[draft] Biased Bots in Ballots?

[Socialismia]

I got this idea about the implications of mass producing AI in AI-citizen nations. So, I applied it to elections for this draft. This is my third issue draft so far... (we're still not going to talk about that one time I tried to use plural leaders.)

Also, I've procastinated on- I mean, forgot about this draft for months. So, forgive me.

Title: Biased Bots in Ballots?

(Validity: Must have AI Personhood, must have elections, and must have capitalism.)

The Issue: @@NAME@@ Robots, a major artificial intelligence and robotics company, is under fire as leaked internal documents reveals that they have been mass producing AI citizens biased in favor of politician and business@@MAN1@@ @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who is currently running for mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. The controversy has prompted a national debate covering 'AI Personhood' laws, democracy in @@NAME@@, and what should be done about this.

Option 1: "It is clear that we must regulate these AI," declares AI ethicist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, writing this conclusion on a chock-full whiteboard. "That includes examinations on the source code of every AI citizen, a minimum AI voting age, an AI voting tax, a routine background check for all AI, and a national organization of experts capable of reprogramming any biased AI citizen. These ought to be done for democracy! Well, by reducing AI citizens' political freedom but that is irrelevant."
Fallout: Politicians interested in AI are investigated and suspected of corruption.

Option 2: "Letting easily biased and duplicated robots vote was totally a marvellous decision," snarks journalist and activist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who leaked the documents. "It's about time people realise why letting AI vote was a bad idea. They're too prone to the bias built into it. My request is simple: take away their right to vote. That's what democracy needs."
Fallout: AI's suffrage activists claim that they're being oppressed by soulless and stiff human supremacists.

Option 3: "Everyone is always like democracy for this, democracy for that, but never democracy for thee!" acclaims famously devout Party member @@RANDOM_NAME@@. After kneeling down at you with seemingly no embarrassment, @@HE@@ gets closer and whispers, "They might have the right idea here. I've already contacted a rival company, and they've agreed to produce AI citizens in your favour! It may be expensive, but if you give them the green light, it would be the end for the opposition..."
Fallout: Most AI citizens seem to be into politics nowadays.

Title: Biased Bots in Ballots?

(Validity: Must have AI Personhood, must have elections, must have average to high corruption, and must have capitalism.)

The Issue: @@NAME@@ Robots, a major artificial intelligence and robotics company, is under fire as leaked internal documents reveals that they have been mass producing AI citizens biased in favor of politician @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who is currently running for mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. The controversy has prompted a national debate covering 'AI Personhood' laws, democracy in @@NAME@@, and what should be done about this.

Option 1: "It is clear that we must regulate AI voting," declares AI ethicist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, writing this conclusion on a chock-full whiteboard. "That includes examinations on the source code of every AI citizen, a minimum AI voting age, an AI voting tax, and a national organization of experts capable of reprogramming any biased AI citizen. These ought to be done for democracy, everyone's democracy! Well, except for the AI citizens', but that is irrelevant."
Fallout: Politicians interested in AI are investigated and suspected of corruption.

Option 2: "Letting easily biased and duplicated robots vote was totally a marvellous decision," snarks journalist and activist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who leaked the documents. "It's about time people realise why letting AI vote was a bad idea. They're too prone to the bias built into it. My request is simple: take away their right to vote. That's what democracy needs."
Fallout: AI's suffrage activists claim that they're being oppressed by soulless and stiff human supremacists.

Option 3: "Everyone is always like democracy for this, democracy for that, but never democracy for thee!" acclaims devout Party member @@RANDOM_NAME@@. After slightly bowing down at you with seemingly no embarrassment, @@HE@@ gets closer and whispers, "What I'm trying to say is, why don't we do the exact same thing? I've already contacted a rival company, and they've agreed to produce AI citizens in your favour. It may be expensive, but if you give them the green light, it would be the end for the opposition..."
Fallout: Most AI citizens seem to be into politics nowadays.

Yes, I realise that the fallouts are capitalised and end with a period. I did that because my grammar perfectionist hand (and Grammarly's somewhat obnoxious green underlines) can not just put it into the right format. That's for the Issue Editors to handle once this is submitted. ÒuÓ

(The first edit was me forgetting to replace the placeholder names with macros lol)

[Australian rePublic]

Throughout the whole country, how many of these AIs would actually live in capital?

[Socialismia]

Throughout the whole country, how many of these AIs would actually live in capital?

I don't know, but probably a lot.

[Socialismia]

/lift

[Socialismia]

/lift2

[Camtropia]

Looks like a really cool Issue! I would remove the "average to high corruption" requirement though, as that will severely limit the amount of nations that can get it. IRL, even nations with generally low corruption can still occasionally have corruption scandals etc.

[Socialismia]

Looks like a really cool Issue! I would remove the "average to high corruption" requirement though, as that will severely limit the amount of nations that can get it. IRL, even nations with generally low corruption can still occasionally have corruption scandals etc.

Thank you for the feedback and your kind words about my draft! Very much appreciated.
Now that I think about it, your point does make sense. I'll remove it in the next draft, but that will have to wait for a while since I'm quite busy nowadays...

[Australian rePublic]

Throughout the whole country, how many of these AIs would actually live in capital?

I don't know, but probably a lot.

Still,how would this impact on AIs living in, say, @@ANIMAL@@ City

[Socialismia]

I don't know, but probably a lot.

Still,how would this impact on AIs living in, say, @@ANIMAL@@ City

It doesn't impact any other city directly but the prospect and possibility of other companies in other cities doing the same does. Besides, it's the capital and I would expect it to be the centre of national attention (if what you're getting here is that the issue isn't nationwide).
If change really is needed, I could change it into Leader's political opponent from a recent election narrowly defeated by Leader.

[Socialismia]

New draft is up! It's mostly just small changes ,though, so I won't explain what changed.

[Socialismia]

/lift3

[Lelscrep]

Issue makes clear sense and is almost an inevitability for nations with rights-given bots. :)

For the sake of inclusiveness, I think this issue could be easily tweaked to not require capitalism (maybe an option 3 doppelganger) - even government-owned industry will still have industry leaders who seek more influence and success.

A smallish one, but an "AI Personhood" requirement, yet @@LEADER@@ isn't hearing from a single AI about their own rights which are at stake?

Even at a stretch, none of these options would suit nations who value both their "AI Personhood" policy, and their political freedoms.

[Socialismia]

Issue makes clear sense and is almost an inevitability for nations with rights-given bots.

For the sake of inclusiveness, I think this issue could be easily tweaked to not require capitalism (maybe an option 3 doppelganger) - even government-owned industry will still have industry leaders who seek more influence and success.

A smallish one, but an "AI Personhood" requirement, yet @@LEADER@@ isn't hearing from a single AI about their own rights which are at stake?

Even at a stretch, none of these options would suit nations who value both their "AI Personhood" policy, and their political freedoms.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll try to answer much of these as I can.

That is possible now that I think about it. The idea of a government-owned and managed company backstabbing doesn't sit well with me (cuz like it means socialism didn't work and i would be mega sad :dddd), but that could be an aspect of the issue addressed in an extra option or an already existing option. I'll add this in the next draft!

I could add an option with an AI speaker. It would probably be something like "Ban only AI with proof of bias," but there is a chance for a "Who cares? Every living being is intrinsically biased in a way. Just legalise this practice" option. I'll try to see what I can do with this. As for your last point, I think adding the options mentioned would fix this.

[Socialismia]

Would it be hilarious if I used AI for the AI's dialogue

[Lelscrep]

but there is a chance for a "Who cares? Every living being is intrinsically biased in a way. Just legalise this practice" option.

I'd think under a democratic government with an AI Personhood policy (aka citizenship in most of the modern world) that the practice is already legal. That is to say, this could work, but it would need to be more strongly pro-AI somehow, and less of a "do nothing, carry on" choice.

Would it be hilarious if I used AI for the AI's dialogue

It'd probably be best to write in the style of an AI, or at least edit for coherency - but that actually might fit fairly well outside of being just a joke.

As for your last point, I think adding the options mentioned would fix this.

Just to be clear, you don't need to appease every nation (you never will), but the issue drafts I've seen accepted have often been ones I didn't think many would dismiss. I am only another draft writer myself. :p

[Socialismia]

/veryunnecessarybumpconsideringiprobablywillnotfinishthis

[Socialismia]

/bumpalsolelscrepcterip