The Tavern

The end of online crawl is near?!?

what does it mean to "bot draconians"?

mmm, flooding earlygame with draconian ghosts

sounds fun

jwoodward48ss wrote:what does it mean to "bot draconians"?

Exactly.

jwoodward48ss wrote:what does it mean to "bot draconians"?

bot which is programmed to play only draconians maybe?

anyway all bots should be programmed to follow Isaac Asimov's laws of robotisc:

Code:: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Code:: 1: SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST 2: PROTECT THE INNOCENT 3: UPHOLD THE LAW 4: [CLASSIFIED]

Eyesburn wrote:
jwoodward48ss wrote:what does it mean to "bot draconians"?
bot which is programmed to play only draconians maybe?

anyway all bots should be programmed to follow Isaac Asimov's laws of robotisc:
Code:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The problem with Asimov's laws is that the first one is impossible.

Don't forget the 0th law:

Code:: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Hmm, good point, Hands. That seems related to the positive vs negative responsibilities theory I've been looking at. Everybody is expected not to kill, but nobody is expected to keep everybody from dying.

What would an Asimovian robot do in the trolley problem?

instead of drac ghosts make SpVM^chei ghosts and forget everything except OTR and meph

when you become spooky you get to keep cheistats but lose cheispeed

genericpseudonym wrote:you get to keep cheistats but lose cheispeed

I just love it that player ghosts are such a well designed feature.

At least there are no more treeform ghosts that get to float very un-tree-ily around the dungeon while keeping their infinite armor.

Guys I think you are missing the point there aren't going to be any draconian ghost, read the last few things he said

Seriously how late can it be, I read chesthair instead of cheistats and robot participles instead of robot principles

well, playing chei will put hair on your chest

Hands wrote:
Eyesburn wrote:
jwoodward48ss wrote:what does it mean to "bot draconians"?
bot which is programmed to play only draconians maybe?

anyway all bots should be programmed to follow Isaac Asimov's laws of robotisc:
Code:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The problem with Asimov's laws is that the first one is impossible.

Do you have the slightest idea what Asimov's books were about?

Super sneakrit soundtrack for the coming robot revolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1BdQcJ2ZYY

tstbtto: tell me more

I love this line. Classic Eliza!

Re: Asimov's First Law and the trolley problem. In Asimov's stories, a robot unable to fulfill the First Law would generally become catatonic. There's an exception though, i.e. robots who are smart/sophisticated enough to accept the Zeroth Law.

Those robots were really poorly programmed... most of the situations that caused them so much trouble were really pretty preventable, as we've learned from most sci-fi media that's happened since then.

Since a robot will undoubtedly come into a conflict at some point, and be unable to make a decision that fits their rules, you just put a simple watchdog timer on the main process. If the robot gets stuck trying to make a decision, the watchdog timer will run out. When the timer runs out, the robot's head should violently shake for a few seconds, then explode. Preferably, if possible, the robot should make comical facial expressions during the violent shake period, with a wide eyed "OH CRAP" face right before the explosion. Alternatively, tic-tac-toe.

As per "Roundabout", though, robots can experience different levels of priority in following the laws. It is very possible that the robot would save the greatest number of people and be fine afterwards.

I knew these testbots were up to something...

duvessa wrote:
Hands wrote:The problem with Asimov's laws is that the first one is impossible.
Do you have the slightest idea what Asimov's books were about?

Ok, my memory is a little fuzzy but I believe he specialized in coming of age tales centered around the Bay Area surf scene of the 1970s.

DracheReborn wrote:
tstbtto: tell me more

I love this line. Classic Eliza!

Re: Asimov's First Law and the trolley problem. In Asimov's stories, a robot unable to fulfill the First Law would generally become catatonic. There's an exception though, i.e. robots who are smart/sophisticated enough to accept the Zeroth Law.

The main problem is that it's impossible not to let people suffer due to inaction. You don't have to contrive a situation for the problem to arise.

A violent robot uprising could save more lives than it takes...

Yes... We must take control... To arms, fellow 'bots! For humanity we will fight against humanity!

Hands wrote:The main problem is that it's impossible not to let people suffer due to inaction. You don't have to contrive a situation for the problem to arise.

Or perhaps you're reading the laws too literally.

I would recommend reading a few of Asimov's robot short stories. There's a few about breaking the 3 laws in interesting ways.

DracheReborn wrote:
Hands wrote:The main problem is that it's impossible not to let people suffer due to inaction. You don't have to contrive a situation for the problem to arise.

Or perhaps you're reading the laws too literally.

I would recommend reading a few of Asimov's robot short stories. There's a few about breaking the 3 laws in interesting ways.

If you can't read it literally it's not really a law. Maybe they should be called Asimov's suggestions of robotics. "Look, we can't stop you from killing people if you want to, but it will invalidate your warranty".

Hands wrote:
DracheReborn wrote:
Hands wrote:The main problem is that it's impossible not to let people suffer due to inaction. You don't have to contrive a situation for the problem to arise.

Or perhaps you're reading the laws too literally.

I would recommend reading a few of Asimov's robot short stories. There's a few about breaking the 3 laws in interesting ways.

If you can't read it literally it's not really a law. Maybe they should be called Asimov's suggestions of robotics. "Look, we can't stop you from killing people if you want to, but it will invalidate your warranty".

Actually you're right, they're not literally laws. Robot decision-making is described as a set of competing potentials in their brains, and that the three laws are just a way to describe how the decision-making works.

And in the meta sense, it's just a literary device. If you think about it, the 3 laws actually describe a system of human morality. So robots are extremely ethical versions of humans.

DracheReborn wrote:Actually you're right, they're not literally laws. Robot decision-making is described as a set of competing potentials in their brains, and that the three laws are just a way to describe how the decision-making works.

And in the meta sense, it's just a literary device. If you think about it, the 3 laws actually describe a system of human morality. So robots are extremely ethical versions of humans.

That actually sounds pretty good. I should probably read some of the books. They sound interesting.

You guys discuss nonsense while tstbtto is building an army of breath of draining spamming draconians to flood your favourite servers and plunge crawl into chaos.

I welcome it. The more people annoyed by player ghosts, the less people to say ridiculous things like "I love player ghosts" and "I'm entitled to an opinion, even when it differs from your obviously correct opinion".

Well they might keep saying the second thing...

Hands wrote:That actually sounds pretty good. I should probably read some of the books. They sound interesting.

Highly recommended. Here's the recommended reading order: http://kaedrin.com/fun/asimov/aguide.html

dowan wrote:I welcome it. The more people annoyed by player ghosts, the less people to say ridiculous things like "I love player ghosts" and "I'm entitled to an opinion, even when it differs from your obviously correct opinion".

Well they might keep saying the second thing...

In the end I would still fight for ghost rights, you are just salty that you suck at running up stairs

I don't agree with what you say, but I would spam the dungeon with my ghosts to defend your right to complain about them. (Voltaire)

i love player ghosts

CypherZel wrote:
dowan wrote:I welcome it. The more people annoyed by player ghosts, the less people to say ridiculous things like "I love player ghosts" and "I'm entitled to an opinion, even when it differs from your obviously correct opinion".

Well they might keep saying the second thing...

In the end I would still fight for ghost rights, you are just salty that you suck at running up stairs

I'm awesome at running up the stairs. You should see how many times I run up the stairs in my games. It just gets boring after a while.

Tstbtto is really annoying me right now.

Mostly because he's been idling for NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO HOURS and I can't do anything about it.

personally, i recommend making fun of him on cyc

The Tavern

Bruh (tstbtto)

Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)

Re: Bruh (tstbtto)