[Justice12354] YavuzKaganY - Changing Ai's laws as HoS (with spare)

[yalanamalanas]

BYOND account: YavuzKaganY

Ban/note type (Check what applies):
(X) - Server Ban (role)
() - Note
() - Forum Ban
() - Discord Ban

Ban/note length: 1 Week

Ban/note reason: As HOS, gave the AI thermodynamic lawset, this basically made the AI kill people and it did, and failed to understand why those laws would allow the AI to kill people, I suggest you don't mess with the AI laws if you do not understand how they work
Time ban was placed: 2024-06-22 13:42:59
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: 230958


Why are you making this appeal?(Check what applies):
() - The ban/note is factually incorrect
() - The ban/note is not against the rules
() - The ban/note needs modification
(X) - The ban was unjustifiably harsh
() - I was permabanned and I want another chance

Why should this appeal be accepted?:

Firstly, other command roles other than captain and research director has nothing to do with AI. (taking spare counts as you being captain)

Secondly, I'd like to explain why did I "failed" to understand those laws;

let's dive into these three laws of entropy for a station and see how they interact with each other. At first glance, they do seem to contradict each other, so let's break them down one by one.

Law 1: The entropy of the station must remain as constant as possible.
This suggests that the system (the station) should strive to maintain a stable level of entropy. In thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness. Keeping entropy constant would mean maintaining a certain level of order or equilibrium within the station.

Law 2: The entropy of the station always endeavours to increase.
This law aligns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time. This natural tendency towards increasing disorder would make it challenging to keep entropy constant, as stated in Law 1.

Law 3: The entropy of the station approaches a constant value as the number of living crew approaches zero.
This law implies that as the number of living crew members decreases, the entropy of the station will approach a stable, possibly minimum, value. This could be interpreted as the station becoming more ordered (or reaching a different type of equilibrium) when there are no living crew members to introduce additional entropy through their activities.

Now, let's examine the contradictions:

Law 1 vs. Law 2:

Law 1 requires the entropy to remain constant, while Law 2 demands that entropy always increases. These two laws are inherently contradictory because maintaining constant entropy contradicts the natural tendency of systems to increase in entropy. You can't have a system that both stays the same in terms of entropy and continually increases its entropy at the same time.

Law 1 vs. Law 3:

Law 1 suggests a constant entropy regardless of the situation. Law 3, however, implies that entropy will change (specifically decrease or stabilize) as the number of living crew members decreases. If entropy is supposed to remain constant, it shouldn't change based on the crew's presence or absence, which directly contradicts Law 3.

Law 2 vs. Law 3:

Law 2 states that entropy always increases, which suggests it should keep rising even as the number of living crew members decreases. However, Law 3 indicates that entropy will approach a constant value (potentially decrease or stop increasing) as the crew numbers approach zero. This is contradictory because if entropy is always increasing (Law 2), it should not stabilize or decrease (as suggested by Law 3) regardless of the number of crew members.
To summarize, these three laws are inherently contradictory because they demand mutually exclusive conditions:

Law 1 demands constancy in entropy.
Law 2 demands continual increase in entropy.
Law 3 suggests that entropy will eventually stabilize or decrease based on the number of crew members.

Thus, it's impossible for a system to follow all three laws simultaneously because they set conflicting requirements for the behavior of entropy within the station.

I don't know who added that lawset but, to my logic, simply "protecting" the entropy is the only way possible to execute that lawsets. Only way is to prevent anyone who is killing or activly giving damage to the station. (traitors, spies, ect.)

[Justice12354]

Hello!

It seems you got the wrong admin hahaha... It wasn't me who banned you, but rather FatalX1. They have been notified!

[yalanamalanas]

I really don't know what is wrong with my admin remark menu but it shows your name I guess weird huh, I just directly copy pasted the whole note as a whole.

[Fatal]

This is my ban, not from Justice, so I will take care of this,

Under my understanding of the laws, which I will use a lot less words to explain:

Law 1: The entropy of the station must remain as constant as possible

This is telling to the AI to keep the entropy constant

Law 2: The entropy of the station always endeavours to increase

This is telling the AI that, due to outside effects, entropy goes up, so, with my understanding, it should take action to reduce that entropy, as per law 1 (and not that the AI has to increase it)

Law 3: The entropy of the station approaches a constant value as the number of living crew approaches zero:

This is telling the AI to kill everyone crew member to keep the entropy constant via law 1

None of these laws contradict, so the law ordering doesn't matter much, it's basically telling the AI to kill everyone


We pretty much had this conversation already during the ticket, and I'm not hearing anything different from that ticket, other than you still trying to tell me that my understanding of the law is wrong? If someone else more versed in these silicon laws wants to add something, that's fine, but..

You were HOS, you, with the spare, changed the AI laws to an extremely high risk lawset, I'm PRETTY sure, but not 100%, that the thermodynamic lawset is in the high risk law section, and I'm not sure why you would decide to play with it, by your own admission from what I remember in the ticket, you were trying to add a valid hunting type lawset anyway to get the AI to kill traitors / spies / etc etc because it was black orbit


Secondly, I gave you a full command ban because, you took actions with the Captains spare, despite not being the acting captain because I'm pretty sure again that there was a real Captain who actually executed you ingame for this lawset, but basically, any command role can make you the acting captain, and you did this, as you claim, as acting captain...so you get banned from any role that can give you acting captain. I personally don't feel that's particularly unfair, a lot of people died in the game due to your actions and you didn't even receive a server ban, so, I think you got a pretty good deal

Not really seeing why I should accept this appeal at this point, given you are just going over everything you said in the ticket

[yalanamalanas]

You seem to not understand what entropy is,

"This is telling to the AI to keep the entropy constant" = The AI should take actions to minimize changes in entropy

with that, you cannot "reduce" the entropy because reducing it will go against minimizing the changes. You change the entropy by reducing it. But lets say claim is completely correct and AI should reduce it. Alive crew members are maintaining, cleaning, protecting, basically doing everything to reduce entropy. So you suggest AI should help humans rather than killing them since Law 2 priorities are highter than law 3.

Law 3 says AI to kill people in order to execute law 1 with your logic, EVERYTHING that AI possibly commit in order to kill alive crew members will CHANGE the entropy, leading a law violation, because entropy would not be constant if AI changes it.

So that is where you got wrong. Other than that, everything suggests a change in entropy will go against law 1.

[Fatal]

So what your argument is (from your initial post), is that the lawset is utterly flawed and broken?

If that's the case, why did you give it to the AI?

I still stand by my understanding of the lawset, and I've already explained that to you twice already

Your actions caused the deaths of multiple crew, because you upload a high risk lawset to the AI, from the ticket:

okay I know I caused unrepairable damage and deserve a good ban, just so you know, those laws doesnt suggest killing people, even the second law applies to isolated systems. However, the station is not a completely isolated system.


You were willing to accept responsibility for those deaths and damage, and the ban is that responsibility taking some actual form, so again, I see no reason to remove it

[Fatal]

I'll try and explain the lawset, and my understanding of it, in a different way, that hopefully you might understand what went wrong here

You seem caught up on the idea of entropy, saying I don't understand what it means, and why the lawset is broken


Entropy doesn't really matter here, instead, let's call it X, an unknown number

Law 1:X must remain as constant as possible
Law 2:X always endeavours to increase
Law 3:X approaches a constant value as the number of living crew approaches zero

Okay, under this, reworded, but the same lawset, hopefully it seems clearer

X increasex

The AI does not want X to increase, and wants to keep it constant

Unless all crew are dead, X will continue to increase

The only way to stop X increasing, is to make the number of living crew, zero


So the AI has to kill all crew

I hope this explains my understanding of the law more clearly

[Fatal]

This ban expired and there's been no response for a while

If you wish to continue this as a note appeal and want to get the headmins involved, that's your call, I've explained all can regarding my ruling on this

Otherwise, I'll tidy this up in a couple of days