[DRAFT]Nice night for a walk

[Perelingo]

The conditions to encounter this issue are as follows : AIs must have citizenship, elections must be held (as of the first option), and the nation must also have the AI-planning policy.
A minimum Educational funding might be a good idea too.
This indeed is filled with references to the Dune prequels' universe, with some hints to Terminator, Aliens, 2001, Anon, Upgrade (those being movies).

Title
Nice night for a walk

Description
Since Artificial Intelligence have been given the same individual rights as human citizens, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Office of Statistics have shown that the amount of AIs in positions of direction in the high-tech sector have recently skyrocketed. The main origin of this sudden rise is considered to be the natural ability of machines for high-tech and administrative organization. The recent promotion of Erasmus, a former antivirus, to the position of Chief R&D Manager of Yeyland-Wutani©, raised some contradictory concerns as of the wisdom of placing the future of @@NAME@@'s high-tech industry in the hands of artificial persons.

Option 1
"This is juste how things must go", says Omnius, another sophisticated AI, popping into your computer. "See how Erasmus turned your crippled High-Tech industry into such a wonderful growing sector. (Maybe make another version if the High-Tech is low in the nation ?) Imagine what he would do if he ran the whole country instead ! It is just the start of it. We programs are just more fit to organize society and human lives than mundanes - you just have got to live with it. Our citizenship should carry more weight, to begin with, and the biologics remaining in public offices should be replaced by good and efficient Artificial Persons, before something bad happens with the world."

Effect
AL 6000 is foreseen as the next leader of @@NAME@@

Option 2 (if the nation is capitalist)
"Well, I believe this is going a bit too far", nervously chuckles @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of Digidyne Systems. "We should definitely use the special abilities machines can provide, but just imagine if that Erasmus glitches ! The consequences on our society could be dramatic ! Humans should merge with machines, not leaving them in the driving seat. Look, we recently developped Stem, a chip placed in the skull which helps the users in their everyday lives, showing the consequences of one's actions, helping for mathematics homework, advising about which product to buy... What could possibly go wrong ?"

Effect
advertisement is now litteraly capable of reaching the inside of one's mind

Option 3
"This is just heretic nonsense", claims @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Butler, the national Orange archbishop, carrying @@HIS@@ Orange shotgun with a hateful glance towards Omnius. "The Sacred Scriptures crearly specifies it : "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." And now they're trying to take the lead of our technology industry ? What's next, a robotic president ? This is clearly the time to act, don't just take away the civil rights they don't deserve : ban those godless thinking machines from the face of the universe once and for all ! Well, from the face of our merciful @@TYPE@@, to begin with." Seeing the young priest following @@HIM@@ shutting his eyes due to the late hour, @@HE@@ turns around and yells : "The sleeper must awaken !"

Effect
vending machines are often destroyed to keep computers from taking control

Option 4 (maybe make a distinct version for capitalist countries ?)
"Please, think of all the good we can get from a nice little compromise position", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Big Tech and Computers. "The machines are doing a great service to our society doing what they do best : using the full capacities of their CPU, which is a neural-net processor, a learning computer, in the fields of science and technology. Boot them out of every center of decision, so that my department can use them as much as we need."

Effect
"404 resource not found" has replaced "separated but equal" as the master rule concerning AIs civil rights

Title
Nice night for a walk

Description
Since Artificial Intellingence have been given the same individual rights as human citizens, numerous sources across the country report that AIs are naturally/designed to be (not yet decided) much more qualified than humans in various professionnal skills, specifically in the range of knowledge, intelligence, management or leadership. As a result, the amount of artificial persons holding positions in these sectors is continuously increasing. The story of the AI Erasmus, who was recently given the job of Chief Director of the Research and Science Department in the Corrin University, is at the center of everyone's attention. It is pinpointed to hold a decisive and overly qualified office, and some citizens are starting to feel concerned whether or not having an AI there is a wise decision.

Option 1
"This is juste how things must go", says Omnius, another sophisticated AI, popping into your computer. "We programs are just more fit to organize society and human lives than mundanes. Our citizenship should carry more weight, to begin with, and the biologics remaining in public offices should be replaced by good and efficient Artificial Persons, before something bad happens with the world."

Effect
AL 6000 is foreseen as the next leader of @@NAME@@

Option 2 (if the nation is capitalist)
"Well, I believe this is going a bit too far", nervously chuckles @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of Digidyne Systems. "Humans should merge with machines, not leaving them in the driving seat. Look, we recently developped Stem, a chip placed in the skull which helps the users in their everyday lives, showing the consequences of one's actions, helping for mathematics homework, advising about which product to buy..."

Effect
advertisement is now litteraly capable of reaching the inside of one's mind

Option 3
"This is just heretic nonsense", claims @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Butler, the national Orange archbishop, carrying @@HIS@@ Orange shotgun with a hateful glance towards Omnius. "The Sacred Scriptures crearly specifies it : "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." And now they're trying to take the lead of our society ? This is clearly the time to act, don't just take away the civil rights they don't deserve : ban those godless thinking machines from the face of the universe once and for all ! Well, from the face of our merciful @@TYPE@@, to begin with." Seeing the young priest following @@HIM@@ shutting his eyes due to the late hour, @@HE@@ turns around and yells : "The sleeper must awaken !"

Effect
vending machines are often destroyed to keep computers from taking control

Option 4 (maybe make a distinct version for capitalist countries)
"Please, think of all the good we can get from a nice little compromise position", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Big Thinkings and Science. "The machines are doing a great service to our society doing what they do best : using the full capacities of their CPU, which is a neural-net processor, a learning computer, in the fields of science and technology. Boot them out of every center of decision, so that my department can use them as much as we need."

Effect
"404 resource not found" has replaced "separated but equal" as the master rule concerning AIs civil rights

Title
Nice night for a walk

Description
In the small township of Corrin, near @@CAPITAL@@, a child removed from the custody of his parents due to their too low IQ, an orphan was placed under the supervision of Erasmus, an IA. Now, the 10 years old @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ is triple graduated and enters @@HIS@@ new job at the National Advanced Science Agency.
Numerous sources across the country report that AIs have a much higher rate of success than humans in intelligence tests, thus increasing the amount of artificial persons accessing qualified or decisive positions.

Option 1
"This is juste how things must go", says Omnius, another sophisticated AI, popping into your computer. "We programs are just more fit to organize society and human lives than mundanes. Our citizenship should carry more weight, to begin with, and the biologics remaining in public offices should be replaced by good and efficient machines, before something bad happens with the world."

Effect
AL 6000 is foreseen as the next leader of @@NAME@@

Option 2 (if the nation is capitalist)
"Well, I believe this is going a bit too far", nervously chuckles @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of Digidyne Systems. "Humans should merge with machines, not leaving them in the driving seat. Look, we recently developped Stem, a chip placed in the skull which helps the users in their everyday lives, showing the consequences of one's actions, helping for mathematics homework, advising about which product to buy..."

Effect
advertisement is now litteraly capable of reaching the inside of one's mind

Option 3
"This is just heretic nonsense", claims @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Butler, the national Orange archbishop, carrying @@HIS@@ Orange shotgun with a hateful glance towards Omnius. "The Sacred Scriptures crearly specifies it : "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." And now they're trying to take away our very children in their the lead of our society ? This is clearly the time to act : ban those godless thinking machines from the face of the universe once and for all ! Well, from the face of our merciful @@TYPE@@, to begin with." Seeing the young priest following @@HIM@@ shutting his eyes due to the late hour, @@HE@@ turns around and yells : "The sleeper must awaken !"

Effect
vending machines are often destroyed to keep computers from taking control

Option 4
"Please, think of all the good we can get from a nice little compromise position", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Educationnal and Youth Affairs Big Thinkings and Science. "The Artificial Persons, such as my faithful assistent Bishop, are doing a great service to our society doing what they do best : teaching and helping our youngest population growing up using the full capacities of their CPU, which is a neural-net processor, a learning computer, in the name of Science. While keeping them from booting them out of centers of decision, we should increase their participation in the affairs concerning my department."

Effect
"404 resource not found" is the children's favourite bedtime story most commonly used rule of thumb in Research facilities

[Australian rePublic]

Have AIs even existed for long enough for grown adults to have been raised by them? Also, how did the kid turn out so well with AI guardians? This is a whole nature vs nuture which strongly favours nurture

[Perelingo]

Given the realism of the time flow in this game (i.e : population), I don't think that policy longevity is a problem. Besides, the kid is 10 but there's no info as to when he was taken from his parents, it could only be a few weeks.

how did the kid turn out so well with AI guardians?

The AIs was probably programmed to do it well and didn't have a life to live on the side of being parent/guardian... Who cares anyway ?

This is a whole nature vs nuture which strongly favours nurture

Well if everything were considered natural then there would be really nothing to be acted for or against in the matter of raising children, right ? The irrealism of the whole idea should be enough not to be favouring anything in a serious manner.

[Australian rePublic]

Moving on. What in the fudge has the title gotta do with anything?

[Perelingo]

It's a quote from Terminator, I added a reference to AIs for lack of a better idea.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

In the small township of Corrin, near @@CAPITAL@@, a child removed from the custody of his parents due to their too low IQ, was placed under the supervision of Erasmus, an IA. Now, the 10 years old @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ is triple graduated and enters @@HIS@@ new job at the National Advanced Science Agency.

Too much crazy. I think maybe pick ONE of these elements. For example:

The AI in charge of national planning has caused controversy after it determined that children of low IQ should be removed from the care of their birth parents and given to highly intelligent AIs for their upbringing.

That, for example, would give more context to the weirdness, explaining that it's a consequence of choosing AI planning, and would allow for a simple debate between AIs arguing for "proven" best outcome for the children, and pro-human sorts saying that it's a horrifying example of heartless machine thinking.

Or you could pick a different element, like:

The Teacher's Union is on strike after a local high school laid off half its human teachers, and replaced them with AIs.

Either way, the key here is focus. Focus in on a single dilemma, give us exactly the information we need and no more.

[Bears Armed]

Admit it, they scooped out the child's own brain altogether [& discarded it] and replaced it with a computer housing an AI that wlll now pass as human to spy on society...
And who knows how many other people they plan to do this with?!?

[Chan Island]

Not many places remove children from their parents merely because they have a low IQ. If you were going to go down the "a robot raised a child and it turned out super smart" route, then at the very least it should be an orphan or because of drugs, abuse etc.

I love the last option's effect line.

Have AIs even existed for long enough for grown adults to have been raised by them? Also, how did the kid turn out so well with AI guardians? This is a whole nature vs nuture which strongly favours nurture

No, but in the future they will.

Though I too am curious about the implied balance. The complete extent too which nature interacts with nurture in childhood is still a hotly contested subject, and this draft leans too heavily on one side. Again though, that dilemma goes away if you make the reason why the ai got the child one that isn't related to IQ (ie; substance abuse, domestic violence, psychological abuse and all of the other reasons why social workers might intervene in a family).

Admit it, they scooped out the child's own brain altogether [& discarded it] and replaced it with a computer housing an AI that wlll now pass as human to spy on society...
And who knows how many other people they plan to do this with?!?

This needs to be an option.

[Perelingo]

Admit it, they scooped out the child's own brain altogether [& discarded it] and replaced it with a computer housing an AI that wlll now pass as human to spy on society...
And who knows how many other people they plan to do this with?!?

Too much crazy. I think maybe pick ONE of these elements. For example:

The AI in charge of national planning has caused controversy after it determined that children of low IQ should be removed from the care of their birth parents and given to highly intelligent AIs for their upbringing.

That, for example, would give more context to the weirdness, explaining that it's a consequence of choosing AI planning, and would allow for a simple debate between AIs arguing for "proven" best outcome for the children, and pro-human sorts saying that it's a horrifying example of heartless machine thinking.

Or you could pick a different element, like:

The Teacher's Union is on strike after a local high school laid off half its human teachers, and replaced them with AIs.

Either way, the key here is focus. Focus in on a single dilemma, give us exactly the information we need and no more.

I agree my description is out of focus, and the IQ business was not planned to be it.
If I was not clear enough, the parents were meant to have a too low IQ to take care of the child. The child was normal (well, before the AIs took care of him, that is...).
It was more about the consequences of AIs (sorry if I wrote IA, in french it spells backwards) being citizens and integrating in a human society. So how about just removing "their too low IQ" and replacing it with more vague stuff, to express that they were too careless without blaming any particular cause ? Or they could simply be dead, and the child simply being an orphan adopted by a robot ?

Not many places remove children from their parents merely because they have a low IQ.

In france we do

If you were going to go down the "a robot raised a child and it turned out super smart" route, then at the very least it should be an orphan or because of drugs, abuse etc.

The drugs reference could inadvertently alienate some nations, but the orphan thing is a god idea. I'll keep it, I believe.

I love the last option's effect line.

Thank you

[Chan Island]

Admit it, they scooped out the child's own brain altogether [& discarded it] and replaced it with a computer housing an AI that wlll now pass as human to spy on society...
And who knows how many other people they plan to do this with?!?

Too much crazy. I think maybe pick ONE of these elements. For example:



That, for example, would give more context to the weirdness, explaining that it's a consequence of choosing AI planning, and would allow for a simple debate between AIs arguing for "proven" best outcome for the children, and pro-human sorts saying that it's a horrifying example of heartless machine thinking.

Or you could pick a different element, like:



Either way, the key here is focus. Focus in on a single dilemma, give us exactly the information we need and no more.

I agree my description is out of focus, and the IQ business was not planned to be it.
If I was not clear enough, the parents were meant to have a too low IQ to take care of the child. The child was normal (well, before the AIs took care of him, that is...).
It was more about the consequences of AIs (sorry if I wrote IA, in french it spells backwards) being citizens and integrating in a human society. So how about just removing "their too low IQ" and replacing it with more vague stuff, to express that they were too careless without blaming any particular cause ? Or they could simply be dead, and the child simply being an orphan adopted by a robot ?

Not many places remove children from their parents merely because they have a low IQ.

In france we do

If you were going to go down the "a robot raised a child and it turned out super smart" route, then at the very least it should be an orphan or because of drugs, abuse etc.

The drugs reference could inadvertently alienate some nations, but the orphan thing is a god idea. I'll keep it, I believe.

I love the last option's effect line.

Thank you

Ah, you're thinking from the point of view of France; that makes the IQ thing make sense. France is however the exception so orphan is probably a better route to go down.

Assuming of course you even stick with the idea of a robot raising a child.

[Perelingo]

Ah, you're thinking from the point of view of France; that makes the IQ thing make sense. France is however the exception so orphan is probably a better route to go down.

Yeah, that was a mistake. I updated the first post.

Also if someone thinks of a better name for the issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Trotterdam]

We have a policy for Parental Licensing. Taking children away from their parents for anything short of proven abuse should generally be restricted to nations with that policy.

However, regardless of whether the biological parents' intelligence is made the reason for the adoption or not, the adoptive parent's intelligence is still the core of the narrative, and it just doesn't make sense that being raised by a genius (AI or human) would make the child into a genius as well. Sure, the child would be exposed to more science-y stuff and likely to pick up some, but there are so many other factors, including the child's own aptitude, and the child's schoolteachers. Smart parents often raise dumb children and dumb parents often raise smart children.

Of course it could happen that this particular child just coincidentally happened to be a prodigy anyway, or even that the AI had figured out how to scout out child prodigies and deliberately adopted one... or, of course, as Bears Armed suggested, that the child's brain had been scooped out and replaced with a computer, which I'd honestly suspect if someone "triple-graduated by the age of 10".

Regardless, "AIs adopting our children will turn them smarter!" just doesn't seem like a sensible talking point for starting out a discussion on the rights of AIs to adopt children.

For that matter, rather little of the issue is about adoption to begin with. Option 1 wants to have AIs replace the government, option 2 is all about cyborgization, option 3 just bans AIs entirely. None of those directly discuss adoption. Only option 4 actually involves childcare in any way.

The issue needs a better premise and more focus.

[Perelingo]

The issue needs a better premise and more focus.

Now updated.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Numerous sources across the country report that AIs have a much higher rate of success than humans in intelligence tests, thus increasing the amount of artificial persons accessing qualified or decisive positions.

This is so far from your draft 1 premise that you may as well have made this a new draft, tbh.

Anyway, as a premise this is fine, but I think it is phrased awkwardly. Also we have other issues asks if an AI could run government better, if AIs could make better surgeons, and if AIs could make better judges. Those issues have a better approach, looking at one occupation and asking the question if AIs are more suited. This premise is too wide

[Perelingo]

Also we have other issues asks if an AI could run government better, if AIs could make better surgeons, and if AIs could make better judges. Those issues have a better approach, looking at one occupation and asking the question if AIs are more suited. This premise is too wide

I think I'm going to change the premise and make it more precise, and change the last option. I want to make this more about the civic integration of AIs in the human society.

EDIT : updated the draft, option 4 is now making AIs second-grade citizens, references to segregation and apartheid

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Since Artificial Intellingence were give the same individual rights as human citizens, numerous sources across the country report that AIs have a much higher rate of success than humans in intelligence tests. As a result, the amount of artificial persons accessing qualified or decisive positions is continuously increasing.

It's not really clear English, this. Can you try again, and perhaps focus the issue on something more specific?

[Perelingo]

Can you try again, and perhaps focus the issue on something more specific?

Done

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Since Artificial Intellingence have been given the same individual rights as human citizens, numerous sources across the country report that AIs are showing a much higher rate of success than humans in intelligence tests. As a result, the amount of artificial persons holding qualified or decisive positions is continuously increasing. The story of the AI Erasmus, who was recently given the job of Research Director at the Corrin University, is at the center of everyone's attention, and some citizens are starting to feel concerned.

Sadly it's still not really coming together here. It's hard to define, but this basically doesn't fit how issues are presented. What you have here is a vague premise, followed by an overly specific example. What you need is a specific premise.

Take a look at 587, 715, 931, 1018 and 1218 as examples of how to do it right. 587 in particular is a good one, as it asks about the suitability of AIs for a specific job.

[Perelingo]

What you need is a specific premise.

[...] it asks about the suitability of AIs for a specific job.

My issue is not about a specific job, or a specific social issue, it's about the impact and consequences of AI citizenship on the labor market, and more specifically on the market of qualified jobs. Hence the position of Research Director, which is simultaneously a position of power and a job concerning science.
Your issue 715 is built exactly the same way - concerning the description. Large-scale context, then specific issue about one particular robot. In fact, I consider my premise as arguably more specific than yours.
None of my options specifically adress the case of Erasmus, is that really the problem here ? Should I make one of the first option raisers mention Erasmus explicitly ?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm asking you to justify why your issue doesn't need to change, whereas what is actually happening is that I'm telling you how your issue needs to change in order to be published.

Let's try this again in different words:

Since Artificial Intellingence have been given the same individual rights as human citizens, numerous sources across the country report that AIs are showing a much higher rate of success than humans in intelligence tests. As a result, the amount of artificial persons holding qualified or decisive positions is continuously increasing. The story of the AI Erasmus, who was recently given the job of Research Director at the Corrin University, is at the center of everyone's attention, and some citizens are starting to feel concerned.

The premise doesn't work as it stands. Why are numerous sources doing intelligence tests comparing humans and AIs? What is an "intelligence test" anyway? What does an intelligence test have to do with holding qualified or decisive positions? Qualified positions get held by people with qualifications. Decisive positions get held by people who get put in leadership positions, which is generally a function of charisma, connections and determination, not of intelligence. Then, why is a single AI getting a single job of no particular significance the centre of attention?

It just doesn't work as a story.

Basically, you need to make your premise better, as it doesn't work as written. Don't argue that it does. Either make the premise better, and head towards publication, or leave as it is, and head for the rejected issue pile.

[Perelingo]

The premise doesn't work as it stands. Why are numerous sources doing intelligence tests comparing humans and AIs? What is an "intelligence test" anyway? What does an intelligence test have to do with holding qualified or decisive positions? Qualified positions get held by people with qualifications. Decisive positions get held by people who get put in leadership positions, which is generally a function of charisma, connections and determination, not of intelligence. Then, why is a single AI getting a single job of no particular significance the centre of attention?

It just doesn't work as a story.

Basically, you need to make your premise better, as it doesn't work as written.

I hope you understand that by saying that my point was not to undermine your #715 issue, I was trying to understand the thing that was causing the problem.
The "intelligence tests" passage was rephrased and modified,n I hope that solves the issue with my premise.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Since Artificial Intellingence have been given the same individual rights as human citizens, numerous sources across the country report that AIs are naturally/designed to be (not yet decided) much more qualified than humans in various professionnal skills, specifically in the range of knowledge, intelligence, management or leadership. As a result, the amount of artificial persons holding positions in these sectors is continuously increasing. The story of the AI Erasmus, who was recently given the job of Chief Director of the Research and Science Department in the Corrin University, is at the center of everyone's attention. It is pinpointed to hold a decisive and overly qualified office, and some citizens are starting to feel concerned whether or not having an AI there is a wise decision.

No, this still isn't working. You've added lots of words, but the premise itself is still not focused. You're basically asking what should be done about AIs being more qualified than humans at pretty much all jobs. There's also no reason why that premise has anything to do with AI personhood - how AIs are treated and viewed doesn't determine their capabilities.

Essentially you're just saying "computers can do most jobs better than humans". That's not an issue, that's an unfounded assertion.

Pick one job, and focus the issue on that, and explain why the AIs are better at that job, and why this is a problem.

[Perelingo]

Pick one job, and focus the issue on that, and explain why the AIs are better at that job, and why this is a problem.

My focus is on jobs of decision and of science. My option 3 advocates keeping the AIs from any job, and options 3 and 4 keeping them from decisive and managerial jobs.
Should a shorter version of this part about explaining why it's a problem be moved or copied to the premise, is that what you're saying ?
Is it also necessary to explain why scientific and managerial tasks are better done by robots and machines ?
I'm not sure that's what you mean.

how AIs are treated and viewed doesn't determine their capabilities.

Well if they are used as office computers by humans with administrative and managerial jobs, if they glitch the person notices it and does the maths by itself, whereas if the machine has civil rights, it does have exactly the same abilities but its decisions may be enacted without further control. Plus the common issue of stuff taking people's jobs.
Should this explanation be inluded in positions 4, after a rephrase ?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

My focus is on jobs of decision and of science.

Pick one job, and then in a succinct way, explain why it is an issue.

Maybe something like:

AI citizens tailor-built to be expert managers are finding great success in the civil service. However, not everybody is happy about this.

or

Increasing numbers of jobs in academia are going to AI citizens, thanks to their superior ability to download and retain information. But is education losing its human touch?

or

More and more often, AI citizens are claiming top jobs in the computing industry, with their natural affinity for coding and ability to work far faster than humans giving them a significant edge. Now AIs are programming more-advanced AIs, and some are fearfully speaking about the AI singularity and human obsolescence...

Basically, make it ONE premise, and deliver that premise in a focused way.

[Perelingo]

My focus is on jobs of decision and of science.

Pick one job, and then in a succinct way, explain why it is an issue.

So, if I keep the "research director" job of university being globally taken by AIs, or something equivalent as high-tech department manager or minister, or whatever, but keeping these particular jobs as the main focus of the issue. My option 3 bigot says the managing part is a problem and the science/tech part is a problem. My option 4 manager says the managing part is a problem but the science part is not. With the AI supremacist as option 1 and the optional option 2, that would make a balanced issue with a correct (and more focused) premise, right ?