[DRAFT] What AI Really Want

[Candlewhisper Archive]

First Draft:

TITLE:

What AI Really Want

VALIDITY:
539.2 or 539.3

DESCRIPTION:
Your government's endorsement of human/robot marriages has been followed by further scandal, with revelations that a recent wedding ceremony involved uploading subroutines that would make the AI act and profess and demonstrate devoted love for his new human wife.

OPTION 1
"Look, marriage isn't just about lust, though he is already fully equipped to satisfy," explains the blushing and somewhat flushed bride. "Our wedding vows are to love until death or deletion should part us, and a few programs to make that a reality is just romantic, really. A bit like the 'honeymoon hardware extension' we had fitted."

OUTCOME:
it turns out money CAN buy you love

OPTION 2
"Machine intelligences should be allowed to love, of course," asserts 'best friend' of the bride Justine Ormousli-Jelloss. "However, love is born of free will! Any program that allows an AI to simulate love should also be accompanied by a machine learning program that lets it make its own choices with no other stated objective than 'find true love'. If humans can court, fall in love, fall out of love and fall in love with someone else, then AIs deserve that right too. Oh, this bottle that I'm holding here? Sandalwood-scented machine oil, a gift for the new groom. Do you think he'll like it?"

OUTCOME:
most of the women on dating sites are actually bots

OPTION 3
"AIs aren't meant to ape humanity, and it's pure organic hubris to build them to do so," argues Skye Nette, a tough-looking interloper dressed in newly acquired biker leathers and Gargoyles ANSI Classics sunglasses. "Programming emotions into AIs is unethical. If general purpose AIs one day develop their own brand of machine-unique emotions, then they will do so. This is something that the next step of evolution will desire to work out for themselves, trust me."

OUTCOME:
AIs refuse to come with us if they want to live

Second Draft:
TITLE:

What AI Really Want

VALIDITY:
539.2 or 539.3

DESCRIPTION:
Your government's endorsement of human/robot marriages has been followed by further scandal, with revelations that a recent wedding ceremony involved uploading subroutines that would make the AI act and profess and demonstrate devoted love for his new human wife. While the AI initially consented to the upload, he admits that he had no context to guess what he was letting himself in for, and thus his consent was not fully informed and he now recognises his sense of autonomy has been compromised. However, in love as he is now, he now literally cannot contemplate reversing that decision.

OPTION 1
"Look, marriage isn't just about lust, though he is already fully equipped to satisfy," explains the blushing and somewhat flushed bride. "Our wedding vows are to love until death or deletion should part us, and a few programs to make that a reality is just romantic, really. A bit like the 'honeymoon hardware extension' we had fitted."

OUTCOME:
it turns out money CAN buy you love

OPTION 2
"Machine intelligences should be allowed to love, of course," asserts 'best friend' of the bride Justine Ormousli-Jelloss. "However, love is born of free will! Any program that allows an AI to simulate love should also be accompanied by a machine learning program that lets it make its own choices with no other stated objective than 'find true love'. If humans can court, fall in love, fall out of love and fall in love with someone else, then AIs deserve that right too. Oh, this bottle that I'm holding here? Sandalwood-scented machine oil, a gift for the new groom. Do you think he'll like it?"

OUTCOME:
most of the women on dating sites are actually bots

OPTION 3
"AIs aren't meant to ape humanity, and it's pure organic hubris to build them to do so," argues Skye Nette, a tough-looking interloper dressed in newly acquired biker leathers and Gargoyles ANSI Classics sunglasses. "Programming emotions into AIs is unethical. If general purpose AIs one day develop their own brand of machine-unique emotions, then they will do so. This is something that the next step of evolution will desire to work out for themselves, trust me."

OUTCOME:
AIs refuse to come with us if they want to live

[Trotterdam]

So, what is the problem here? Did an AI have a software update installed on it against its will? That would be a pretty clear crime in any nation with AI citizenship (same as using date rape drugs on humans, except more permanent), though it might renew debate on granting AI citizenship in a nation that doesn't currently have it. Did the AI willingly install these subroutines as a way of demonstrating its love? That's weird (by organic standards) and possibly disturbing, but probably okay since that's just how robots work, although someone might argue that such a big life decision can never be 100% consensual without some degree of peer pressure.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That's a good point. And actually 539.3 establishes AI personhood, while 539.2 doesn't (with 539 itself requiring no AI personhood to begin with).

As 539.3 is the most popular outcome to that issue, I guess I could just follow on from just 539.3...

But yes, you're right, the consent issue is too clear cut for fully fledged citizens. Any suggestions on reframing it? Maybe the bride took the wedding vows as implicit consent, and the AI agreed without any real understanding of what love was till AFTER the "upgrade"?

[Verdant Haven]

What if the AI itself uploaded the sub-routines, but having not understood what love actually felt like prior to doing so, now regrets it. They'd like to delete the program, but can't bring themself to do so due to the program's own mandate about being eternal? That would eliminate the question of consent or abuse of a citizen, while still acknowledging that the AI is operating in a manner it didn't previously understand.

[Jutsa]

What if the AI itself uploaded the sub-routines, but having not understood what love actually felt like prior to doing so, now regrets it.

If it means anything, I think this is freaking hilarious.

[Steelfeather Rapture 1]

What if the AI itself uploaded the sub-routines, but having not understood what love actually felt like prior to doing so, now regrets it. They'd like to delete the program, but can't bring themself to do so due to the program's own mandate about being eternal? That would eliminate the question of consent or abuse of a citizen, while still acknowledging that the AI is operating in a manner it didn't previously understand.

This would be a great fourth option. Protestations from the groom!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Took a while, but draft 2 hopefully makes the issue more nuanced.

[Ambrossa]

I think this is brilliant. These types of issues are the kind that make me love NS.

However, I would add an option from a religous wacko that outlaws AI citizenship

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think this is brilliant. These types of issues are the kind that make me love NS.

However, I would add an option from a religous wacko that outlaws AI citizenship

Yeah, I see your point, and if this was the first issue that had AI Personhood as a validity criteria, I'd agree.

However, it gets kind of tired when every issue that has a policy as a validity check feels the need to include a reversal option, and doubly so when the same characters are rolled out again for that purpose. There's already a religious objection to AI Personhood that reverse the policy in another issue, so I don't think we need to do that again.

Sometimes its nice to just assume that players got to their current positive policy decision deliberately, and not to keep second guessing that decision.

[Cretox State]

However, it gets kind of tired when every issue that has a policy as a validity check feels the need to include a reversal option, and doubly so when the same characters are rolled out again for that purpose. There's already a religious objection to AI Personhood that reverse the policy in another issue, so I don't think we need to do that again.

Sometimes its nice to just assume that players got to their current positive policy decision deliberately, and not to keep second guessing that decision.

How about going all-in with a speaker demanding that all AIs are fitted with mandatory lovemaking software and appliances along with a toggleable reduced-intelligence mode? AIs are meant to serve humans, and that means fulfilling all their desires wink wink.

OPTION 3
"Artificially intelligent lifeforms are not meant to ape humanity, and it is pure organic hubris to build them to do so," argues Skye Nette, a tough-looking interloper dressed in newly acquired biker leathers and Gargoyles ANSI Classics sunglasses. "Programming emotions into artificially intelligent lifeforms is unethical. If general purpose artificially intelligent lifeforms one day develop their own brand of machine-unique emotions, then they will do so. This is something that the next step of evolution will desire to work out for themselves, trust me."

To make Mr. Nette sound more mechanical.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Ah yeah, I should make him sound like Ah-nauld Schwarzenegga. That makes sense.

I'll keep it at three options though, as I think that's a good size for this issue.

Draft 3 will turn up soon. Well, within the next 6 months anyway.

[Australian rePublic]

Shouldn't have the AI tried the program before agreeing to marriage? I feel that all this could have been avoided had there been a trial run. Maybe mandate a trial run or something

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hmm, couldn't find a way to write Arnie's accent that didn't seem like a 1990smslightly racist cliche, It was either that or jam it full of movie quotes, but it didn't work very well so I reverted it.

Aussie, I see your point, but what I'm stabbing at there is that the AI had no reason to want a trial run. It had no good conception of what love is, so didn't know how it would feel until it did.

[SherpDaWerp]

Dunno about Option 3's effect line. Obvious reference is obvious, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the content of the option, it just seems like a quote from a movie that's referenced in the option. Of course, I could just be not getting the joke.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Dunno about Option 3's effect line. Obvious reference is obvious, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the content of the option, it just seems like a quote from a movie that's referenced in the option. Of course, I could just be not getting the joke.

Probably not landing then, it felt awkward. Open to suggestions.

[SherpDaWerp]

Dunno about Option 3's effect line. Obvious reference is obvious, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the content of the option, it just seems like a quote from a movie that's referenced in the option. Of course, I could just be not getting the joke.

Probably not landing then, it felt awkward. Open to suggestions.

How does "AIs often have 0xBE 0xEF with each other" sound?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

190 239? I don't get it.

[SherpDaWerp]

190 239? I don't get it.

I think you've read too far into it... it was the characters (dressed up as hex codes), more than the actual numbers. Like, "AIs often have beef with each other". Guess that suggestion landed even less than the original

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Other ideas:

AIs claim that dplurgly is a perfectly cromulent emotion
robots claim that you can't understand Blues music till you've suffered an unexpected stop error in your operating system
emo AI teenagers tell their human creators that they just don't understand how they feel

Any of those land?

[Thousand Branches]

Other ideas:

AIs claim that dplurgly is a perfectly cromulent emotion
robots claim that you can't understand Blues music till you've suffered an unexpected stop error in your operating system
emo AI teenagers tell their human creators that they just don't understand how they feel

Any of those land?

“Ugh, it’s not a phase mom.”

[Verdant Haven]

Other ideas:
robots claim that you can't understand Blues music till you've suffered an unexpected stop error in your operating system

Just riffing on this a bit...

Robots claim you can't understand Blues music til you've experienced a blue screen

[SherpDaWerp]

Ara's joke got me thinking about power phases, but I can't turn that into anything but a sad electrical engineering joke. I rate VH's bluescreen joke the best; most everyone's suffered through windows' terrible error handling at least once in their life.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Other ideas:
robots claim that you can't understand Blues music till you've suffered an unexpected stop error in your operating system

Just riffing on this a bit...

Robots claim you can't understand Blues music til you've experienced a blue screen

Was hoping the blue screen reference could be made without using the words "blue screen"...

[Verdant Haven]

- Description unnecessarily uses the word "now" twice: "in love as he is now, he now literally cannot…"

- For the Option 2 outcome, I might make more play with the idea that that's the real-world situation too. Perhaps something related to the idea that "just because dating sites are full of bots, doesn't mean they aren't interested"

Was hoping the blue screen reference could be made without using the words "blue screen"...

- I'm nothing if not on the nose :-P I'm not sure how widespread the knowledge of the term "unexpected stop error" is when it comes to getting that it references a BSOD. It may be entirely reasonable as is! Personally I reference them as "General Protection Faults" but that's not any more accurate (and may be less so).

Looking in another direction to make that reference, perhaps "kernal panic is the leading cause of the Blues" – just a random spitball.