AI and Surgery

[Ghilker]

Ok so, the other day i was playing on Terry, when i got a strange though. What if the AI wont allow surgery because of law 1?

I'll explain, surgery is just cutting a human (thus harming him) to prevent a future greater harm (like death, paralisis, or whatever) so the AI should do all it can to stop this kind of procedure.. no?

One guy told me that by silicon policy: "Humans can be assumed to know whether an action will harm them and that they will make educated decisions about whether they will be harmed if they have complete information about a situation"
but this is applicable to something a human will do, not someone else will do to him
From my POV i see this policy: "Lesser immediate harm takes priority over greater future harm" this is why i say that surgery shouldnt be visible to AIs (like execution) because cutting a person (from the AIs POV) IS immediate harm, because it can't distinguish between consensual operation and dissection for funzies.

Please dont start bitching with "RuLe 1 DoNt Be A dIcK" because this can give AIs more depth to just "open doors"

[WarbossLincoln]

Rule 1: Don't be a dick.

It doesn't add depth to silicons to get into an argument with the crew when you bolt down surgery while someone dies of appendicitis. It just makes people hate silicons more.

If you really *need* a policy on this then the one you quoted is perfectly fine. Assume anyone undergoing surgery is a willing participant, even if they're unconscious because you can assume that if they were conscious they would consent to their life saving procedure. If someone screams for help in an unwilling surgery, have at it, try to save them.

[NoxVS]

I have been told in the past that surgery without a harmful end goal isn’t harmful. Even if the surgery is not being consented to. So if someone is having an implant removed or being pacified against their will the surgery does not need to be stopped. But if they are being borged or having their heart removed then yeah intervene.

What I am wondering is if a borg can do harmful surgery that’s consented to. So debraining for borging,

[cedarbridge]

I have been told in the past that surgery without a harmful end goal isn’t harmful. Even if the surgery is not being consented to. So if someone is having an implant removed or being pacified against their will the surgery does not need to be stopped. But if they are being borged or having their heart removed then yeah intervene.

What I am wondering is if a borg can do harmful surgery that’s consented to. So debraining for borging,

Debraining for borging that is consented to (or forceborging where the alternative is execution) are already allowed within law 1 as "non-harmful" activities even though those activities technically terminate the human's life as a human.

[Arianya]

Generally speaking there's a common understanding that self-inflicted harm is not harm, including consented surgery (this also applies to "AI OPEN THIS DOOR OR I PUNCH MYSELF")

[BeeSting12]

Self inflicted harm or harm that is consented to isn't considered harm to an Asimov silicon here, surgery and consensual borging would fall under that. Nonconsensual surgery would be something an Asimov silicon should try to stop, as well as forcefully borging someone.

[Ghilker]

I'm well fine with the normal idea that surgery is not harm, but if I had this kind of question, other people can too, and maybe a player AI will take it too far and deny someone access to surgery because there is a thin line between consensual and non consensual surgery If someone is unconscious. I'd say to just update the silicon policy to say that surgery is not harmful and if in doubt consult with other humans (like CMO, doctors) so that no AI players will be punished for this

[cedarbridge]

I'm well fine with the normal idea that surgery is not harm, but if I had this kind of question, other people can too, and maybe a player AI will take it too far and deny someone access to surgery because there is a thin line between consensual and non consensual surgery If someone is unconscious. I'd say to just update the silicon policy to say that surgery is not harmful and if in doubt consult with other humans (like CMO, doctors) so that no AI players will be punished for this

Harm or not-harm does not turn solely on consent to that surgery. Borgs and the AI are expected to be intelligent enough to know a heart transplant from a lobotomy and realize why the first is not harmful and the later probably is.

[terranaut]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

[teepeepee]

One could argue in an IC-setting that, since the humans are employees of nanotrasen and have signed a contract accepting certain terms, like the space law they have set as their justice system, that the consequence of forceborging is something that the human has consented to, and as thus, the AI should not intervene unless it hears contradictory information, like the human yelling for help.
A human that has no PDA, headset, is muted by chemicals or a muzzle and is cuffed, cannot comunicate with the AI.
By doing this, I believe the AI should let them be borged if their security record states that they have commited a capital crime, because he has consented to the consequences of such in his employment contract.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

One could argue in an IC-setting that, since the humans are employees of nanotrasen and have signed a contract accepting certain terms, like the space law they have set as their justice system, that the consequence of forceborging is something that the human has consented to, and as thus, the AI should not intervene unless it hears contradictory information, like the human yelling for help.
A human that has no PDA, headset, is muted by chemicals or a muzzle and is cuffed, cannot comunicate with the AI.
By doing this, I believe the AI should let them be borged if their security record states that they have commited a capital crime, because he has consented to the consequences of such in his employment contract.

Fuck off you shitbag

[cedarbridge]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

We've allowed this for literally years. The arrested person is given the option to be "transferred" or borged. The AI recognizes that borging is not itself a harmful process because that's how borgs are made. If the player chooses not to be transferred then they tacitly submit to being borged. The options were binary when given and they don't have a third option. Transfer has always been code for execution, but Rule 1 guides AI and borg players away from just metagaming around it to dick over cases where execution is valid.

So yes, unless you can point to a headmin ruling that is contrary to that, this is how the rule has existed to my complete knowledge since about mid 2014.

One could argue in an IC-setting that, since the humans are employees of nanotrasen and have signed a contract accepting certain terms, like the space law they have set as their justice system, that the consequence of forceborging is something that the human has consented to, and as thus, the AI should not intervene unless it hears contradictory information, like the human yelling for help.
A human that has no PDA, headset, is muted by chemicals or a muzzle and is cuffed, cannot comunicate with the AI.
By doing this, I believe the AI should let them be borged if their security record states that they have commited a capital crime, because he has consented to the consequences of such in his employment contract.

This here is just making shit up.

[leibniz]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

We've allowed this for literally years. The arrested person is given the option to be "transferred" or borged. The AI recognizes that borging is not itself a harmful process because that's how borgs are made. If the player chooses not to be transferred then they tacitly submit to being borged. The options were binary when given and they don't have a third option. Transfer has always been code for execution, but Rule 1 guides AI and borg players away from just metagaming around it to dick over cases where execution is valid.

So yes, unless you can point to a headmin ruling that is contrary to that, this is how the rule has existed to my complete knowledge since about mid 2014.

How many years?
Anyway, he's correct, there is a reason we had to add the policy to prevent forceborged borgs from getting revenge.

[terranaut]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

We've allowed this for literally years. The arrested person is given the option to be "transferred" or borged. The AI recognizes that borging is not itself a harmful process because that's how borgs are made. If the player chooses not to be transferred then they tacitly submit to being borged. The options were binary when given and they don't have a third option. Transfer has always been code for execution, but Rule 1 guides AI and borg players away from just metagaming around it to dick over cases where execution is valid.

So yes, unless you can point to a headmin ruling that is contrary to that, this is how the rule has existed to my complete knowledge since about mid 2014.

It is literally in the fucking rules. https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Cyborgs


2.Voluntary (and ONLY voluntary) debraining/ cyborgization is considered a nonharmful medical procedure.
2.1 Involuntary debraining and/or cyborgization is a fatally harmful act that Asimov silicons must attempt to stop at any point they're aware of it happening to a human.
2.2 If a player is forcefully cyborgized as a method of execution by station staff, retaliating against those involved as that cyborg because "THEY HARMED ME" or "THEY WERE EVIL AND MUST BE PUNISHED" or the like is a violation of Server Rule 1.

"die, or die in a way that makes you our slave" isn't exactly fucking voluntary. there's a server rule 1 policy in place to prevent shitters from going back and locking down security in a fit of rage because they got clapped but the AI sure as fuck has to prevent prisoners from being borged if they dont consent. as long as i played here, neither when i first played nor since i got back, i have ever heard anybody say "transfer" as winkwinknudgenudge for the AI player to turn a blind eye. mouthbreathers always talk about executions and I have to go wild on them as the fucking AI and then I have a HoS stunlocked in my core because he thought he could just walk in and ion rifle me because I'm RoUgE.
offering borging as a less boring alternative to perma is perfectly fine, because here you aren't competing against a threat on your life when weighing your options. perma is escapable, something might happen and you get out or you could juts be happy doing botany for 20 minutes until the round ends. but when the options are "die or die" then that is fucking harmful as shit and needs to be prevented.

[cedarbridge]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

We've allowed this for literally years. The arrested person is given the option to be "transferred" or borged. The AI recognizes that borging is not itself a harmful process because that's how borgs are made. If the player chooses not to be transferred then they tacitly submit to being borged. The options were binary when given and they don't have a third option. Transfer has always been code for execution, but Rule 1 guides AI and borg players away from just metagaming around it to dick over cases where execution is valid.

So yes, unless you can point to a headmin ruling that is contrary to that, this is how the rule has existed to my complete knowledge since about mid 2014.

How many years?
Anyway, he's correct, there is a reason we had to add the policy to prevent forceborged borgs from getting revenge.

I can't remember a time where this wasn't the case and I've been around a little over 5 years.

[Skillywatt]

(or forceborging where the alternative is execution)

Bullshit.

2.Voluntary (and ONLY voluntary) debraining/ cyborgization is considered a nonharmful medical procedure.
2.1 Involuntary debraining and/or cyborgization is a fatally harmful act that Asimov silicons must attempt to stop at any point they're aware of it happening to a human.
2.2 If a player is forcefully cyborgized as a method of execution by station staff, retaliating against those involved as that cyborg because "THEY HARMED ME" or "THEY WERE EVIL AND MUST BE PUNISHED" or the like is a violation of Server Rule 1.

this is how I've always operated as a borg and SEC player.

borgs have "rescued" many a tator tot screeching in chat about how theyre going to be harmed while I drag them off to robotics.

[NoxVS]

The AI recognizes that borging is not itself a harmful process because that's how borgs are made.

The rules literally fucking say "Involuntary debraining and/or cyborgization is a fatally harmful act that Asimov silicons must attempt to stop at any point they're aware of it happening to a human." That is it word for word. How is borging not a harmful process?

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Cyborgs

[Skillywatt]

the fact one of our longstanding admins doesnt understand silicon policy is probably a good sign it's time to revamp them.

[Shadowflame909]

Traitor borgs can still traitor.

That's always been allowed unless they have a law to prevent them from doing so.

[Cobby]

Um the AI should not condone forceborging unless the prisoners asks for it on his own volition, which at that point wouldn't be forceborging. Being presented the option between forceborging and death should still be considered nonconsensual since there's a super secret third option of not being killed at all lol.

The only reason why AI's don't bother is because it's too much of a pain to deal with sec antagonizing you for doing asimov proper (hopefully rare) or they missed it and are looking at something else. They can only view so much at a time.

[cedarbridge]

The amount of people responding to my post without actually reading it is troubling and speaks more to a desire to argue rather than understand the long-standing policy issues present.

At no point do I say that the AI is "condoning" force-borging. At no point do I say that the AI is being presented with a prisoner given the choice between "death and death." Our maps and rules have specific carveouts to make executions possible without obligating the AI to start screeching that sec are horrible harmful murders and start bolting down sec every time there's an emag spotted. They get away with this because the human in question is given the choice between being "transferred" and being borged. They make this choice of their own volition and are free to pick one or the other. The AI should not intervene in the borging process even if they mangle policy to the degree that they decide that borging as a process is harmful because the choice was made by the supposed "victim" to become a borg and policy carveouts specifically except for "self-harm" such as this.

If the HoS is retarded and says "YEAH WE'RE GONNA KILL EM OR BORG EM" then that's on the HoS for not keeping up the charade. In that instance, the AI and borgs would obviously intervene because the HoS has stated an intent to kill or force borg. The fact that the players involved all know that "transfer" and the "prisoner transfer center" are all corporate innuendo does not matter to the AI and borgs for the sake of following their laws. The AI specifically does not have cameras in that room /because/ it is meant to be visually dark to them. Unless otherwise stated they don't know that there is an "execution chamber" on the station, just a prisoner transfer room where the prisoner is /supposedly/ transferred safely off the station to a farm or some shit. In either case, as far as the humans all know the choice is "death or "death", but the AI doesn't know that for reasons I've already explained. We also have long-standing precedent for yelling at borgs for busting into the "transfer" room without a good reason to know that something actually harmful is going on there. So in sum, the prisoner knows what the choices are, sec knows what the choices are, but what the AI and Borgs under policy know is not the same. As far as the AI and Borgs know, the choice is between "voluntary" borging or harmless transfer off the station.

[lmwevil]

cedar is right but they're wrong in thinking that anyone on tg is capable of rp even to that tiny degree

[teepeepee]

Fuck off you shitbag

This here is just making shit up.

I just put forward an rp friendly interpretation with the game's lore and the rule that says consented harm is not harm :(
How does it not make sense that employees of nanotrasen agreed to nanotrasen's space law?

[cedarbridge]

Fuck off you shitbag

This here is just making shit up.

I just put forward an rp friendly interpretation with the game's lore and the rule that says consented harm is not harm
How does it not make sense that employees of nanotrasen agreed to nanotrasen's space law?

You're in a policy thread. The only way that your interpretation works is if your extended lore about the game's setting were somehow canon and not just something you made up out of thin air. As far as rules are concerned, Space Law is guidelines and it contains nothing about an implicit consent to being borged.

[teepeepee]

You're in a policy thread. The only way that your interpretation works is if your extended lore about the game's setting were somehow canon and not just something you made up out of thin air. As far as rules are concerned, Space Law is guidelines and it contains nothing about an implicit consent to being borged.

Space law is part of the game's lore and it very much is canon, you find it in every station, the policy is that consented harm is not harm and that, too, is very much established
Mix these two with the fact that employees sign contracts (which you can find in-game in the lawyer's office) agreeing to things and my argument is born
No need for a new policy, these preexisting circumstances clarify OP's question in my oppinion and I'd like for them to be considered

clarification: only for debraining surgery after having a capital crime registered

[CDranzer]

It doesn't add depth to silicons to get into an argument with the crew when you bolt down surgery while someone dies of appendicitis. It just makes people hate silicons more.

Isn't tension as a result of problematic law interpretations literally the entire point of having asimov based silicons

[FloranOtten]

It doesn't add depth to silicons to get into an argument with the crew when you bolt down surgery while someone dies of appendicitis. It just makes people hate silicons more.

Isn't tension as a result of problematic law interpretations literally the entire point of having asimov based silicons

Yes, but it needs to be limited. Tension is fine. The AI bolting down every door to the engine and to the armoury because they are areas with harm potential is not. That's just plain annoying.

[cedarbridge]

It doesn't add depth to silicons to get into an argument with the crew when you bolt down surgery while someone dies of appendicitis. It just makes people hate silicons more.

Isn't tension as a result of problematic law interpretations literally the entire point of having asimov based silicons

Yes, but it needs to be limited. Tension is fine. The AI bolting down every door to the engine and to the armoury because they are areas with harm potential is not. That's just plain annoying.

Its also specifically prohibited by policy and said policy is backed by Rule 1.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

You're in a policy thread. The only way that your interpretation works is if your extended lore about the game's setting were somehow canon and not just something you made up out of thin air. As far as rules are concerned, Space Law is guidelines and it contains nothing about an implicit consent to being borged.

Space law is part of the game's lore and it very much is canon, you find it in every station, the policy is that consented harm is not harm and that, too, is very much established
Mix these two with the fact that employees sign contracts (which you can find in-game in the lawyer's office) agreeing to things and my argument is born
No need for a new policy, these preexisting circumstances clarify OP's question in my oppinion and I'd like for them to be considered

clarification: only for debraining surgery after having a capital crime registered

Q: why not just say “the crew has consented to any form of violence or harm about security so nothing sec does violates law one”?

A: Because that’s not how consent works and could be overridden by saying “ai I don’t consent any more”


Addenendum: I predict the proposer of this nonsense has only a few years before being arrested for a sex crime and claiming at trial that there was “an implicit contract to consent”. You loser.

[teepeepee]

Q: why not just say “the crew has consented to any form of violence or harm about security so nothing sec does violates law one”?

(...)and could be overridden by saying “ai I don’t consent any more”

yes, and I said as much in my original post, you admins really cannot read
besides, it's a futuristic corporate dystopia, it fits with the setting that life would be so cheap and rule of contract so extended
I'm sorry you can't have a creative imagination with the setting and the lore

Addenendum: I predict the proposer of this nonsense has only a few years before being arrested for a sex crime and claiming at trial that there was “an implicit contract to consent”. You loser

ok retard

[Hulkamania]

Self, or otherwise voluntary harm is not human harm. If you are consenting to anything like a rage cage, the AI has no reason to think that you're being harmed.

Medical cyborgs are equipped with surgical tools for a reason. If they consent to a surgery it's fine.

I erroneously stated that surgery doesn't cause damage, which it does. Either way, the point still stands that as long as it's consensual it doesn't make a difference.