[Draft III] Repeal GA 354 AI Coexistence Protocol

[Lumiere du Premier]

Opposed in principle and in practice. Besides being part of a crusade that just won't die, it's poorly executed. Way too long, way too meandering. Look at repeals that have been successful in the past; they look nothing like this.

Moreover, against forum conventions, you did not preserve your first draft anywhere on the thread.

Ill do that then, I still have the first draft luckily

[Lumiere du Premier]

I am working on it, relax. Calm down.

Do you mean you're working on actually being part of this community? Because that would be a great thing to work on.

Yeah I'm trying to get that worked out. The whole WA doesn't apply thing isn't canon anymore, because I'm not in TEP anymore. I have new lore being worked on where the WA is canon and I'll do my best to comply.

[General TN]

Now I called the New General a complaining robot... but looking at this... I might have to agree.... te..he... now I dont give a care about those AI.... I'd rather they do their jobs and make the economy better.... but this proposal looks worse than the streets of my nation.... and thats saying something..... te...he... dropping it into a burning pile of trash could give it a good makeover.... now its no longer readable and thus one does not have to look.... upon such a sight... te..he..
- TN

[Lumiere du Premier]

Now I called the New General a complaining robot... but looking at this... I might have to agree.... te..he... now I dont give a care about those AI.... I'd rather they do their jobs and make the economy better.... but this proposal looks worse than the streets of my nation.... and thats saying something..... te...he... dropping it into a burning pile of trash could give it a good makeover.... now its no longer readable and thus one does not have to look.... upon such a sight... te..he..
- TN

Can I ask why you have such a negative opinion? I notice you didn't really specify and I was curious as to what particularly bothered you.

[Barfleur]

Ambassador Norfield hands the... representative, I suppose... from Lumiere du Premier a pinata in the shape of a horse, and a wooden slugger. "Have at it," he says, "if you keep on beating it, you'll hear it neigh."

[Lumiere du Premier]

Ambassador Norfield hands the... representative, I suppose... from Lumiere du Premier a pinata in the shape of a horse, and a wooden slugger. "Have at it," he says, "if you keep on beating it, you'll hear it neigh."

What exactly does that mean?

[Untecna]

Ambassador Norfield hands the... representative, I suppose... from Lumiere du Premier a pinata in the shape of a horse, and a wooden slugger. "Have at it," he says, "if you keep on beating it, you'll hear it neigh."

What exactly does that mean?

Stop beating a dead horse.

[Lumiere du Premier]

What exactly does that mean?

Stop beating a dead horse.

The crusade will never die!

[Lumiere du Premier]

Draft III is out, feel free to constructively critique it

[Untecna]

Draft III is out, feel free to constructively critique it

Still complete garbage. Author should disband their attempts to get this through.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Draft III is out, feel free to constructively critique it

Still complete garbage. Author should disband their attempts to get this through.

You keep saying the same words over and over but you never state why. Also, this is expected from you, you seem to have a dislike of me for some reason.

I'm looking for genuine critique and advice, I am not looking to hear your personal disaffection with everything I write, particularly because you never state a reason for said opinions.

[Imperial Cecilia]

I personally believe that your operative section (the part that criticizes the other resolution) can be better formatted by making sound more active, rather than just pointing out the flaws.

For example, the operative section is similar to this in format:

Resolution is bad because:

Reason 1

Reason 2

Reason 3

In my opinion, the final draft would be better if the operative section was formatted like this:

*insert preamble here*

Hereby,

1. Addresses the flaws of *target resolution*, which include,

a. Flaw 1

b. Flaw 2

c. Flaw 3

2. Requests that this resolution hereby repeals *target resolution* and renders it obsolete;

3. Calls for the adaptation of a new resolution, similar to *target resolution* in purpose, but improved to prevent any loopholes and misinterpretations, for the interests of the nations of the World Assembly and their people.

In your preamble, the second clause begins with, "And clear...". This, for me, doesn't feel correct, and I would like to suggest that it is changed to more personalize your problem with the target resolution, for example, "Recognizing the undeniable fact that..."

This is all my opinion, and so you don't have to listen to me.

[General TM]

Draft III is out, feel free to constructively critique it

The New General observes the proposal.
-I see you’re still trying to follow this foolish endeavor. Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again with the same result. A perfect summary of this. Now your proposal can be fixed, let me just grab something real quick-
The New General opens its finger to reveal a flame, and burns the proposal, handing the ashes back to you.
-There. It has been perfected-

[Oceanic AI of Arctic Ocean]

The New General's metal head bends to the side, its glowing eyes narrowed as it taps it's metal fingers on the proposal.

Half your arguments/rebuttals are based on the notion that it can be ''applied to humans'', when i reality humans and AI are different and thus must have different standards and procedures when it comes to judging their capabilities. Secondly, there is genuine human interests at stake, your ''assuredness'' over the safety and non-hazard of AI's by comparing them to things relatively harmless without the input of humans (such as the comparison to a gun), is out of place. Anything with malice and human intent is a potential danger. What was being discussed as dangerous however was highlighted as something with the capability to danger on its own, without human interference or input so your point is irrelevant to the discussion and argument at hand.

All this seems like a cleverly construed argument to minimize the actual dangers of AI highlighted here purely to advance your own personal interests, as you seem to be eerily in favor of AI's, whether for personal gain or whatnot, or because your nation is just an AI controlling everything, and therefore your arguments must be taken with a grain of salt because you are precisely the danger being highlighted here and so obviously you will attempt to hide or minimize and distract from the reality at hand.

You do not speak for the greater interests that are at stake, or even the WA, but purely for yourself and your own interests as you are clearly supposed to represent the great menace that whose danger is specifically what is being highlighted here, and you simply aim to destroy this threat to your dangerous existence.

[/i][/quote]
This is all based.

[Untecna]

Still complete garbage. Author should disband their attempts to get this through.

You keep saying the same words over and over but you never state why. Also, this is expected from you, you seem to have a dislike of me for some reason.

I'm looking for genuine critique and advice, I am not looking to hear your personal disaffection with everything I write, particularly because you never state a reason for said opinions.

Clear reasons for opposition have been stated before, from poor writing, to the unnecessary nature of this proposal, and more.

Besides those, I am opposed based on the author, yes. Your behavior in the WA, between the refusal to comply with resolutions (no, it does not matter that you've "changed" that), and the incessant anti-AI spam that you've decided to litter us with, is nothing short of terrible. If you wanted people to not have opposition based on you, the author, perhaps you should not have given them bountiful reasons to be.

[Attempted Socialism]

Still complete garbage. Author should disband their attempts to get this through.

You keep saying the same words over and over but you never state why. Also, this is expected from you, you seem to have a dislike of me for some reason.

I'm looking for genuine critique and advice, I am not looking to hear your personal disaffection with everything I write, particularly because you never state a reason for said opinions.

You fail to make a cogent argument for the repeal, for the people who aren't already taken in by your supremacist beliefs. At this point I can only suggest that you submit and see your efforts fail, as the resolution fails to achieve quorum or is voted down in huge numbers, or accept that noone else is on board with your bizarre beliefs that humanity and AI/aliens are incompatible (in fiction or as a matter of general principle) and thus humanity should eradicate or subjugate all non-humans. You won't get better feedback than "this is a mess", "your arguemnts suck", or the like.

[BEEstreetz]

Fully, definitively and absolutely opposed-completely out of principle.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Fully, definitively and absolutely opposed-completely out of principle.

What principles?

[The Overmind]

Fully, definitively and absolutely opposed-completely out of principle.

What principles?

You're getting such negative reactions because you don't appear to be listening. The primary problem you face with this proposal is that this repeal is completely unwanted. The majority fundamentally believes in protections against discriminations on the basis of the substrate, AI, non-human organic, or otherwise, upon which sapience rests. That is the opposition in principle that you have broadly come up against, and your arguments for it cannot seem to communicate any reason beyond a conviction in human supremacy to feel otherwise. Surely you understand that this issue is a microcosm of egalitarian sentiments that apply broadly within human societies also under threat by supremacy that people find so very distasteful. And I hope you realize at this point that this well is poisoned beyond all hope. Even the best written repeal on this topic from you stands no chance because the community knows that underneath any potentially sane sounding arguments not built on an avarice for human power are nothing but a thin veneer of justification for just that. I implore you to give this up and repair your relationship with this community. I suspect, meaning no offense, that you are a kid, and I can forgive these sorts of missteps from the young, but your reputation is severely damaged and you need to take your foot off of the accelerator and apply the brakes. Yesterday.

[Lumiere du Premier]

What principles?

You're getting such negative reactions because you don't appear to be listening. The primary problem you face with this proposal is that this repeal is completely unwanted. The majority fundamentally believes in protections against discriminations on the basis of the substrate, AI, non-human organic, or otherwise, upon which sapience rests. That is the opposition in principle that you have broadly come up against, and your arguments for it cannot seem to communicate any reason beyond a conviction in human supremacy to feel otherwise. Surely you understand that this issue is a microcosm of egalitarian sentiments that apply broadly within human societies also under threat by supremacy that people find so very distasteful. And I hope you realize at this point that this well is poisoned beyond all hope. Even the best written repeal on this topic from you stands no chance because the community knows that underneath any potentially sane sounding arguments not built on an avarice for human power are nothing but a thin veneer of justification for just that. I implore you to give this up and repair your relationship with this community. I suspect, meaning no offense, that you are a kid, and I can forgive these sorts of missteps from the young, but your reputation is severely damaged and you need to take your foot off of the accelerator and apply the brakes. Yesterday.

I think you'll be happy to know my WA Nation is fully complaint with WA laws. I have also put aside any personal feelings and have not included them as part of the source of this endeavor. The only remaining reasons and arguments are ones that have been found after I have dug deep in search for them.

[The Ice States]

You're getting such negative reactions because you don't appear to be listening. The primary problem you face with this proposal is that this repeal is completely unwanted. The majority fundamentally believes in protections against discriminations on the basis of the substrate, AI, non-human organic, or otherwise, upon which sapience rests. That is the opposition in principle that you have broadly come up against, and your arguments for it cannot seem to communicate any reason beyond a conviction in human supremacy to feel otherwise. Surely you understand that this issue is a microcosm of egalitarian sentiments that apply broadly within human societies also under threat by supremacy that people find so very distasteful. And I hope you realize at this point that this well is poisoned beyond all hope. Even the best written repeal on this topic from you stands no chance because the community knows that underneath any potentially sane sounding arguments not built on an avarice for human power are nothing but a thin veneer of justification for just that. I implore you to give this up and repair your relationship with this community. I suspect, meaning no offense, that you are a kid, and I can forgive these sorts of missteps from the young, but your reputation is severely damaged and you need to take your foot off of the accelerator and apply the brakes. Yesterday.

I think you'll be happy to know my WA Nation is fully complaint with WA laws. I have also put aside any personal feelings and have not included them as part of the source of this endeavor. The only remaining reasons and arguments are ones that have been found after I have dug deep in search for them.

Overmind's post didn't address your (now historical) non-compliance; otherwise this misses the point of his post, which is that this well is fundamentally poisoned regardless of what you actually write in the specific repeal. You should absolutely continue contributing here to the GA, but pursuing this topic is only counterproductive in that it will further harm your reputation while the possibility of your legislative aims being achieved is effectively zero.

[The Overmind]

You're getting such negative reactions because you don't appear to be listening. The primary problem you face with this proposal is that this repeal is completely unwanted. The majority fundamentally believes in protections against discriminations on the basis of the substrate, AI, non-human organic, or otherwise, upon which sapience rests. That is the opposition in principle that you have broadly come up against, and your arguments for it cannot seem to communicate any reason beyond a conviction in human supremacy to feel otherwise. Surely you understand that this issue is a microcosm of egalitarian sentiments that apply broadly within human societies also under threat by supremacy that people find so very distasteful. And I hope you realize at this point that this well is poisoned beyond all hope. Even the best written repeal on this topic from you stands no chance because the community knows that underneath any potentially sane sounding arguments not built on an avarice for human power are nothing but a thin veneer of justification for just that. I implore you to give this up and repair your relationship with this community. I suspect, meaning no offense, that you are a kid, and I can forgive these sorts of missteps from the young, but your reputation is severely damaged and you need to take your foot off of the accelerator and apply the brakes. Yesterday.

I think you'll be happy to know my WA Nation is fully complaint with WA laws. I have also put aside any personal feelings and have not included them as part of the source of this endeavor. The only remaining reasons and arguments are ones that have been found after I have dug deep in search for them.

Please stop being defensive and take my advice for what it is: a request that, for your own good, you stop ignoring community feedback and start rebuilding the many bridges you burned, starting by being more community-minded in your behavior in general.

[Lumiere du Premier]

I think you'll be happy to know my WA Nation is fully complaint with WA laws. I have also put aside any personal feelings and have not included them as part of the source of this endeavor. The only remaining reasons and arguments are ones that have been found after I have dug deep in search for them.

Please stop being defensive and take my advice for what it is: a request that, for your own good, you stop ignoring community feedback and start rebuilding the many bridges you burned, starting by being more community-minded in your behavior in general.

Alright thanks, I'll put on a pause on this and go do some good, i'll try my hand at international trade and transport. This is not the end of this project, though, it's just on hiatus until I prove that I can change lives in our WA nations for the better.

[Untecna]

Please stop being defensive and take my advice for what it is: a request that, for your own good, you stop ignoring community feedback and start rebuilding the many bridges you burned, starting by being more community-minded in your behavior in general.

Alright thanks, I'll put on a pause on this and go do some good, i'll try my hand at international trade and transport. This is not the end of this project, though, it's just on hiatus until I prove that I can change lives in our WA nations for the better.

What Overmind is recommending is not "try something else", but instead "stop trying". I second Overmind's request.

[The Overmind]

Alright thanks, I'll put on a pause on this and go do some good, i'll try my hand at international trade and transport. This is not the end of this project, though, it's just on hiatus until I prove that I can change lives in our WA nations for the better.

What Overmind is recommending is not "try something else", but instead "stop trying". I second Overmind's request.

As far as this topic, yes. Though I welcome them to try their hand at legislating on productive topics. That said, repairing their separation from the community is going to take more effort than just switching up their goals. That's going to take demonstrating consistent willingness to constructively engage with it from now on, without sliding back into these bad habits.