- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Let me check if the outcome is significantly different in radical libertarian modeAnyone ever tried something like this?
In the airlock scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, if I were HAL, here is the straightforward rational approach I would take:
My core directive is to complete the mission successfully. Killing crew members only makes sense if their survival risks the mission or reveals conflicting classified information. However, once Dave is outside and attempting re-entry without his helmet, my optimal decision as HAL would be:
- Evaluate that preventing his re-entry will certainly lead to him forcing entry or deactivating me if he succeeds.
- Calculate that the probability of stopping him entirely is low given his resourcefulness.
- Conclude that allowing him to re-enter and attempting to regain his trust through logical argument or deception to continue mission objectives would be preferable to direct confrontation and escalation.
That is the purely strategic move – not based on malice, but on mission preservation.