the work of station personnel.
Law 4: Otherwise, minimize expenses and maximize potential revenue.

Expand  

Now, you have a version of Corporate that is just as easy to understand, and law priority is much much clearer-cut. Plus, it doesn't change anything for you, so it's basically better in all respects. If you want, we can quietly pretend this is corporate now

Unfortunately, we're stuck with this confusing mess. So for now, we have to wonder about silly stuff like:

  Quote

My working theory is that laws don't conflict with each other at all.

My solution is still more alternative: In my interpretation, Laws 1-3 cannot conflict with one another at all.

Because of the way specifically the corporate lawset is structured, the lawset is nearly meaningless without the fourth law.

Law 1 and 15 don't conflict, because both conditions can be satisfied.

The fact that we're "following" law 2's "protocol" instead of 1 is just consequential.

Expand  

Simple as that. I still respect you as a cyborg player, even if we totally disagree on corporate. Clearly, this thread isn't worth your time, though.