[PASSED] AI Coexistence Protocol

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this proposal doesn't seem to contain anything not covered by the Protection of Sapient Rights

"I believe that the definition in that resolution is overinclusive, and would require legal rights to be given to appliances that aren't actually sapient, should its author insist on keeping the language about sapient machines and biological status. I've explained this over there at some length, if you view the full debate transcript."

"Additionally, this proposal codifies certain security measures that I believe will be essential for biological or otherwise naturally evolved sapients to have protecting them in the event of a sudden blooming of AIs."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Additionally, this proposal codifies certain security measures that I believe will be essential for biological or otherwise naturally evolved sapients to have protecting them in the event of a sudden blooming of AIs."

Ah yes.

Prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Permissible non-intelligent autonomous self-replicating machinery must include:

externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms;
local, individual automatic instant shutdown via actuator switch or circuit breaker in case of malfunction or security breach;
secure, reliable command-and-control functions with constant intelligent supervision;

Well I guess that's something, though I doubt it can stand as a resolution on it's own. I suggest saving that and including it as part of comprehensive WMD security bill, which we badly need.

On further reading I noticed that

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

when combined with

Reiterates that nothing herein requires WA nations to permit construction of AIs, nor admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction, nor refrain from deporting them should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure; nor from taking precautions against a coordinated AI rising, provided that no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

could be interpreted as a contradiction of Resolution #57 and other such acts. I propose resolving this by changing it to read

Reiterates that nothing herein requires WA nations to

• permit construction of AIs
• admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction
• refrain from deporting them should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure
• taking precautions against a coordinated AI rising, provided that no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

Except as otherwise required by international laws

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Well I guess that's something, though I doubt it can stand as a resolution on it's own. I suggest saving that and including it as part of comprehensive WMD security bill, which we badly need.

"I don't totally disagree; but I'm very skeptical of such a thing passing. At least here it's generally on the topic of 'what should evolving societies do about the questions posed by machines that live or emulate living things?' Addressing the topic specifically as a limitation on what such machines could do in war wasn't very popular the last couple times it was broached, I believe."

On further reading I noticed that

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

when combined with

Reiterates that nothing herein requires WA nations to permit construction of AIs, nor admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction, nor refrain from deporting them should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure; nor from taking precautions against a coordinated AI rising, provided that no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

could be interpreted as a contradiction of Resolution #57 and other such acts. I propose resolving this by changing it to read

Reiterates that nothing herein requires WA nations to

• permit construction of AIs
• admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction
• refrain from deporting them should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure
• taking precautions against a coordinated AI rising, provided that no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

Except as otherwise required by international laws

"Good call. I'll incorporate something like that into the next draft update. Thanks!"

[Araraukar]

"Additionally, this proposal codifies certain security measures that I believe will be essential for biological or otherwise naturally evolved sapients to have protecting them in the event of a sudden blooming of AIs."

Wait, are you wanting to protect AIs or protect others from AIs? If the latter, the others are already protected (OOC: and so are all sapient AIs too, but you seem to want the mods to say that which I doubt they'll do since they already said it).

OOC EDIT: Except, of course, WA has not made murder illegal, unless it counts as genocide or terrorism.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Additionally, this proposal codifies certain security measures that I believe will be essential for biological or otherwise naturally evolved sapients to have protecting them in the event of a sudden blooming of AIs."

Wait, are you wanting to protect AIs or protect others from AIs? If the latter, the others are already protected (OOC: and so are all sapient AIs too, but you seem to want the mods to say that which I doubt they'll do since they already said it).

"Honestly, both (hence 'coexistence'). On that Secretariat ruling, nothing in CoCR or its interpretation governs how a nation may decide what is an 'inhabitant' vs. what is a mere machine. One can picture an otherwise righteously just nation deciding that slavery is evil just like the WA says, but these here labor-saving robots aren't slaves, they're just really smart machines, and machines are legitimately chattel. We say that nation would be wrong, and this is how we intend to correct them."

"So the WA demands that its members treat all AIs equally with all biological 'inhabitants.' But suppose there's a Singularity, or suppose some AI decides that it wants to fulfill God's command to be fruitful and multiply, only at a scale previously unimagined by sapient beings? Neither of those things is particularly unlikely given a truly sapient machine intelligence, so without safeguards against it, nations of humans (or bears, ponies, Klingons, morlocks, seahorses, griffins, etc.) have no incentive to allow machines basic rights; and those that do may well be endangering their neighbors as well. So we wrote in these other measures, so AIs and naturally evolved creatures don't have to fear each others' very existence."

"I hope this is helpful, Ms. Leveret. Please let me know what else I can answer for you."

[Araraukar]

nothing in CoCR or its interpretation governs how a nation may decide what is an 'inhabitant' vs. what is a mere machine. One can picture an otherwise righteously just nation deciding that slavery is evil just like the WA says, but these here labor-saving robots aren't slaves, they're just really smart machines, and machines are legitimately chattel.

And nothing can stop them from classing organic sapients as "just smart animals/plants, not really sapient" - except the rational nation theory, which I keep getting reminded of needing to apply to proposal text interpretations. Perhaps others should remember it as well?

OOC: You - and EP with the sapient right thing - would be better off defining "person" or "inhabitant", rather than going off on a tangent, to make sure the existing resolutions applied to all sapients. I see your proposals as nothing but unnecessary duplication of CoCR.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

nothing in CoCR or its interpretation governs how a nation may decide what is an 'inhabitant' vs. what is a mere machine. One can picture an otherwise righteously just nation deciding that slavery is evil just like the WA says, but these here labor-saving robots aren't slaves, they're just really smart machines, and machines are legitimately chattel.

And nothing can stop them from classing organic sapients as "just smart animals/plants, not really sapient" - except the rational nation theory, which I keep getting reminded of needing to apply to proposal text interpretations. Perhaps others should remember it as well?

OOC: Sorry to drop character entirely here, but I'm not sure how to bring this point in without some gonzo amount of RP-wank. If we applied reasonable nation theory to modern countries, it's becoming nearly certain that humans would have to recognize dolphins and elephants as "sapient." They communicate with each other across group lines, and experiences that one group has are often reflected in other groups, with time awareness as well (e.g., when a group of elephants encounters poachers in a particular spot, other groups of elephants subsequently avoid that spot). I know [citation needed], but there's some extent to which hand-waving reasonable nation theory only goes so far to prove the resolution does what one says it does. It's not at all obvious that a "reasonable nation" would classify every sapient being as sapient without a kick in the pants from the WA.

OOC: You - and EP with the sapient right thing - would be better off defining "person" or "inhabitant", rather than going off on a tangent, to make sure the existing resolutions applied to all sapients. I see your proposals as nothing but unnecessary duplication of CoCR.

OOC: I can see this point, but I disagree that the best way to approach the issue is to define "inhabitant" and walk away. The expansion of rights in our own history hasn't been carried out by saying "here's what a person is, no more and no less;" it's been done by saying "we need to add these people to our list of examples of who qualifies as a person." The latter approach also makes it easier for future legislators to expand the list again without having to repeal any restrictive language. So I think the way EP and I are approaching this is the best way to do it (I only disagree with them about the number of resolutions necessary to get this stage done).

[Araraukar]

If we applied reasonable nation theory to modern countries

OOC: I think we can safely agree that the vast majority of real-life nations would not fit into rational nation theory.

We definitely can safely disagree on whether this and EP's proposal are necessary at all, but while I'm unlikely to complain about the massive duplication via GHR, unless the proposals get changed for the worse, some others may yet do that.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If we applied reasonable nation theory to modern countries

OOC: I think we can safely agree that the vast majority of real-life nations would not fit into rational nation theory.

Quite (they should make an "ironic snort" emoji)

---

Draft update notes: §6 updated to stop contradicting the basic "equality under the law" provision. Now if you issue entry visas to Colonial humans, you have to issue them to first-generation Cylons, too, but nobody says you have to admit *any* Colonials, human or Cylon. Can't believe I missed that self-contradiction for that long, but we move on.

[Excidium Planetis]

We definitely can safely disagree on whether this and EP's proposal are necessary at all, but while I'm unlikely to complain about the massive duplication via GHR, unless the proposals get changed for the worse, some others may yet do that.[/size]

OOC:
It got through once, it can make it through again! And for the same reason, I do not doubt the legality of this proposal... Unless of course I get my proposal passed first and it becomes duplication. Best of luck to you, Sierra Lyricalia!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
It got through once, it can make it through again! And for the same reason, I do not doubt the legality of this proposal... Unless of course I get my proposal passed first and it becomes duplication. Best of luck to you, Sierra Lyricalia!

Thank you kindly, and ceteris paribus same to you!



This has now been submitted.

[Wallenburg]

We shall support this proposal.

[Ghostopolis]

A swift black cloud flits between the ambassadors and attendees before taking the form of Ambassador Geist, who strides to a nearby podium. The ambassador beams.

"I typically do not enter the chamber except to offer my official statement regarding my region's vote on whatever resolution is currently on the floor, but I felt this resolution merited special attention. I wholeheartedly support this resolution and will campaign for it in my region as well as enthusiastically voice my support for it in this very chamber. This subject is the very definition of cutting edge and will ensure we are prepared for whatever the future brings. It also fits with my personal goal of championing sapient right of all kinds, be they animate, inanimate, living or dead. Great work ambassador, and good luck at vote. The Versutian Federation approves this resolution!"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Thank you, ambassadors, for your vocal support; and thanks also to all of the delegates who approved the submitted proposal."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"This is now at vote."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium casts its vote in support. Good luck, Ambassador."

[Kahanistan]

The Free Republic of Kahanistan supports this proposal. Life is life regardless of neural structure and all sapient life is entitled to rights, not just sapient life of one species. We recognise the rights of mentally disabled people, hell, we even recognise the rights of the autistic. There is absolutely no reason not to recognise the rights of a far more stable intelligence simply because the intelligence is not biological.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I READ RESOLUTIONS

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade
Friar Cadfail, OFM Friar Superior
Mother Angelica, OSC Secretary and official Reader

Official Statement from Mother Angelica: As per my duty under the law and my vows as a sister of the Order of Saint Clare, I have read this resolution. I see a number of minor problems with this resolution, but nothing that is so devastating that it would result in my disapproval. The biggest minor problem is “with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status.” Given the fact that there is nothing about defining either citizenship or residency in this document it is possible that nations that treat non citizens and non residents like dirt could treat these most interesting potential beings as dirt as well. But I don’t think this is a deal breaker in and of itself.

The basic principle in section 2, “equal basis under the law” is a wonderful idea and something I would never discourage. Why should such beings exist they should deserve to be treated equally under the law.

The prohibitions in section 3 are also quite laudable. I definitely approve.

I’m neutral on section 4, but I’m all for consultation on best practices. I’ll leave running war games to the boys, however.

Section 6, which allows for the deportation of alien (that doesn’t mean men from Mars, that means non native) AI can only be a good thing. Mind you the last line is a real head scratcher, “nothing herein requires WA nations to ... fail to take precautions ...” I mean I wouldn’t require anyone to fail to take precautions and I can’t see how this law does this.

[Ermarian]

The Ermarian ambassador's physical avatar is currently undergoing maintenance, so she confers her "aye" vote (as well as mild amusement) by video screen.

[The Backwardest Nation You Know]

"AI. WHat's the A stand for?"
"Artificial"
"What's the I stand-"
"Intelligence"

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The problem here is AI has existed for decades, it's in your phones, in your video games,etc. This resolution uses incorrect terminology. It is m describing ArtificIal Sapience, not Artificial Intelligence.

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

While the U.I.E. works to develop advanced technologies for the betterment of our people, the line has to be drawn somewhere. For us, this is where that line is drawn.

There are innumerable works of science fiction that depict the enslavement or destruction of humanity by the advent of thinking machines. It starts out all well and good with "coexistence" and "robots are people too", but the very development of artificial lifeforms constitutes a clear and present threat to men and women of flesh and blood. While this may be dismissed by some of you as "tin foil hat theory", science fiction has had a somewhat frightening ability to become science fact in recent years, and I, for one, see no reason to contribute to bringing this particular sci-fi nightmare to life.

The U.I.E. therefore votes against this proposal, and indeed urges anyone with any sense and any pride in being a living, breathing person to call for stricter policies against the development of thinking machines.

[The Imperial Frost Federation]

Your fears are duly noted Ambassador. However, you've failed to notice that in many works of science fiction the Self aware AI has retaliated against Homo Sapiens for attempting to destroy them prematurely or denying their rights as sentient beings. Furthermore those AGIs that attempt to "enslave humanity" are following the very programming that Humans installed as safeguards to ensure that Humanity is protected from these Artificial Sapients. What this bill represents Akbassador is the hopes that such an event can be avoided with mutual coexistence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Every time someone says 'mutual coexistence', I'm reminded of the American President Bush who said 'The human being and fish can coexist'.

[The Underwood Industrial Empire]

Your fears are duly noted Ambassador. However, you've failed to notice that in many works of science fiction the Self aware AI has retaliated against Homo Sapiens for attempting to destroy them prematurely or denying their rights as sentient beings.

I don't suppose there would be any point in mentioning the stories where the self-aware AI simply deems humanity to be inferior?