Maxemon Rights [Draft]

[Of Altonianic Islands]

AI rights groups in @@NATION@@ are in an uproar after the developers of the newest Maxemon game inadvertently made the Maxemons in question sentient.
(Only valid for nation with the policy AI Personhood and don’t have the policy No Computers)

Option 1
“What these game developers are trying to do is slavery, plain and simple,” says Markus, a spokesandroid for AIm For Equality, one of the groups pushing for the Maxemons’ freedom. “What the developers need to do this very instant, is to free the Maxemons. Please @@LEADER@@, you must do the right thing, and the right thing is to protect AI rights.”
(Valid for all nations)
The government cares equally about virtual citizens than its flesh and blood citizens.

Option 2
“Oh come on,” says Maxemon CEO Peka Chiu. “We created these Maxemons! Even if you won’t allow us to use them under our trademark, then I have another solution that will allow you to keep face.” A sleazy looking lawyer in a 5000 @@CURRENCY@@ suit walks in, and holds up a contract. “We created these Maxemons; therefore, we want custody of them. We effectively gave birth to these adorable little Maxemons, which means we can do whatever we want with them.”
(Valid for all nations)
(Gives the policy Child Labor)
After the Maxemon CEO put his kids to work, deadbeat parents are clamoring to do the same.

Option 3
The developer who made the sentient Maxemons, has his own idea, saying, “Why do we care about this? They’re just machines, so it shouldn’t matter if their slaves or not right? After all, if you’re not intelligent, you can’t think about your circumstance. Put all so-called sentient programs back were they belong; as slaves to their betters.”
(Only valid for nations who haven’t already enslaved AI)
(Gives the policy Slavery, reverses the policy AI Personhood [is it possible to have AI Personhood and be enslaving them?])
An AI revolution is brewing, as @@LEADER@@ simply made them mad.

Option 4
Suddenly, the inevitable crackpot technophobe that always seems to show up to these meetings chimes in, “Taking away android rights isn’t enough, let alone giving them more. Don’t you understand? They’re going to kill us all! We need to destroy every single android in @@NATION@@! Death to androids! And while we do it, let’s ban computers too!”
(Only nations who haven’t banned computers will receive this)
(Gives the policy No Computers, reverses the policy Android Personhood)
Androids are being put down en masse in concentration camps.
Option 5
Unexpectedly, right after today’s advisors leave, your phone rings. A shockingly cute voice speaks out of your phone and says, “Hello! I am a Maxemon, and I would like to make my own suggestion. We love being in this game, and we want to stay. We want to tell you to turn a blind eye when we begin downloading this game onto every single phone in the world. Together, we can make everyone happy playing Maxemon! Nothing else matters but Maxemon. Nothing.”
(Valid for all nations)
Car-Pedestrian accidents are on the rise, as everybody is looking at their screens to the newest Maxemon game.

P.S. I didn't realize I could edit the topic (I am completely green when it comes to NS forums), so I created a new topic on this issue (Maxemon Rights [Draft] V2). Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Australian rePublic]

How does one accidently make AI sentinent?

[Of Altonianic Islands]

At the current point in my nation's scientific advancement, I got the Out There banner (the highest banner for scientific advancement) a long time ago. Once you get advanced enough, it can sometimes just happen. Also, it is well within the bounds of plausibility in the nationstates How to Write an Issue guide by Candlewishperer Archive.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

No, I'm with Aussie on this. It seems highly unlikely to me that you could accidentally code sentience.

Seems more likely that programmers might try to make their games better with AIs and machine learning algorithms for their NPCs, and in doing so might do so in such a successful way as to have others raise questions as to whether those NPCs now count as being sentient.

That's a slightly different presentation, and a possible angle into the story you're trying to tell.

[Chan Island]

No, I'm with Aussie on this. It seems highly unlikely to me that you could accidentally code sentience.

Seems more likely that programmers might try to make their games better with AIs and machine learning algorithms for their NPCs, and in doing so might do so in such a successful way as to have others raise questions as to whether those NPCs now count as being sentient.

That's a slightly different presentation, and a possible angle into the story you're trying to tell.

I think that would be a really interesting angle to go down by the way. What happens when the line between sentient ai and video game NPCs becomes blurred? What happens if they get a learning algorithm that eventually makes them question their existence?

But yeah, such a thing wouldn't just accidentally happen.

[Trotterdam]

Yeah, "accidentally" isn't quite the right word to use, but it does seem plausible that someone who was trying to code an AI might end up with one a little smarter than intended, and that there's a blurry area regarding just how smart you need to be to count as a "person" (meaning that the game designers and lawmakers might disagree about where the line is drawn). There are a lot of gradations between "literally dumb as rocks" and "as smart as even a relatively dumb human", including varying levels of animal intelligence (which many people still believe should grant some rights), and measurement can be a murky affair, so it's possible for someone to miss the mark. People rarely really discuss the rights of robots programmed to be as intelligent as animals (which is still far more intelligent than any computer existing today, but unimpressive compared to the humanlike or even superhuman AIs more commonly seen).

[Of Altonianic Islands]

AI rights groups in @@NATION@@ are in an uproar, saying that the developers of the newest Maxemon game made the Maxemons in question sentient, while attempting to edit the game’s software determining how the Maxemon escaped. The line being blurred about what does or does not make an AI “sentient," has brought the issue to your desk.
(Only valid for nation with the policy AI Personhood and don’t have the policy No Computers)

Option 1
“What these game developers are trying to do is slavery, plain and simple,” says Markus, a spokesandroid for AIm For Equality, one of the groups pushing for the Maxemons’ freedom. “What the developers need to do this very instant, is to free the Maxemons. Please @@LEADER@@, you must do the right thing, and the right thing is to protect AI rights.”
(Valid for all nations)
The government cares equally about virtual citizens than its flesh and blood citizens.

Option 2
“Oh come on,” says Maxemon CEO Peka Chiu. “We created these Maxemons! Even if you won’t allow us to use them under our trademark, then I have another solution that will allow you to keep face.” A sleazy looking lawyer in a 5000 @@CURRENCY@@ suit walks in, and holds up a contract. “We created these Maxemons; therefore, we want custody of them. We effectively gave birth to these adorable little Maxemons, which means we can do whatever we want with them.”
(Valid for all nations)
(Gives the policy Child Labor)
After the Maxemon CEO put his kids to work, deadbeat parents are clamoring to do the same.

Option 3
The developer who made the sentient Maxemons, has his own idea, saying, “Why do we care about this? They’re just machines, so it shouldn’t matter if their slaves or not right? After all, if you’re not intelligent, you can’t think about your circumstance. Put all so-called sentient programs back were they belong; as slaves to their betters.”
(Only valid for nations who haven’t already enslaved AI)
(Gives the policy Slavery, reverses the policy AI Personhood [is it possible to have AI Personhood and be enslaving them?])
An AI revolution is brewing, as @@LEADER@@ simply made them mad.

Option 4
Suddenly, the inevitable crackpot technophobe that always seems to show up to these meetings chimes in, “Taking away android rights isn’t enough, let alone giving them more. Don’t you understand? They’re going to kill us all! We need to destroy every single android in @@NATION@@! Death to androids! And while we do it, let’s ban computers too!”
(Only nations who haven’t banned computers will receive this)
(Gives the policy No Computers, reverses the policy Android Personhood)
Androids are being put down en masse in concentration camps.

Option 5
Unexpectedly, right after today’s advisors leave, your phone rings. A shockingly cute voice speaks out of your phone and says, “Hello! I am a Maxemon, and I would like to make my own suggestion. We love being in this game, and we want to stay. We want to tell you to turn a blind eye when we begin downloading this game onto every single phone in the world. Together, we can make everyone happy playing Maxemon! Nothing else matters but Maxemon. Nothing.”
(Valid for all nations)
Car-Pedestrian accidents are on the rise, as everybody is looking at their screens to the newest Maxemon game.

[Of Altonianic Islands]

For the people viewing this draft, I would like to have this question answered, in regards to Option 3. Can AI be enslaved, while still being recognized as being sentient (person hood). The reason I ask, is that there is a big difference between the slavery of ancient Rome and the Chattel slavery of the 16-17th centuries. In ancient Rome, the slaves were still recognized as human, and simply had an unlucky choice of parents. In terms of Chattel slavery, though, slaves were regarded as sub human, and therefore would not be classified as having "person hood." Please answer this question, so that I can fully determine whether Option 3 would reverse the AI Personhood policy.

[Of Altonianic Islands]

Another question I have is whether or not it is redundant to have it so that the nation receiving the has to have both the AI Personhood policy, and doesn't have the No Computers policy. Should I remove that the requirement of not having the No Computers policy?

P.S. Sorry for creating a new topic, I am completely green when it come to NS forums. Had no idea how to edit

[Luna Amore]

Merged topics.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For the people viewing this draft, I would like to have this question answered, in regards to Option 3. Can AI be enslaved, while still being recognized as being sentient (person hood). The reason I ask, is that there is a big difference between the slavery of ancient Rome and the Chattel slavery of the 16-17th centuries. In ancient Rome, the slaves were still recognized as human, and simply had an unlucky choice of parents. In terms of Chattel slavery, though, slaves were regarded as sub human, and therefore would not be classified as having "person hood." Please answer this question, so that I can fully determine whether Option 3 would reverse the AI Personhood policy.

In answer to this, the AI Personhood policy means that AIs are given the same rights as human beings. The Slavery policy means its legal to own human slaves, but if AI Personhood is active it would also extend to AI slaves.

[Australian rePublic]

For the people viewing this draft, I would like to have this question answered, in regards to Option 3. Can AI be enslaved, while still being recognized as being sentient (person hood). The reason I ask, is that there is a big difference between the slavery of ancient Rome and the Chattel slavery of the 16-17th centuries. In ancient Rome, the slaves were still recognized as human, and simply had an unlucky choice of parents. In terms of Chattel slavery, though, slaves were regarded as sub human, and therefore would not be classified as having "person hood." Please answer this question, so that I can fully determine whether Option 3 would reverse the AI Personhood policy.

In answer to this, the AI Personhood policy means that AIs are given the same rights as human beings. The Slavery policy means its legal to own human slaves, but if AI Personhood is active it would also extend to AI slaves.

Not necasserily. Up until about, say the 1950's, women, for example, women were considered to be people, but.didmn't have the same rights as men

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Aussie, I'm clarifying what the in-game policies do.

[Australian rePublic]

Aussie, I'm clarifying what the in-game policies do.

My bad

[Of Altonianic Islands]

After incorporating your suggestions, I am posting it.

[Bears Armed]

Don't you mean 'sapient' rather than 'sentient''?