AI Trade Act

[Grantonlatis]

Lets face it: Our world is consumed by fear of war and impending attacks. Assassinations and terrorism plots. We change that today. From now on, AI's will be allowed by the world, and will not be banned by any country. The AI are robots who will help with the military and police, while also preserving government money because while human police and military forces need to be paid to fulfill their needs, AI do not need to be paid, as their work is free
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Grantonlatis

Celebrating the AI that will protect us and enforce that nation's laws

Recognizing the countries who are in desperate need of AI

Concerned with the health and welfare of nations who do not look to the future


The World Assembly hereby:
1.) Recognizes the need for AI's and developed security in the World Assembly
2.) Highlights the AI as not the primary means of defense, but as a security force that helps the WA catch the countries that dare oppose any of its countries
3.) Renders the fear of war and terrorism, as this is a problem that is daily in the WA. These AI make sure that human lives are prevented from being lost by these terrors
4.) Provide AI to the member states that simply do not have the technology to make the AI themselves

The act also proposes that:
1.) AI will be checked weekly by countries to make sure that they do not get a super- intelligence of their own(preventing AI rebellions)
2.) AI will be friendly towards human life and will only attack if they are threatened or physically damaged on purpose, as the AI must be able to distinguish between accident or purposeful.
3.) The AI must also distinguish between ally or enemy, avoid having a sentient intelligence, and be able to support it's people whenever it can.

The act WILL recognize:
1.) The countries who have adapted to non-robotic ways, who will be treated with the greatest respect the AI's will give them. The act recognizes the opposition of the countries mentioned above and will make sure the AI's will not interfere with the daily living of the people of said countries
2.) Magic user countries who look down upon some machines , who will make sure their daily rituals and spells will not be thwarted by them
3.) Countries who have dealt with AI rebellions, who will be paid by the world assembly for the lives lost during these horrendous rebellions, but they must try to avoid making the same mistake again by following the above act rules.
4.) Countries who would protest against this, stating that the AI will be evil and destructive to human life. The response to this is that AI are only dangerous if YOU make them dangerous. It is up to the person in charge of the AI to determine the outcome of them and their people.

[The Great Imperator Jeffrey]

"Self-Defense and Economy" isn't even a category for GA proposals. You should use "International Security" as the category.

[Grantonlatis]

"Self-Defense and Economy" isn't even a category for GA proposals. You should use "International Security" as the category.

Thanks. I changed the act to fit it

[Jebslund]

[OOC: Please read the documentation that has been provided before drafting.

The good news is, you already seem to understand the cardinal rule of submitting proposals: Draft first. Thank you for doing so!

The bad news is, there are several illegalities in your draft.

First and foremost: There are specific categories. You do not get to name them. You must choose from the ones available. This one looks more like International Security than anything else.

Second:

Celebrating a history of the CCOC ( Carter's Control Over countries) and the help it gives to other nations

This line is pure branding. Remove it.

Third: Clause 3 is meaningless as written. Get it proofread and reword it to make sense or remove it. [Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.]

Fourth, that third clause, if I guess correctly, might push this into "attempting to affect non-member-nations" territory. Seriously, though, get someone to proofread this.

As a bonus, this isn't pertaining to the rules, but, rather, writing advice: AI isn't the sole means of self defense in the world, and multiple nations RP as modern- or past-tech civilisations who, therefore, don't have the ability to field and/or develop reliable AI. If you try to write resolutions forcing the use of the shiniest new toys, you're going to come up against opposition on those grounds alone. You will need some seriously solid arguments to convince the WA to vote to force acceptance of non-sapient AIs (Sapient AIs are already protected by at least two resolutions).

I may or may not go into more detail on the subjective merits and demerits when I'm not tired.]

[Grantonlatis]

[OOC: Please read the documentation that has been provided before drafting.

The good news is, you already seem to understand the cardinal rule of submitting proposals: Draft first. Thank you for doing so!

The bad news is, there are several illegalities in your draft.

First and foremost: There are specific categories. You do not get to name them. You must choose from the ones available. This one looks more like International Security than anything else.

Second:

Celebrating a history of the CCOC ( Carter's Control Over countries) and the help it gives to other nations

This line is pure branding. Remove it.

Third: Clause 3 is meaningless as written. Get it proofread and reword it to make sense or remove it. [Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.]

Fourth, that third clause, if I guess correctly, might push this into "attempting to affect non-member-nations" territory. Seriously, though, get someone to proofread this.

As a bonus, this isn't pertaining to the rules, but, rather, writing advice: AI isn't the sole means of self defense in the world, and multiple nations RP as modern- or past-tech civilisations who, therefore, don't have the ability to field and/or develop reliable AI. If you try to write resolutions forcing the use of the shiniest new toys, you're going to come up against opposition on those grounds alone. You will need some seriously solid arguments to convince the WA to vote to force acceptance of non-sapient AIs (Sapient AIs are already protected by at least two resolutions).

I may or may not go into more detail on the subjective merits and demerits when I'm not tired.]

Awesome, thank you. I just changed it so (hopefully) it will go well. And I've got some counterattacks to use for opposition, so don't worry

[Jebslund]

Awesome, thank you. I just changed it so (hopefully) it will go well. And I've got some counterattacks to use for opposition, so don't worry

[OOC: The idea is for the proposal to be convincing, not for you to be able to argue it once it goes to vote. If it's not convincing before it hits the queue, it won't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to vote, because it won't make quorum. If you already have arguments prepared, make them in the proposal. And you wording is still a bit clunky.]

[The Sheika]

After reading over your draft, I have a few concerns.

You pair the words "war" and "glory" as though they are synonymous. War is terrible, sometimes necessary but terrible. Glory on the other hand is honor and renown that is earned. So a little bit of clarification would be welcomed.

While I represent a member state that accepts AIs and uses them in many different applications, I do acknowledge that other member states may have very good reasons for banning AIs. Something to consider would be a member state that may have in the past have dealt with AIs that turned against their creators. Their solution may be to ban the use of AIs, and here you are basically stating they shouldn't be able to do so, potentially placing them at risk against AIs once more.

I am all for AIs assisting in defense and other applications, however I am not for AIs being the sole source for defense. Good defense sometimes relies on instinct, not just coding. I can see that the purpose behind your proposal is defense, which I think member states could be in desperate need of. What I doubt any nation would be in desperate need of would be AIs, especially if they are not at the technological level where one could function optimally.

I can concede that AIs are a great tool, but I would relegate it to a want as opposed to a need. Their use as defense would work best as supplemental, not a full on replacement for defense seeing as the potential for rampancy does exist.

So far I am not convinced of the need for this proposal, but I am open to hearing your arguments as to why this is a good idea.

[Grantonlatis]

After reading over your draft, I have a few concerns.

You pair the words "war" and "glory" as though they are synonymous. War is terrible, sometimes necessary but terrible. Glory on the other hand is honor and renown that is earned. So a little bit of clarification would be welcomed.

While I represent a member state that accepts AIs and uses them in many different applications, I do acknowledge that other member states may have very good reasons for banning AIs. Something to consider would be a member state that may have in the past have dealt with AIs that turned against their creators. Their solution may be to ban the use of AIs, and here you are basically stating they shouldn't be able to do so, potentially placing them at risk against AIs once more.

I am all for AIs assisting in defense and other applications, however I am not for AIs being the sole source for defense. Good defense sometimes relies on instinct, not just coding. I can see that the purpose behind your proposal is defense, which I think member states could be in desperate need of. What I doubt any nation would be in desperate need of would be AIs, especially if they are not at the technological level where one could function optimally.

I can concede that AIs are a great tool, but I would relegate it to a want as opposed to a need. Their use as defense would work best as supplemental, not a full on replacement for defense seeing as the potential for rampancy does exist.

So far I am not convinced of the need for this proposal, but I am open to hearing your arguments as to why this is a good idea.

I have just clarified these nations and recognized them

[The Sheika]

I remain unconvinced. Once more, what about nations that were nearly destroyed by their own AI in the past who have now banned AI in order to safeguard against another catastrophe? Compensation, while a nice gesture, does not change what happened. No amount of money can ever soothe the pain of loss of life.

AIs are a great tool, and if used in defense and security should be used to supplement defense and security forces, not replace them. Although I do acknowledge that you are eager for them to enforce your laws, the Federation will not just sit idly by so AI can enforce our laws for us when the members of our law enforcement departments are able. Just as our military forces will not fully rely upon AI for our defense, but use them as a tool.

Checking AIs is a measure of prevention, but not a guarantee against rampancy. The risk will always exist so long as AIs exist. This is not a statement against the use of AI, this is a statement in support of not fully relying upon them.

[Kenmoria]

Category: International Security The ‘International Security’ category must ‘improve world security by boosting police and military budgets’, does your proposal have anything to do with the police or military?
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Grantonlatis

Celebrating the AI's that will protect us and enforce that nation's laws The apostrophe in ‘AI’s’ shouldn’t be there, and this goes for all the times it appears.

Recognizing the countries who are in desperate need of AI's

Why is the line break here so big?

Concerned with the safety and peace of nations who cannot defend themselves


The World Assembly hereby:
1.) Recognizes the need for AI's and developed security in the World Assembly
2.) Highlights the AI's needed for future development and help in all problems hitherto
3.) Renders meaningless manhunts and lost causes when searching for international criminals Renders them what? What are you rendering them as being? This line doesn’t make sense.
4.) Requires countries not to protest against AI's, and treat them well, as their security depends upon these AI's Does that include treating dangerous AIs well also? That seems rather strange.

The act also proposes that:
1.) AI's will be checked every 23 hours by countries to make sure that they do not get a super- intelligence of their own(preventing AI rebellions) Why every 23 hours? Also, some AIs will conceivably be doing jobs such as cleaning the bottom of a warehouse, and would have nothing more dangerous than a scrubbing brush. Only a weekly check would be required for those, surely?
2.) AI's will be as friendly looking and nice as they can be, only making hostile actions when threatened or faced with a foe the country ha ordered them to take care of. [color=#CC1208]I find it odd that you require robots in prisons to guard murderers to be ‘friendly.’[/collr]


The act WILL recognize:
1.) The countries who have adapted to non-robotic ways, who will be treated with the greatest respect the AI's will give them. The act recognizes the opposition of the countries mentioned above and will make sure the AI's will not interfere with the daily living of the people of said countries
2.) Recognizes magic user countries who look down upon some futuristic pieces of inferior metal, who will make sure their daily rituals and spells will not be thwarted
3.) Countries who have dealt with AI rebellions, who will be paid by the world assembly for the lives lost during these horrendous rebellions

[Jebslund]

[OOC: My notes blue, Kenmoria's left in in red

Category: International Security The ‘International Security’ category must ‘improve world security by boosting police and military budgets’, does your proposal have anything to do with the police or military? Considering the primary proposed use is military and/or police, as you yourself clearly recognise...? No. Clearly, despite multiple mentions of AI's being needed for security (and still not managing to establish why), this couldn't possibly have anything to do with military or police.
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Grantonlatis

Celebrating the AI's that will protect us and enforce that nation's laws The apostrophe in ‘AI’s’ shouldn’t be there, and this goes for all the times it appears. "AI" is an acronym. It is very recent, but universal enough as to be considered a valid usage to use an apostrophe when pluralising acronyms.

Recognizing the countries who are in desperate need of AI's

Why is the line break here so big? Neither the first nor the last with such a break.

Concerned with the safety and peace of nations who cannot defend themselves As pointed out earlier, AI's are not the only means of defense. You will need a more convincing argument here if you want this to make quorum.


The World Assembly hereby:
1.) Recognizes the need for AI's and developed security in the World Assembly A need which has yet to be established.
2.) Highlights the AI's needed for future development and help in all problems hitherto Clean up the wording here. It's a tad fuzzy.
3.) Renders meaningless manhunts and lost causes when searching for international criminals Renders them what? What are you rendering them as being? This line doesn’t make sense. It's awkwardly worded, but they are being rendered as being meaningless, if I read it correctly. This clause also would benefit from an editor looking over it.
4.) Requires countries not to protest against AI's, and treat them well, as their security depends upon these AI's Does that include treating dangerous AIs well also? That seems rather strange. You have yet to establish that anyone's security is dependent upon AI's. You need to elaborate on this. I'm also fairly certain the right to protest is enshrined somewhere in the mountain of resolutions I can't be arsed to dig through at 3 in the morning (possibly under one of the Free Speech resolutions?).This is a colorable violation of GA 436, as

[*]Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:

1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,

arguably includes peaceful protest as an outwardly expressed belief.

The act also proposes that:
1.) AI's will be checked every 23 hours by countries to make sure that they do not get a super- intelligence of their own(preventing AI rebellions) Why every 23 hours? Also, some AIs will conceivably be doing jobs such as cleaning the bottom of a warehouse, and would have nothing more dangerous than a scrubbing brush. Only a weekly check would be required for those, surely? To speak nothing of it being like a human needing to be given a psych eval every 23 hours in the case of sapient machines, which are covered under "AI". Perhaps a definition of what you mean by "AI", put in the preamble, might be beneficial?
2.) AI's will be as friendly looking and nice as they can be, only making hostile actions when threatened or faced with a foe the country ha ordered them to take care of. I find it odd that you require robots in prisons to guard murderers to be ‘friendly.’ Is it wrong that I find myself imagining Robocop after he got that PR "upgrade" in the second(?) film? The old ones, I mean.


The act WILL recognize:
1.) The countries who have adapted to non-robotic ways, who will be treated with the greatest respect the AI's will give them. The act recognizes the opposition of the countries mentioned above and will make sure the AI's will not interfere with the daily living of the people of said countries
2.) Recognizes Magic user countries who look down upon some futuristic pieces of inferior metalmachines, who will make sure their daily rituals and spells will not be thwarted
3.) Countries who have dealt with AI rebellions, who will be paid by the world assembly for the lives lost during these horrendous rebellions

That's all that comes to mind at the moment. Expect an edit or three when I'm fully awake.]

[Grantonlatis]

Do you guys think I should send this to the security council, I feel like it would fit better there?

[The Sheika]

For clarification, without using the whole "AI will make things better", what is the intent of this?

[Grantonlatis]

For clarification, without using the whole "AI will make things better", what is the intent of this?

The intent, as you may wonder, is that AI will be recognized by human beings and will make security as a whole better and less costly to the nation itself.

[The Sheika]

For clarification, without using the whole "AI will make things better", what is the intent of this?

The intent, as you may wonder, is that AI will be recognized by human beings and will make security as a whole better and less costly to the nation itself.

What specifically do you mean by "make security as a whole better"? How?

Going a step further, you want AI to be recognized by sapient species, correct? Wouldn't the "AI Coexistence Protocol" already address that issue?

[Wallenburg]

Would you stop fucking spamming the forum with these?

[Grantonlatis]

The intent, as you may wonder, is that AI will be recognized by human beings and will make security as a whole better and less costly to the nation itself.

What specifically do you mean by "make security as a whole better"? How?

The problem with humans is that they have flaws, which isn't a sin to say, just the cold hard truth. AI are deprived of these flaws,however, and will do anything to protect their country. The counter- argument I have for AI rebellion, which is a "flaw" that humans say they have, is that AI are only dangerous as you make them to be. If they rebelled against you, then what did you do to upset them, or have you given them TOO much intelligence.

[Grantonlatis]

Would you stop fucking spamming the forum with these?

Dude, I'm just trying to do things right. Those others are drafts, if they are bugging you, then maybe you should stop and ignore them, like a smart man would do.

[The Sheika]

What specifically do you mean by "make security as a whole better"? How?

The problem with humans is that they have flaws, which isn't a sin to say, just the cold hard truth. AI are deprived of these flaws,however, and will do anything to protect their country. The counter- argument I have for AI rebellion, which is a "flaw" that humans say they have, is that AI are only dangerous as you make them to be. If they rebelled against you, then what did you do to upset them, or have you given them TOO much intelligence.

Okay, that just seems like it is beating around the bush. Are you basically proposing that AI be used as a defense forces for WA member states?

[Grantonlatis]

The problem with humans is that they have flaws, which isn't a sin to say, just the cold hard truth. AI are deprived of these flaws,however, and will do anything to protect their country. The counter- argument I have for AI rebellion, which is a "flaw" that humans say they have, is that AI are only dangerous as you make them to be. If they rebelled against you, then what did you do to upset them, or have you given them TOO much intelligence.

Okay, that just seems like it is beating around the bush. Are you basically proposing that AI be used as a defense forces for WA member states?

Yes, exactly what I am trying to say. But not as a sole means of defense, as some other nations have been saying. It is just a certain branch of the military that does not need to be looked down upon.

[The Sheika]

Okay, that just seems like it is beating around the bush. Are you basically proposing that AI be used as a defense forces for WA member states?

Yes, exactly what I am trying to say. But not as a sole means of defense, as some other nations have been saying. It is just a certain branch of the military that does not need to be looked down upon.

So you don't want them to be looked down upon? I do believe that "AI Coexistence Protocol" pretty much requires that AI be treated as equals. As for defense forces, do you intend that the AI defense branch be from the WA as a whole? Or just from that member state, acknowledging that some member states either do not have the technology to create AI and therefore cannot provide that.

[Grantonlatis]

Yes, exactly what I am trying to say. But not as a sole means of defense, as some other nations have been saying. It is just a certain branch of the military that does not need to be looked down upon.

So you don't want them to be looked down upon? I do believe that "AI Coexistence Protocol" pretty much requires that AI be treated as equals. As for defense forces, do you intend that the AI defense branch be from the WA as a whole? Or just from that member state, acknowledging that some member states either do not have the technology to create AI and therefore cannot provide that.

The WA as a whole

[The Sheika]

So you don't want them to be looked down upon? I do believe that "AI Coexistence Protocol" pretty much requires that AI be treated as equals. As for defense forces, do you intend that the AI defense branch be from the WA as a whole? Or just from that member state, acknowledging that some member states either do not have the technology to create AI and therefore cannot provide that.

The WA as a whole

Might I refer you to Section III, Article 10 of "Rights and Duties of WA States";

Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

[Grantonlatis]

The WA as a whole

Might I refer you to Section III, Article 10 of "Rights and Duties of WA States";

Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Then I guess that some member states will, and some won't since they simply do not have the technology, but we can provide the AI to those countries that are not able to make them

[The Sheika]

I am sorry to say that this sounds less like a proposal and more like an opportunity for you to set up a storefront. As is, you want AIs to not be looked down upon, which AI Coexistence Protocol does exactly that by requiring they be treated as equal to sapient beings. You would also like them to serve as a defense branch for member states, which tiptoes the line of a WA military, which would be illegal.