[SUBMITTED] Does @@NAME@@ Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Australian rePublic]

Well, now we are getting down to the details. Do theses AIs have true free will, even if that free will is based on the personality and memories of another person. If they do, then yes, they are people in their own rights. They are capable of making their own personal decisions and have their own likes, dislikes, and may sometimes be completely random. Of course, I could of just been describing Sims, so who knows.

Indeed - which is kind of the philosopher's argument. That the technology throws up too many questions to be used as is - and that anything like this needs to be debated.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it just needs a bit of tweeking

[Trotterdam]

Would it? What if they loved peanut butter before they were involved in a serious accident that affected part of their brain - following the accident they now can't stand the smell of peanuts. Who is the real person then - the one before the crash or the one after? Does the new artificial intelligence ghost exist in its own right?

This kind of thing is why I have trouble with the concept of conventional, religious afterlives. Which "you" goes to the afterlife?

A digital afterlife is actually simpler, since it'll be based on your state when you were uploaded, no sooner and no later. I suppose it still brings problems of its own - if you suffer serious brain damage but aren't killed, would you still rather restore from backup rather than keeping your new personality? or maybe you even want both versions of you to exist side by side? - but that's more in the sense of "what do I want" or "what's ethical to do", rather than a question about fundamental nature of the universe. You can, in principle, answer the question every which way and then design the system to make it so, if you want.

But that's with serious brain uploading. These social media bots shouldn't even be close enough to "real" to warrant any philosophical confusion.

Which, really, is the biggest problem with this issue. It has some rather longwinded options for what's ultimately not much to talk about.

Then again, many of the options still imply that the technology is actually working. The uploaded scientists are publishing worthwhile papers, and the uploaded politicians have enough consciousness to question their own nature.

As for my real-life philosophy on the subject, look here.

[Caracasus]

Yeah, the implication is that the technology is a) more advanced and b) sort of works from the issue effects. However, I figured given that this'd be for high technology nations, it wouldn't be completely out of the question.

[Logophilia Lyricalia]

Stealing from Iain M. Banks, I can see someone truly twisted deciding to make this technology for the express purpose of torturing sinners forever in a digital Hell. Maybe a priest or other religious figure who lost faith in the "actual" afterlife but still can't bear knowing horrible people can die without being in agony until the end of time.

Might be too outlandish. Number of options plays into it, too - on something this interesting, I think lots of options is justifiable (they really are all very different, after all). Your call.

[Caracasus]

Hmm... an eternal hell? Perhaps. I'll have a think.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Been thinking a lot about this issue, as I love H+ thought generally. Mostly though, been thinking about its acceptability in a game that is more or less realistic rather than scifi.

However, I do note that AI has been a running theme in multiple issues, so this is likely one of the few areas where "20 minutes into the future" is acceptable to the setting.

Back to the issue:

I actually liked your original title better, though at least this one doesn't set off an ear-worm for me everytime I read it.

Option 5, your favourite one, is unfortunately the one that is most problematic. Its too meta. Effect lines should never use "you", as you can be read by the person executing the issue, or by someone visiting a nations page and reading its description. In the first instance, thats a fun meta joke. In the second, its someone asking "wtf?".

I'd advise that this...

[effect] many believe they exist only as electronic ghosts within a government simulation game

...is slightly closer to acceptable. However, even then I support the editorial team may vote that this is too meta for a non=Easter Egg issue.

Leaning on the 4th wall can be fun, but outright confronting the player can shatter a sense of immersion. That's something that is generally best avoided.

Could go either way: feel free to submit it with that option intact, but don't be too surprised if the team decides to cut it before publication.


Option 3's effect line is also problematic, as it basically confirms that the transfer of post-life mindstate is successful. I think its great to have an issue about the possibility of transhuman tech, but not to have one that confirms the success of transhuman technology.

Again, I'm aware that AIs exist in game, but the writing leans (slightly) towards questioning whether AIs are sentient or not, rather than presenting them as equally obvious in sentience to human beings. That is, the issues could still exist in a realistic modern-day world, without using any technology beyond what currently exists.


Bear in mind this is my opinion only. In my mind, #082 is fine, #472 is a little too meta and skirting the edges of the present-day setting, and this issue - as currently written - is a little TOO science fiction.

I definitely want to see more transhumanist questioning in the game, but I think it needs to be couched solely in terms or present day technology, plus speculating about the future. An option or description should never take the setting beyond real world technology.

[Caracasus]

Okay, thanks a bunch for this Candlewhisper - I've toned down the "meta" elements and made it clearer that the technology hasn't been perfected yet (scientists going in for regular brain scans in an attempt to preserve their intelligence after death).

I did like the initial title, but I figured I've already got an 80's pop reference with the name of the company - our friend's electric.

How is it looking now everyone?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay, thanks a bunch for this Candlewhisper - I've toned down the "meta" elements and made it clearer that the technology hasn't been perfected yet (scientists going in for regular brain scans in an attempt to preserve their intelligence after death).

I did like the initial title, but I figured I've already got an 80's pop reference with the name of the company - our friend's electric.

How is it looking now everyone?

Hey, you can never have enough 80s pop references. But then, I grew up in that decade so I am likely biased.

[Caracasus]

Okay, thanks a bunch for this Candlewhisper - I've toned down the "meta" elements and made it clearer that the technology hasn't been perfected yet (scientists going in for regular brain scans in an attempt to preserve their intelligence after death).

I did like the initial title, but I figured I've already got an 80's pop reference with the name of the company - our friend's electric.

How is it looking now everyone?

Hey, you can never have enough 80s pop references. But then, I grew up in that decade so I am likely biased.

If you can see anywhere I can squeeze one in I'm all ears!

[Australian rePublic]

Hey, you can never have enough 80s pop references. But then, I grew up in that decade so I am likely biased.

If you can see anywhere I can squeeze one in I'm all ears!

Death by being shot through the heart-but who's to blame?
And I'm sure if you Googled the lyrics to "Rock the Casbar"

[Trotterdam]

Option 5, your favourite one, is unfortunately the one that is most problematic. Its too meta. Effect lines should never use "you", as you can be read by the person executing the issue, or by someone visiting a nations page and reading its description. In the first instance, thats a fun meta joke. In the second, its someone asking "wtf?".

Actually, it still makes sense. Other people reading the effect line are most likely to be other NationStates players, who, if all of NationStates is a virtual reality illusion, are just as likely to be mindstates uploaded into the simulation.

This may be the only time in the entire issue database that the usage of "you" is actually justified.

I'd advise that this...

[effect] many believe they exist only as electronic ghosts within a government simulation game

...is slightly closer to acceptable.

Ah, but this doesn't spring the possibility that they might be electronic ghosts on people who haven't previously suspected the idea It passes it off as "oh, it's just those crazies over there".

Again, I'm aware that AIs exist in game, but the writing leans (slightly) towards questioning whether AIs are sentient or not, rather than presenting them as equally obvious in sentience to human beings.

One effect line describes AIs as suffering from ennui. That implies AIs are conscious and human-like enough to feel human emotions.

Death by being shot through the heart-but who's to blame?

That's this issue.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Reasonably argued, Trotterdam. We'll see what the team as a whole has to say about it when this one hits the pool, assuming that it does. I personally think there shouldn't be "you" on effect lines at all, but there's no rule there, its just a stylistic preference.

I agree about the line on AIs suffering ennui gives a precedent. However, in my mind, its that precedent that is stylistically inconsistent with the game. I'll be curious to see how the conversation goes once we start discussing this backstage. Be especially nice if we can get Max to make some comments on his overall narrative vision for the game and how much it allows for science fiction.

Tell you what, when you send it through, keep it in its original form: fourth wall breaking, and second person. That'll be a great starting point for the conversation.

[Caracasus]

Reasonably argued, Trotterdam. We'll see what the team as a whole has to say about it when this one hits the pool, assuming that it does. I personally think there shouldn't be "you" on effect lines at all, but there's no rule there, its just a stylistic preference.

I agree about the line on AIs suffering ennui gives a precedent. However, in my mind, its that precedent that is stylistically inconsistent with the game. I'll be curious to see how the conversation goes once we start discussing this backstage. Be especially nice if we can get Max to make some comments on his overall narrative vision for the game and how much it allows for science fiction.

Tell you what, when you send it through, keep it in its original form: fourth wall breaking, and second person. That'll be a great starting point for the conversation.

Cool. Could I also attach a note saying "If you want to change it to not fourth wall breaking do so"?

[Caracasus]

Okay, last call for further feedback. As suggested by Candlewhisper Archives I will submit it with the original 4th wall breaking effect.

[Australian rePublic]

The only thing I can say is include the @@FAITH@@ tag somewhere in option 2

[Australian rePublic]

Also, it shouldbe high priest @@RANDOMMALENAME@@. Many religions stictly have codes which say only men can become priests. Very few, if any, limit priesthood to only women

[Caracasus]

Ohh, missed that - thanks! I left out the @@FAITH@@ one (had considered it) as I figured that not everyone has picked a faith. It's at what - a billion population?

[Australian rePublic]

Ohh, missed that - thanks! I left out the @@FAITH@@ one (had considered it) as I figured that not everyone has picked a faith. It's at what - a billion population?

There's a work-around for nationsnwithout religions

[Caracasus]

Ohh, missed that - thanks! I left out the @@FAITH@@ one (had considered it) as I figured that not everyone has picked a faith. It's at what - a billion population?

There's a work-around for nationsnwithout religions

I did not know that. Thank you. Edited it now - look OK?

[Australian rePublic]

I would say that it's ready for submission. But what would I know...

[Caracasus]

I would say that it's ready for submission. But what would I know...

Aye I plan to leave it up a little longer just in case, but yeah will submit soon.

[Luna Amore]

I definitely want to see more transhumanist questioning in the game, but I think it needs to be couched solely in terms or present day technology, plus speculating about the future. An option or description should never take the setting beyond real world technology.

We definitely have a few issues that push that line. The Vat pair (#123 and #279) strike me as the most 'out there'. A short jaunt into more sci-fi is usually possible if there is still an interesting dilemma (with the same no-win approach to choices) that isn't too far removed from the issue base.

As long as the player receives the issue and thinks 'yeah I could see how this could be an issue facing my nation' instead of 'wait, when did I colonize a planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani and what are drone riots?', it's got a better chance of being accepted.

279 is a good example actually. By itself, there's no way it could be in the game. It needs 123 to set the stage technology-wise.

[Caracasus]

I definitely want to see more transhumanist questioning in the game, but I think it needs to be couched solely in terms or present day technology, plus speculating about the future. An option or description should never take the setting beyond real world technology.

We definitely have a few issues that push that line. The Vat pair (#123 and #279) strike me as the most 'out there'. A short jaunt into more sci-fi is usually possible if there is still an interesting dilemma (with the same no-win approach to choices) that isn't too far removed from the issue base.

As long as the player receives the issue and thinks 'yeah I could see how this could be an issue facing my nation' instead of 'wait, when did I colonize a planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani and what are drone riots?', it's got a better chance of being accepted.

279 is a good example actually. By itself, there's no way it could be in the game. It needs 123 to set the stage technology-wise.

I have attempted to scale it back a little, making it clearer that the tech is in developmental stages. I was kind of working on the fact that AI's have been mentioned before. Would you say that the issue itself is pushing the envelope a bit too far? I am still unsure.

[Luna Amore]

No, I don't think it's pushing it too far.

I'll try and post comments in a bit.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

I really like this one, both idea and writing.

I think the company should be "friends", not "friend's" (occurs throughout). That latter means "belonging to a single friend", whereas I think you mean "more than one friend" without the possessive.