NationStates

Category:
Strength: ? I am quite usure about that. Anyone help?

The World Assembly,

COMMENDS technological advancement by nations in order to improve quality of life.

NOTICES the soar of Artificial Intelligences

REMARKS that no International Legislation treats the subject of responsibility of Artificial Intelligences

DEFINES
1- An Artificial Intelligence as any artificially created program able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence.
2- A Drone as any artificial intelligence with the ability to move.
3-A software as a computer-based artificial intelligence that does not physically exist.
4-A master as any artificial intelligence controlling other artificial intelligences
5-A recipient as any artificial intelligence controlled by a master.
6-An exploiter as any person or company controlling an artificial intelligence
7- A manufacturer as any person or company having built and/or programmed an artificial intelligence.

PROHIBITS
1-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence with the sole purpose of destroying or harming innocent civilians
2-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence acting in a way that breaks International or National Laws.
3-Any exploiter to own and use aforementioned artificial intelligences

DECLARES responsibility in case of dysfunction that provokes harm falls upon both the exploiter and the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer explicitly mentioned it denied responsibility for these cases.

FURTHER NOTES that responsibility in case of dysfunction of a recipient artificial intelligence that provokes harm falls upon the manufacturer and exploiter of the master artificial intelligence.

OUTLAWS not respecting the private life of innocent individual civilians.

HEREBY implements the Convention on Robots and Artificial Intelligences

This is just an idea, please do not hesitate in giving feedback/helping/amending this text.
Thanks.

Those are the worst deffinitions we've seen in some time. Under your definitions my Word program is now considered an artificial intelligence. The remainder of your definitions are equally suspect. As in "disaster waiting to happen" bad.

Now, lets tear apart discuss the rest of your draft.

You prohibit "exploiters" (horrific definition) from owning or using AI's, yet you declare they are responsible for malfunctions?
You prohibit manufacturers from receieving any compensation for AI's thet build.
You mandate that only other AI's can own AI's.
You declare that manufacturers can avoid responsibility for malfunctions by declaring "not OUR fault".

I'm not sure, with every sentence in this being as falacious, ill-conceived, naive, and downright wrong-headed as they are, that this is even salvagable without erasing every word and starting over. There are no redeeming qualities to this.

(OOC: also, you start with a category and write from there, nit try to shoehorn in after the fact.)

Grays Harbor wrote:Those are the worst deffinitions we've seen in some time. Under your definitions my Word program is now considered an artificial intelligence. The remainder of your definitions are equally suspect. As in "disaster waiting to happen" bad.

Now, lets tear apart discuss the rest of your draft.

You prohibit "exploiters" (horrific definition) from owning or using AI's, yet you declare they are responsible for malfunctions?
You prohibit manufacturers from receieving any compensation for AI's thet build.
You mandate that only other AI's can own AI's.
You declare that manufacturers can avoid responsibility for malfunctions by declaring "not OUR fault".

I'm not sure, with every sentence in this being as falacious, ill-conceived, naive, and downright wrong-headed as they are, that this is even salvagable without erasing every word and starting over. There are no redeeming qualities to this.

(OOC: also, you start with a category and write from there, nit try to shoehorn in after the fact.)

Makes my resolution look like the declaration of independence.

Bitely wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:Those are the worst deffinitions we've seen in some time. Under your definitions my Word program is now considered an artificial intelligence. The remainder of your definitions are equally suspect. As in "disaster waiting to happen" bad.

Now, lets tear apart discuss the rest of your draft.

You prohibit "exploiters" (horrific definition) from owning or using AI's, yet you declare they are responsible for malfunctions?
You prohibit manufacturers from receieving any compensation for AI's thet build.
You mandate that only other AI's can own AI's.
You declare that manufacturers can avoid responsibility for malfunctions by declaring "not OUR fault".

I'm not sure, with every sentence in this being as falacious, ill-conceived, naive, and downright wrong-headed as they are, that this is even salvagable without erasing every word and starting over. There are no redeeming qualities to this.

(OOC: also, you start with a category and write from there, nit try to shoehorn in after the fact.)

Makes my resolution look like the declaration of independence.

OOC: no, this is still a step or two up.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bitely wrote:Makes my resolution look like the declaration of independence.

OOC: no, this is still a step or two up.

In your opinion of course.

Bitely wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: no, this is still a step or two up.

In your opinion of course.

OOC: this isn't the place to discuss your bad ideas. I suggest you find a different venue.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bitely wrote:In your opinion of course.

OOC: this isn't the place to discuss your bad ideas. I suggest you find a different venue.

Yes vary true. Back on topic. The definitions are to vague.

Bitely wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: this isn't the place to discuss your bad ideas. I suggest you find a different venue.

Yes very true. Back on topic. The definitions are to vague.

Grammar Check. We thought you were dead! My nations newspapers will be selling out today screaming, "Bitely's Back! Prepare for the WA era of Alex Jones nightmare!"

San Pera wrote:NOTICES the soar of Artificial Intelligences

"Oh dear."

San Pera wrote:1- An Artificial Intelligence as any artificially created program able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence.

"Not all members of the World Assembly are human. In fact, many are Artificial Intelligence."

San Pera wrote:2- A Drone as any artificial intelligence with the ability to move.

"That is something of a broad definition."

San Pera wrote:4-A master as any artificial intelligence controlling other artificial intelligences
5-A recipient as any artificial intelligence controlled by a master.
6-An exploiter as any person or company controlling an artificial intelligence

"Ambassador. You had best choose your words carefully."

San Pera wrote:PROHIBITS
1-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence with the sole purpose of destroying or harming innocent civilians
2-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence acting in a way that breaks International or National Laws.
3-Any exploiter to own and use aforementioned artificial intelligences

DECLARES responsibility in case of dysfunction that provokes harm falls upon both the exploiter and the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer explicitly mentioned it denied responsibility for these cases.

"The Imperium makes extensive use of Artificial Intelligence in Warefare, Ambassador. While civilian casualties are intentionally avoided, for obvious reasons, they are often unavoidable. In addition, the Imperium has come into control of various AIs designed for.. less than legal warfare. While they have not been deployed, again, for obvious reasons, they have been quite useful in advancing our own Artificial Intelligence.
What would you have us do with them?

Further, if an Artificial Intelligence is capable of operating, without the interference of another Sapient being, for example, if the unit is Sentient, or Sapient, what is it then? If the unit were to independently decide to kill a dozen civilians and rob a convenience store, is the full-sapient, legally independent Artificial Intelligence at fault? Or the creators of the unit?

San Pera wrote:FURTHER NOTES that responsibility in case of dysfunction of a recipient artificial intelligence that provokes harm falls upon the manufacturer and exploiter of the master artificial intelligence.

"You are repeating yourself."

San Pera wrote:OUTLAWS not respecting the private life of innocent individual civilians.

"Pointless, and vacuous rider. Remove this, and take the rest of the Proposal with it."

"While the Multitude acknowledges the importance of addressing the use of artificially intelligent computer systems in many venues affecting the international community, We must nonetheless concur with the general spirit of -- if not necessarily the general ... vigor of -- comments submitted so far.

"We would suggest re-focusing your draft upon a specific instance or use of artificial intelligence. For example, one might consider the dangers of military drones and the necessary protections required for civilians and other non-combatants. Another interesting -- and extremely important -- possibility could consider the ethical issues of, and necessary protections required for, international financial transactions largely automated by artificial intelligence and operating at speeds beyond the comprehension of most biological intelligence.

"Of course, one should also take care to review previously approved and established Resolutions, not only to understand how international law already applies but to also find gaps. in that law. Convert those gaps into opportunities to extend and strengthen international law. The Multitude have benefited greatly from the input of its esteemed colleagues in this area Itself.

"But, to be sure, focusing on a specific instance or use will also help in defining your terms, ensuring an effecting, specific, and clear resolution."

"Please continue to pursue consideration of the effects of artificial intelligence on the world community. The Multitude believes that this is a fascinating area, with important implications."

We will stand opposed to this.
The WA has no place in my citizens homes.

Povinksi wrote:We will stand opposed to this.
The WA has no place in my citizens homes.

"In that case, ambassador, one can't but wonder why your nation chose to join the WA?"

REMARKS that no International Legislation treats the subject of responsibility of Artificial Intelligences

"Incorrect. My resolution 'Protection of Sapient Rights' addresses sapient beings, which can include Artificial Intelligences."

PROHIBITS
3-Any exploiter to own and use aforementioned artificial intelligences

"Owning Artificial Intelligences deemed sapient is already illegal, due to the combination of Protection of Sapient Rights and Ban on Slavery and Trafficking. However, you might avoid duplication if this clause applies to non-sapient AIs.

"At any rate, I fail to see the necessity of this proposal."

Araraukar wrote:

Povinksi wrote:We will stand opposed to this.
The WA has no place in my citizens homes.

"In that case, ambassador, one can't but wonder why your nation chose to join the WA?"

OOC: In the RP setting of NS, my first thought of an AI resolution was to guarantee AIs human rights, aka the age-old debate about sapient rights (last time I was around more, there was a mod statement about the category "human rights" applying to non-human citizens of the member states, dunno if that has changed), but the way this reads, it means any sophisticated algorithm. Is Siri sentient?

We are a puppet nation of Povinksi.
By that, I mean, we aren't to happy with this resolution reaching into our citizens personal lives.

San Pera wrote:

PROHIBITS
1-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence with the sole purpose of destroying or harming innocent civilians
2-Any manufacturer to conceive an artificial intelligence acting in a way that breaks International or National Laws.
3-Any exploiter to own and use aforementioned artificial intelligences

PROHIBITS-2
You are prohibiting conceiving something in an illegal way? So prohibiting something illegal? Seems unnecessary.
Also, work on styling and grammar. If you want help with that I can. Respond in this thread or TG.