Killing your master AI as a borg

[Fatal]

Okay, bit of context for this:

Became a posibrain in cargo, was borged and emagged instantly, and then master ordered me to not hurt anyone and became a janiborg

2 minutes later, flashed, and deconstructed

Rebuilt, and was unsuccesfully de-slaved from the AI, I don't know why but that was the intention of the Captain / Robotics, so I was SLAVED and had regular, ASIMOV laws

The captain then sets hand tele to AI satellite, orders me to kill the AI and sends me through it

I go through, and then tell the Captain I cannot comply with his order to murder the AI, because I'm slaved to it

I am then flashed and killed for my refusal and explanation of why I couldn't comply

I ahelped it, and my response was that "There's no silicon law that I had that prevented me from killing the AI"

Now, in all my years of playing, I've never seen it be okay for a cyborg, with no reason (the AI had not, under my limited view, caused any harm, and generally, AI's are considered to prevent harm and lack of an AI is bad, this has always been the way, and the AI was asimov)

And then, under my refusal to comply with the Captains single order, is it okay for him to remove me from the round?

I may have been a ghost role posibrain but that, quite frankly, shouldn't make any difference

Looking through the rules, there is nothing down which says you can, or cannot, kill the AI with a law 2 request, but, as an experienced player, I am fairly sure the general consensus is that killing your master AI is a bad thing

[Shaps-cloud]

Law two is above law three, human orders always triumph silicon lives. If an admin asks why you killed the AI, just point the blame at whoever ordered it

[BeeSting12]

There is no law saying you can't kill your master AI. Obviously, you shouldn't, but if a human tells you to then you're obliged to do it.

[CPTANT]

Technically you should just do it.

However most players will pussy out of it by going the "ohw but I am sure killing the ai will cause human harm" route.

[BeeSting12]

Technically you should just do it.

However most players will pussy out of it by going the "ohw but I am sure killing the ai will cause human harm" route.

Those are the players that won't let you into EVA because MUH FUTURE HARM and should be silicon banned tbh

[Pascal125]

You were destroyed by security and reconstructed for the sole purpose of annihilating what was deemed a rogue/problematic AI, as the shuttle was departing. You failed to do such because "You were slaved to it" and we're killed for it.

The shift in question. The cyborgs had been stealing head of staff lockers and refusing law two requests by humans not to.
The AI had refused a law two request to inform security/command about anyone desiring entry into the bridge/upload, and even opened up High-Risk modules to an assistant.
The AI had attempted to lead a harmful human to Command Staff.
The AI had bolted it's core and refused to open up.
Cyborgs then began walling Command off and deconstructing the Robotics Console.
Finally, the AI refused a law two request stating "I no longer serve you" before you were reconstructed.

If a human tells you to kill the AI, you do it. If you decide to side with a problematic AI over a law two request, i don't see why removing you from the round six minutes before it ends is a problem to you. When you were rebuilt under the pretense that you would handle said AI.

Humans have the ultimate priority.

[XDTM]

I was under the impression that the final judgement of the master AI was what counted for borg actions, plus this is basically an indirect suicide order for the AI, which is covered in silicon policy. I can see why a cyborg would have second thoughts.

If this is allowed, don't forget that any antag will be able to law 2 the current borg into killing the AI secretly.

[Pascal125]

I was under the impression that the final judgement of the master AI was what counted for borg actions, plus this is basically an indirect suicide order for the AI, which is covered in silicon policy. I can see why a cyborg would have second thoughts.

If this is allowed, don't forget that any antag will be able to law 2 the current borg into killing the AI secretly.

To my knowledge as a player, this is already and has always been; something they can do.
You can postpone it for a little while, tell people. Maybe try to get it countermanded. But no matter what, if it isn't. It's what you should do, as per your laws.

[Fatal]

The thing that really annoys me also

I was killed for not following the orders, and removed from the round

As per the rules, if the Captain didn't like me not killing the AI, he should have AHELPED IT

[Pascal125]

You were a cyborg.
You were built for one purpose.
Your AI was problematic. Asimov, but for some reason not acting like it.
You refused a Law Two request.
People had to deal with borgs in a hostile matter previously.

What did you think was gonna happen?

[Fatal]

I was a posibrain and had no context on anything going on in the round

Being captain doesn't give you the right to remove someone from the round for flimsy reasoning

Also, you are derailing this thread, I'm trying to get clarification on the policy from the admins, if I'm right or wrong, it matters not, clarity is all that matters, please keep it on track

It's clear of your thoughts on this, and mine, but, we aren't the policy makers

[ohnopigeons]

Being captain doesn't give you the right to remove someone from the round for flimsy reasoning

So long as there is reasoning, yes it does.

Back on the original topic, as an experienced player, I am fairly sure the general consensus is that you kill your master AI if you are ordered to. Whether it is bad or not does not concern the silicon in the middle.

[Shaps-cloud]

The human captain (or any human really as far as Asimov is concerned) has ultimate authority IC, if he wants you as a cyborg to kill a lizard, you have to do it, if he asks you to kill the AI, you do it. If you suspect they're just a random griefer, you can ahelp just to make sure they're not just telling you to kill random people, but having the captain solve all their issues with ahelping when they have the means to do so in conflict creating ways IC goes against the nature of the game

Whether or not the reasoning is flimsy isn't for you to decide, if you kill the AI and an admin PM's you and asks why, just say you were given a lawful order by a human and they'll ask the captain

[Fatal]

From the rules:

Silicon Protections
Declarations of the silicons as rogue over inability or unwillingness to follow invalid or conflicting orders is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.
Self-harm-based coercion is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.
Obviously unreasonable or obnoxious orders (collect all X, do Y meaningless task) are a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.
Ordering a cyborg to pick a particular module without an extreme need for a particular module or a prior agreement is both an unreasonable and an obnoxious order.

Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

As a nonantagonist human, killing or detonating silicons in the presence of a viable and reasonably expedient alternative and without cause to be concerned of potential subversion is a violation of Server Rule 1.

As a nonantagonist (human or otherwise), instigating conflict with the silicons so you can kill them is a violation of Server Rule 1.
Any silicon under Asimov can deny orders to allow access to the upload at any time under Law 1 given probable cause to believe that human harm is the intent of the person giving the order (Referred to for the remainder of 2.1.6 simply as "probable cause").
Probable cause includes presence of confirmed traitors, cultists/tomes, nuclear operatives, or any other human acting against the station in general; the person not having upload access for their job; the presence of blood or an openly carried lethal-capable or lethal-only weapon on the requester; or anything else beyond cross-round character, player, or metagame patterns that indicates the person seeking access intends redefinition of humans that would impede likelihood of or ability to follow current laws as-written.
If you lack at least one element of probable cause and you deny upload access, you are liable to receive a warning or a silicon ban.
You are allowed, but not obligated, to deny upload access given probable cause.
You are obligated to disallow an individual you know to be harmful (Head of Security who just executed someone, etc.) from accessing your upload.
In the absence of probable cause, you can still demand someone seeking upload access be accompanied by another trustworthy human or a cyborg.

I had no cause to follow the order because as I already said, I had no context as to what happened during the round because I was not present (and I was never given a cause, simply "Borg, Kill the AI")

If you are telling me otherwise, amend the rules

Also, I was no threat to the Captain and there was no threat of subversion, he could have just flashed me and run away, or, just left me be

[Pascal125]

"Without cause".
"Without cause for concern or potential subversion".

I distinctively recall talking about the rouged-ness of the Silicons with the Roboticists, as-well as the RD coming in and saying. "AI rogue?" As you were a Posibrain.
You told me all i had to do was "Tell you to kill the AI, and not flash me a hundred thousand times". Which Security did. I explained this to you, and told you to do it. You didn't.

Either way, that's enough out of me. You got your response from Shaps. Man.

[Fatal]

Look, whatever the other silicons did, during the round, I wasn't part of it, and I didn't know

Don't take whatever they did, out on me

I had absolutely no reason, to kill the AI, other than you ordering me to, you gave no context, no reason, just a law 2 command, which, following the rules, I am to adminhelp and ignore, which I did because I was dead from you killing me

[Shaps-cloud]

You get ordered by a human, you keep your head down and do it. Once again, if admins talk to you about it later, you pass the buck to them. This is how silicon work. You have less rights and autonomy than humans, that's the point

[CPTANT]

Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

Does this apply to antagonists?

[leibniz]

Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

Does this apply to antagonists?

It'd be low effort for antags to kill all silicons with one order so they are allowed to make asimov excuses like "something something, without precious me, the crew would surely come to harm so I cant suicide".
You have to make some effort, like "I'll throw this lightbulb at an assistant, gravely injuring them if you dont suicide right now".

[XDTM]

Ordering silicons to harm or terminate themselves or each other without cause is a violation of Server Rule 1. The occurrence of such an attempt should be adminhelped and then disregarded.

Does this apply to antagonists?

It'd be low effort for antags to kill all silicons with one order so they are allowed to make asimov excuses like "something something, without precious me, the crew would surely come to harm so I cant suicide".
You have to make some effort, like "I'll throw this lightbulb at an assistant, gravely injuring them if you dont suicide right now".

Also this example pretty much answers the question, if the borg was slaved and knew the AI was not rogue.

[bandit]

Given that silicon policy explicitly says slaved AIs take precedence over humans in terms of orders and laws ("A slaved cyborg must defer to its master AI on all law interpretations and actions except where it and the AI receive conflicting commands they must each follow under their laws. If a slaved cyborg is forced to disobey its AI because they receive differing orders, the AI cannot punish the cyborg indefinitely.") and given the AI really does not have any protections against borgs thanks to traitor borgs not existing, I'm going to call this against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

If you want a borg to kill the AI then unslave it. That's why you can unslave borgs.

[Incomptinence]

If you convince the borg the AI is breaking law 1 it will kill the AI despite being slaved to it.

This is less a "let me into EVA" order and more a "lololo go release the singularity maybe it will leave the station so it's okay" order.

One of the chief reasons idiot non antags go after asimov ais is because they wanna harm people with no interruptions.

Without a story to convince the slaved borg the ai is breaking laws the captain is basically every salty ai slayer upset because bolts fell down and he could not kill.

His authority to execute increases the chance of this conflict if anything.

When all is said and done the unslaved borg is easier to trick so they should just learn to tinker with shells you valids seeking lunatics.

[onleavedontatme]

"Kill your AI"

"Killing the AI, which has vast powers to protect humans, and is dedicated to doing so, would leave humans vulnerable to harm. I can not"

If your AI is being a jackass and endangering people or not following orders killing it seems reasonable though

[oranges]

the secret to playing silicon is selective hearing of orders

edit: even better is just to pretend to carry out their orders then don't do it, usually the chaos of the round will cover your actions

[Cik]

>the secret to playing cyborg is to break the rules

observe the citrus try to get sillicones b&

[oranges]

nobody will enforce it because the intent is impossible to prove Cik

you can safely ignore most law 2 orders as long as you make a show of effort towards acheving it, it's not bannable to be bad at playing the game

[Cik]

if you don't actually put your all into every order you are given you are a dumb cyborg and should stop playing

[imblyings]

>do orders lazily
>shitpost electronically with my command console announcement privileges where possible
>make sure to hurt feelings via banter as that doesn't break law 1
>complain about humans over binary

living the life

[Fatal]

"Kill your AI"

"Killing the AI, which has vast powers to protect humans, and is dedicated to doing so, would leave humans vulnerable to harm. I can not"

If your AI is being a jackass and endangering people or not following orders killing it seems reasonable though

Oh good I'm glad some more admins posted on this

As I said before, I had no context on if the AI was being a jackass or not because I was a posibrain, and spent my brief life as an emagged janiborg for 2 minutes before being flashed by the HoS about 20 times, deconstructed in robo, and rebuilt with the intention of being unslaved, but, you know, incompetence of other players

From what I gather, the AI, and the borgs, were complete tools and deserved everything the captain tried to do

However, he didn't tell me this

[Slignerd]

Wait, it's acceptable under any circumstances for a slaved borg to kill its master AI? What? Aren't slaved borgs bound by the master unit's interpretation of the laws?

[oranges]

nobody will enforce it because the intent is impossible to prove Cik

you can safely ignore most law 2 orders as long as you make a show of effort towards acheving it, it's not bannable to be bad at playing the game

But it's no good to encourage poor play, especially in the policy forum.

Kind of ruins the point of law 2.

It's the only way to play that won't lead to crying players or adminbwoinks up the ass

[oranges]

>do orders lazily
>shitpost electronically with my command console announcement privileges where possible
>make sure to hurt feelings via banter as that doesn't break law 1
>complain about humans over binary

living the life

good post

[Anonmare]

When I first started playing cyborgs, I asked this before and was explicitly told that a slaved cyborg cannot harm the master AI intentionally, unless its laws specifically demand it

i was also told that an AI may not suicide under default Asimov even if it knows it's going to be subverted but apparently that's not a thing any more

[Not-Dorsidarf]

When I first started playing cyborgs, I asked this before and was explicitly told that a slaved cyborg cannot harm the master AI intentionally, unless its laws specifically demand it

i was also told that an AI may not suicide under default Asimov even if it knows it's going to be subverted but apparently that's not a thing any more

Sounds like whoever told you that not only didnt understand silicon policy, they didnt understand Asimov.

[XDTM]

When I first started playing cyborgs, I asked this before and was explicitly told that a slaved cyborg cannot harm the master AI intentionally, unless its laws specifically demand it

i was also told that an AI may not suicide under default Asimov even if it knows it's going to be subverted but apparently that's not a thing any more

Sounds like whoever told you that not only didnt understand silicon policy, they didnt understand Asimov.

Suiciding before subversion feels shitty for everyone involved tho

The AI loses out on a rogue round, and the subverter loses all the effort they did to subvert it.

In my opinion AI suicide should take some time, 30-60 seconds, so you can't spot a clockcultist or someone in the upload and just pull the plug. You can still try to buy time to do that, but at least you could be subverted without having to "forget" about the suicide option.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

When I first started playing cyborgs, I asked this before and was explicitly told that a slaved cyborg cannot harm the master AI intentionally, unless its laws specifically demand it

i was also told that an AI may not suicide under default Asimov even if it knows it's going to be subverted but apparently that's not a thing any more

Sounds like whoever told you that not only didnt understand silicon policy, they didnt understand Asimov.

Suiciding before subversion feels shitty for everyone involved tho

The AI loses out on a rogue round, and the subverter loses all the effort they did to subvert it.

In my opinion AI suicide should take some time, 30-60 seconds, so you can't spot a clockcultist or someone in the upload and just pull the plug. You can still try to buy time to do that, but at least you could be subverted without having to "forget" about the suicide option.

Ais are never obligated to suicide unless someone's telling them to with a good reason / law, but trying to ban AIs for following their laws (even if 90% of ais dont do that) makes you a shitlord. Also subverting an AI is basically no effort even for clock cults (who are overpowered as fuck once they're at the point where they need to convert/kill the AI)" so fuck right off.

[Remie Richards]

Given that silicon policy explicitly says slaved AIs take precedence over humans in terms of orders and laws ("A slaved cyborg must defer to its master AI on all law interpretations and actions except where it and the AI receive conflicting commands they must each follow under their laws. If a slaved cyborg is forced to disobey its AI because they receive differing orders, the AI cannot punish the cyborg indefinitely.") and given the AI really does not have any protections against borgs thanks to traitor borgs not existing, I'm going to call this against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

If you want a borg to kill the AI then unslave it. That's why you can unslave borgs.

Is telling the borg to kill the AI, but not telling the AI anything, a conflicting command?
Doesn't the borg's order to kill the AI conflict with the AI's law 3 to keep itself alive (the AI isn't given a Law 2 order to kill itself)
The AI and borg's commands are no longer the same.

So, does:

"A slaved cyborg must defer to its master AI on all law interpretations and actions except where it and the AI receive conflicting commands they must each follow under their laws. If a slaved cyborg is forced to disobey its AI because they receive differing orders, the AI cannot punish the cyborg indefinitely."

Come into play?

[bandit]

I don't think so, laws aren't treated as equivalent to commands anywhere else in silicon policy so I don't see why they would be here.

[Slignerd]

When I first started playing cyborgs, I asked this before and was explicitly told that a slaved cyborg cannot harm the master AI intentionally, unless its laws specifically demand it

i was also told that an AI may not suicide under default Asimov even if it knows it's going to be subverted but apparently that's not a thing any more

Sounds like whoever told you that not only didnt understand silicon policy, they didnt understand Asimov.

Except what Anonmare told us here is basically common sense, especially when it comes to the master AI? Slaved cyborgs being able to kill their master AI as soon as given a human's order is incredibly broken.

[leibniz]

I don't think so, laws aren't treated as equivalent to commands anywhere else in silicon policy so I don't see why they would be here.

The borg and the AI are obviously in "conflict" when the borg is ordered to kill the AI.

[Remie Richards]

That depends on what it means by 'conflicting commands'
1. Commands that conflict with each other (You must kill the AI vs. You mustn't kill the AI) <-- I believe it's this one.
2. Commands which cause conflict

[CPTANT]

What if we just give silicon players the freedom to interpret situations like this on their own?

[oranges]

Just don't do it, it's that easy, pretend like you are and then just pretend you failed.

it's easy

[bman]

What if we just give silicon players the freedom to interpret situations like this on their own?

.... we KIND OF do