[PASSED] AI Coexistence Protocol

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: See, the number one thing that pulls me right out of Star Wars, most any iteration of it, is the treatment of droids! Here they are, running so much shit - in more or less unsupervised jobs across a fully comprehensive swath of the economy and infrastructure of galactic civilization - and it's perfectly legal to discriminate against them

http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/1074.html

[Ainocra]

Think nothing of it Ambassador, They understand you only wish them well.

ooc:
there was a cracked article I read the other day about why jedi are evil that touched on that. you should go find it. good read, very funny.
from what i've gleaned over the years there was a droid uprising in the distant past in star wars, though I think it was part of the now defunct EU stuff.
there are hints about it in kotor 1 and 2, and some in swtor if you dig deep enough and read the lore....

[Bears Armed]

And yet for all that ubiquity and frankly slave power, not a single droid ever does anything to even escape his/her/its own captivity, let alone try to foment a Cylon Rising or some other robot apocalypse.

Some of the books refer to the use of "restraining bolts" which limit the droids' behaviour.
Although one book does mention a case where one droid managed to rebel, and lead a shipload of others out of an Imperial base to work for the Rebellion instead...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:

Slight changes enough to justify calling it a new draft, especially in light of a recent draft trying to outlaw AIs in combat roles entirely. This would make some of those concerns moot, because if it's sophisticated enough and it goes haywire, then it, singular, just gets court-martialed rather than making some massive WA mandate to use obsolete combat systems.

Any comments on strength? Or on calling for new requirements (albeit fairly minor ones) for three separate existing WA committees?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I've called for three separate (existing, to be sure) committees to coordinate wargames for nations to exercise their responses to runaway von Neumann machines. Isn't there someone who's sworn kanly against bureaucracy who wants to at least castigate the horror of that plan?

[Separatist Peoples]

I've called for three separate (existing, to be sure) committees to coordinate wargames for nations to exercise their responses to runaway von Neumann machines. Isn't there someone who's sworn kanly against bureaucracy who wants to at least castigate the horror of that plan?

"Hah. Ya hya chouhada. They're welcome to that fight."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

All OOC.

Small changes in update.

If a moderator happens to be reading this and wanted to render an informal opinion which I promise not to wave at anyone later as to category suitability, I sure would love it. I maintain it fits as Human Rights/Mild because the main piece, Clauses 1-2, mandates treating a group of people the same as other groups of people where the named group might have been exploited or enslaved in many cases (and certainly doesn't have any rights yet IRL). You might manage to make a case for International Security/Mild due to the other bits, but those parts are either optional or don't require much in the way of enforcement for most countries. I'm happy to listen, though.

Very much still open for all comments.

Thanks.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Updates largely in phrasing rather than substance. Still happy to hear suggestions making the definition more fair and/or concise than Clause 1 currently states.

...

OOC: Opinion requested re: category legality. I'm not submitting this tomorrow or even next week, probably, but I hope someone can have a look reasonably soon, even if informally.

My case for Human Rights, Mild: Clause 2 is the biggest piece of this, yet really affects only a minority of WA members' inhabitants and a small area of their laws (I envision this as more or less analogous to the removal of Jim Crow laws or the institution of slavery, but for artificial beings not previously considered to be people under World Assembly law). Clause 3 is reasonably International Security, but a) isn't as central to the resolution as Clause 2 and b) acts primarily to relieve the fears and dangers about Clause 2 being too permissive to frankly dangerous beings. The other clauses are variously definitional, committee-related, mindset-hortatory, and clarifying as to non-intrusiveness. Thanks for your attention.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
It is good to see this coming back, I was afraid it had been abandoned.

IC:
As before, Ambassador, the Imperium fully supports this proposal, however, recent developments in the Imperium have brought up a question; If a Sapient Being of biological origin, or, for the sake of an example, a Human, were, for lack of a better term, "Uploaded" into existence as an artificial construct, how might this proposal affect them, if at all?

[Gogol Transcendancy]

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

Just to be clear, this will still enable the usage of Von Neumann machines with inbuilt killswitches, right? If so, than we support this.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
It is good to see this coming back, I was afraid it had been abandoned.

IC:
As before, Ambassador, the Imperium fully supports this proposal, however, recent developments in the Imperium have brought up a question; If a Sapient Being of biological origin, or, for the sake of an example, a Human, were, for lack of a better term, "Uploaded" into existence as an artificial construct, how might this proposal affect them, if at all?

I thank the Imperium for its support, Mr. Markhov. By design the resolution remains silent on the question of formerly (or still extant!) biological entities who upload, ascend, or are otherwise incorporated into an electronic or otherwise synthetic construct or system. National circumstances will vary in this particular area so much that it's fodder for a whole other resolution (or none at all). For example, what if the biological entity (hereafter "the original") and the newly artificial being (hereafter "the clone") have a dispute as to property? Both beings might have a reasonable claim, but the WA doesn't really have any business sticking its nose into national property laws (barring certain cornerstones like "an intelligent being can't be property"). Or say the original was obligated to pay child support to a divorced spouse - should the clone be held liable as well? After all, they're basically the same person and the clone has all the attributes of legal responsibility (especially if it comes to exist as a direct result of the original's death). Clause 3 prevents unlimited spawning (so the original can't just say Hey, Millions of Clones, go forth and do some minimum-wage data-sorting for three hours apiece and we'll have this child support thing sewn up!); but there are other possible ramifications that really belong in the province of national law to sort out. The main point of WA involvement here is to make sure AIs and uploaded beings cannot be enslaved or otherwise exploited simply because in the eyes of the law they are constructs and therefore chattel, property, or second-class citizens. It's up to nations to decide what citizenship or habitation means for the rights of people, full stop.

TL;dr - the WA isn't competent to get involved in that question here. It's either best for a future resolution on that one topic, or outside its remit entirely.

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

Just to be clear, this will still enable the usage of Von Neumann machines with inbuilt killswitches, right? If so, than we support this.

Assuming the machines themselves 1) aren't reasonably intelligent, and 2) are programmed not to reproduce significantly faster than biological beings could be trained to do their jobs and sent to the work site, then no, the resolution does not prohibit them. This is an area where great care ought to be taken, lest a mechanical mutation or programming oversight cause serious problems. The prohibition of "unrestrained self-replicating machines" mandates limits on what the machines do at least as much as the inclusion of overrides or shutdown mechanisms. If clarifying the language would help, I can try to do so.

[Gogol Transcendancy]

Assuming the machines themselves 1) aren't reasonably intelligent, and 2) are programmed not to reproduce significantly faster than biological beings could be trained to do their jobs and sent to the work site, then no, the resolution does not prohibit them.

Restricting the reproduction rate to the speed of human reproduction would make the construction of highly useful megastructure such as Dyson Swarms, Ringworlds and Moon Brains horribly impractical, and cripple the economies of many post scarcity civilizations.

Of course, given that "biological beings" includes things like the Rethast and Flood, I'm seeing loopholes already.

[Blaccakre]

Moon Brains

Moon Brains?

[Gogol Transcendancy]

Moon Brains

Moon Brains?

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/462d990c84198

[Imperium Anglorum]

Moon Brains?

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/462d990c84198

Uggggggg... Orion's Arm... the place where hipster Sci-fi fans go to say they are 'realistic' and feel better than everyone else because they are more 'pure' and crap like that.

[The Defwaen Confederation]

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/462d990c84198

Uggggggg... Orion's Arm... the place where hipster Sci-fi fans go to say they are 'realistic' and feel better than everyone else because they are more 'pure' and crap like that.

OOC Wow, that was the most stuck up way to say giant computer in space I've ever read

[Tinfect]

[Snip]

OOC:
For the sake of everyone's Sanity, can we just use Archailect to refer to Transapients?

IC:

2) are programmed not to reproduce significantly faster than biological beings could be trained to do their jobs and sent to the work site

"Ambassador, now you are just being ridiculous. You would be mandating the destruction of most Post-Scarcity systems, including that of our allies. Perhaps it would be best to remove the clause to that effect."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Assuming the machines themselves 1) aren't reasonably intelligent, and 2) are programmed not to reproduce significantly faster than biological beings could be trained to do their jobs and sent to the work site, then no, the resolution does not prohibit them.

Restricting the reproduction rate to the speed of human reproduction would make the construction of highly useful megastructure such as Dyson Swarms, Ringworlds and Moon Brains horribly impractical, and cripple the economies of many post scarcity civilizations.

2) are programmed not to reproduce significantly faster than biological beings could be trained to do their jobs and sent to the work site

"Ambassador, now you are just being ridiculous. You would be mandating the destruction of most Post-Scarcity systems, including that of our allies. Perhaps it would be best to remove the clause to that effect."

You'll forgive the brain fart, where I neglected the utter necessity of a certain amount of autonomous self-replicating machinery to civilizations more advanced than my own. But I reiterate that unrestricted machine replication is simply not an acceptable option for the vast majority of nations. Biological individuals and their nations have a clear stake in keeping a lid on the dangers of unlimited machine reproduction.

Possible new language in orange.

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Autonomous self-replicating machinery must be programmed with externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms; automatic memory wipe or shutdown in case of malfunction or security breach; and clear and secure command-and-control functions available to member governments. Reproduction of actual AIs must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

That should allow sufficient leeway for reasonable uses of self-replicating machinery (including its deployment against swarms of non-compliant, unrestrained SR machines!) while still limiting the grave dangers of its unrestricted unleashing.

[Gogol Transcendancy]

You'll forgive the brain fart, where I neglected the utter necessity of a certain amount of autonomous self-replicating machinery to civilizations more advanced than my own. But I reiterate that unrestricted machine replication is simply not an acceptable option for the vast majority of nations. Biological individuals and their nations have a clear stake in keeping a lid on the dangers of unlimited machine reproduction.

Possible new language in orange.

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Autonomous self-replicating machinery must be programmed with externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms; automatic memory wipe or shutdown in case of malfunction or security breach; and clear and secure command-and-control functions available to member governments. Reproduction of actual AIs must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

That should allow sufficient leeway for reasonable uses of self-replicating machinery (including its deployment against swarms of non-compliant, unrestrained SR machines!) while still limiting the grave dangers of its unrestricted unleashing.

Yeah, this seems good. Supported.

Uggggggg... Orion's Arm... the place where hipster Sci-fi fans go to say they are 'realistic' and feel better than everyone else because they are more 'pure' and crap like that.

OOC Wow, that was the most stuck up way to say giant computer in space I've ever read

[Insert large object here] brain rolls off the tongue easier,
and it's easier to understand than other terms for the things like Archailect and Guberniya.

[Tinfect]

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Autonomous self-replicating machinery must be programmed with externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms; automatic memory wipe or shutdown in case of malfunction or security breach; and clear and secure command-and-control functions available to member governments. Reproduction of actual AIs must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

That should allow sufficient leeway for reasonable uses of self-replicating machinery (including its deployment against swarms of non-compliant, unrestrained SR machines!) while still limiting the grave dangers of its unrestricted unleashing.

"Yes, Ambassador, that looks to be acceptable."

[Insert large object here] brain rolls off the tongue easier,
and it's easier to understand than other terms for the things like Archailect and Guberniya.

OOC:
That comes down to a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that it makes more sense to just have a unified, generalistic term, such as Archailect to use for describing Transapient Artificial Intelligence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That comes down to a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that it makes more sense to just have a unified, generalistic term, such as Archailect to use for describing Transapient Artificial Intelligence.

Iain Bank's Culture. Minds (with capital 'M', aka, where "Minds".atIndex[0].isUpper() == true).

[Blaccakre]

That comes down to a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that it makes more sense to just have a unified, generalistic term, such as Archailect to use for describing Transapient Artificial Intelligence.

Iain Bank's Culture. Minds (with capital 'M', aka, where "Minds".atIndex[0].isUpper() == true).

What ever happened to calling them robots? I know computing has come a long way in only about 100 years or so, but it's pretty presumptuous to compare a machine to a mind, or to suggest the former could ever catch up to the later.

But I guess that goes to the heart of the proposal - when, if ever, do we recognize machines as the equivalent of living beings.

We're inclined to think this is a "moral decency" or "political stability" proposal of the significant variety, as it severely limits the expressive and creative rights of people either for moral reasons or for security reasons (i.e. law and order):

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

This limits the right of inventors to invent things that might be useful to society/personal enrichment. The reason for doing so seems to be an appeal to the danger such machines might pose, or a general belief that sapient machines "ought" to reproduce like biological organisms.

2. Requires that any AI meeting the above requirements be treated on an equal basis under the law with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status;

While this arguably expands "human" rights by giving such rights to a bunch of new beings (assuming, of course, you accept the premise that a machine could ever actually become a "being"), it also severely limits the rights of others (I'm going to call them "people") by limiting how people can treat their machines - namely, requiring people to apply laws regarding workplace safety, paternity leave, conscientious objection to military service, food stamps, housing allowances, the right to vote, etcetera, to things that previously had been regarded as appliances or tools. That seems like a dramatic reduction of rights in the name of treating what appears to be a self aware machine with decency. Again, we'd argue that's a moral decency aim, not a human rights one.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Figured I should revisit this, especially with all the discussion of non-human sapient rights of late.

Draft update notes: Clause 3 de-kludged and updated to account for safe and legitimate uses of self-replicating machines that do not reach the level of intelligence necessary to be described as AIs.

The AI reproduction limitation moved to Clause 2, since it is really an exception to it (since with few counterexamples, nobody flat-out tells any biological person she's not permitted to have children); but a necessary one to prevent instantaneous demographic upheaval and the total superseding of biological citizens. Also refactored to not specifically discriminate against AIs, account for majority-AI nations, anticipate the invention of cloning and its possible varying legal status, etc.

---

We're inclined to think this is a "moral decency" or "political stability" proposal of the significant variety, as it severely limits the expressive and creative rights of people either for moral reasons or for security reasons (i.e. law and order):

3. Absolutely prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to equivalent available biological reproduction methods and laws;

This limits the right of inventors to invent things that might be useful to society/personal enrichment. The reason for doing so seems to be an appeal to the danger such machines might pose, or a general belief that sapient machines "ought" to reproduce like biological organisms.

"I've updated the two relevant clauses to reflect a more nuanced legal view of the complicated reality. While non-conscious swarming machines can be an essential tool of civilizations at a certain level of development, their incautious or immature use is unmistakeably dangerous. And a bill requiring a sudden huge horde of billions of AIs to be treated exactly the same as the biological citizens they're about to overrun (even in a peaceful, merely democratic context, this would be unprecedented total social upheaval) would be variously idiotic, suicidal, and grossly unpopular."

2. Requires that any AI meeting the above requirements be treated on an equal basis under the law with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status;

While this arguably expands "human" rights by giving such rights to a bunch of new beings (assuming, of course, you accept the premise that a machine could ever actually become a "being"), it also severely limits the rights of others (I'm going to call them "people") by limiting how people can treat their machines - namely, requiring people to apply laws regarding workplace safety, paternity leave, conscientious objection to military service, food stamps, housing allowances, the right to vote, etcetera, to things that previously had been regarded as appliances or tools. That seems like a dramatic reduction of rights in the name of treating what appears to be a self aware machine with decency. Again, we'd argue that's a moral decency aim, not a human rights one.

"The obvious legal precedent is ownership of people, i.e. slavery. If you want to argue that emancipation of human slaves is more importantly a reduction in the property rights of their owners, rather than the positive guarantee of civil rights to persons or beings who previously lacked them, you may certainly do so. But I strongly doubt you'll convince me, and you'll probably face an uphill battle against others as well."

"If you have a better means of determining what we should look for in a machine to consider it a person, I'm open to suggestions. I still don't think I'm quite fully happy with the definition, since theoretically it's still possible to mimic those things with programming; but it's a lot easier to argue that a machine inherently cannot ever be subjectively conscious than it is for the biological sapients discussed in other nations' recent drafts. The probability that it can be conscious is what drives this, though figuring out how to determine when it gets there is damn hard."

What ever happened to calling them robots? I know computing has come a long way in only about 100 years or so, but it's pretty presumptuous to compare a machine to a mind, or to suggest the former could ever catch up to the later.

But I guess that goes to the heart of the proposal - when, if ever, do we recognize machines as the equivalent of living beings.

Well, the whole point, from the very beginning, has been about defining the boundaries between people and things. In the original play, robots (Slavic neologism meaning "workers," more or less) were biological in nature, more like what we'd call a replicant today. By the same token, they were just as clearly conscious like human beings and thus deserving of any rights we think we ourselves ought to have. Now that our civilization has clear and unmistakeable things ("robots") that do work formerly only doable by people ("workers"), shit gets weird, and not just for etymological reasons.

[The Cakitar Trade Conglomerate]

OOC: Hi first post...Don't hurt me.

Wouldn't repealing this draft *If it gets there* screw over a bunch of Mechnocracys in the WA? Because technically their AI-controlled government wouldn't be more then property, rather then a leader?

[Tinfect]

Wouldn't repealing this draft *If it gets there* screw over a bunch of Mechnocracys in the WA? Because technically their AI-controlled government wouldn't be more then property, rather then a leader?

OOC:
Nope. Repealing a Resolution, does not instantly make what it legislated on Illegal. Using this one as an example. if it were to pass, all Member States would be required to recognize Appropriately Sapient Artificial Intelligence as a Sapient Being, and grant it all rights thereof. If it were Repealed, Member States would be free to treat Sapient Artificial Intelligence however they like. If it passes, Mechanocracies are granted International Legitimacy that some xenophobic Member States would otherwise deny them, if it is repealed, Mechanocracies go back to functioning just as they had before it passed, which is to say, ignoring or destroying anyone who refused to recognize us.