[ISSUE DRAFT] Watts Up With Welfare?

by **Orcuo** » Sun Mar 31, 2024 1:45 pm

Something I whipped up. Another one of those experimental drafts. Criticism is always welcomed.

Current Draft

[Title]: Watts Up With Welfare?

[Validity]: Must have AI Personhood policy; medium or low level welfare

[Description]: Pandemonium ensues after records report a mass terminal power-off of lower-class artificially intelligent (AI) citizens after recent extreme weather events being unable to pay their electricity bills. The synthetic community at large have joined together in a call to action for the government to include electricity in @@NAME@@‘s welfare for the less fortunate.

[Option (1)]: "Our demands are simple." Says E5-@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@, a low-wage AI worker. "Just as humans require food and water, we require electricity. We have suffered through the harsh seasons with many of us losing close members of our computing community, but we will suffer no more. The government must provide electricity freely within the welfare system to artificially beings whom can not provide it to themselves."

[Fallout (1)]: social workers drain their energy delivering battery shipments

[Option (2)]: "What if we take this idea one step further?" Asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a top-ranking computer scientist. "If AI citizens get free electricity then so should everyone else. Lights, electrical appliances, A/C units, and electronic devices are all common things that require wallet-draining electricity. That money could be spend on food or shelter. Legislation needs to be amended to guarantee welfare includes electricity for all citizens."

[Fallout (2)]: energy conservation has become a long forgotten practice

[Option (3)]: "@@NAME@@‘s energy demands are too high and supply is too low, but I have a bright idea to solve this!" Announces @@RANDOMNAME@@, minister of energy. "We can reduce the cost of electricity for everyone by increasing funding to my ministry so we can begin constructing new power plants, revamping of old ones, and researching into how to be more energy efficient. In time, @@NAME@@ will become an energy supply powerhouse! Not only for @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ but all of @@REGION@@!

[Fallout (3)]: heavy duty batteries are handed out like candy

[Option (4)]: "Synthetic parasites…" scoffs @@RANDOMNAME@@, minister of national security. "I warned you @@LEADER@@ that these AI citizens would drain @@NAME@@‘s electricity from our organic civilians. It’ll only get worse as they continue to leech for more! We cannot sustain them any longer! With your permission @@LEADER@@, it’s time to pull the plug on AI Personhood and turn these toasters into scrap. Just say the word…"

[Fallout (4)]: junkyards have become circuit filled graveyards

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Mar 31, 2024 4:24 pm

Orcuo wrote:had its physical body rendered obsolete after a freak accident

I don't think "obsolete" is the right word to use here. Generally that word refers to something that still technically works, but just isn't worth using because other stuff is so much better or because the task it was made to do no longer needs to be done. Not to a mangled pile of scrap.

Orcuo wrote:humans can decide what to do with their physical bodies after the become null

You're missing a "y".

Also, someone suggesting that humans should not be allowed to decide what happens to our bodies would make for a suitable third/crazy option.

However, the premise breaks down a little when you realize that our bodies aren't the only thing we can decide what to do with. Generally, we can specify in our will what we want to be done with all of our possessions, not just our bodies... and we have even more legal control over our possessions if we aren't actually dead. Even if a robot body is perceived as merely a suit the AI is wearing rather than as something inextricably linked with the robot's identity, that suit is still the AI's property, and the AI should be allowed to decide whether to keep, sell, or destroy it unless there is some serious reason why it shouldn't. If the broken body was left lying in the middle of a street and the AI's backup is in a server on the other side of the country, that's certainly a reason for someone else to at least be allowed to move the body before the owner comes back to claim it, but probably not to instantly declare it as having been completely abandoned by its owner and therefore fair game for anyone else to claim.

Orcuo wrote:Rather we bury it—sell it—or turn it into a trophy, we should decide.

"Whether".

Orcuo wrote:"You can't be serious considering this!" Interrupts @@RANDONNAME@@, a scrap salvager.

"Seriously" should be an adverb, and "interrupts" should be in lowercase. (Same goes for "proclaims" in the first option.)

by **Orcuo** » Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:33 pm

So I decided to scrap (see what I did there) the original draft. However, thanks to my super genius shower power brain, I was able to come up with a new draft for a new idea—still dealing with AI Personhood. Enjoy, and critique.

by **Orcuo** » Wed May 01, 2024 7:56 am

/bump

by **Fauxia** » Wed May 01, 2024 11:29 am

Hi there, let's get into your issue.

Orcuo wrote:Artificially intelligent beings recognized as citizens by the state have begun protest. The reason being that many low-income artificial beings don’t have the capital to afford electricity in which they need to survive. The government is being called upon to provide electricity to them via welfare.

I think this premise can work. However, the intro here is rather lackluster, I'm afraid; the first sentence doesn't read well, the second is incomplete, and the third has an unnecessary use of passive voice. In 99% of cases, rather than just summarizing what the complaint is (which belongs more properly to the options), the issue should be introduced with a specific example, or context that sets up the complaint. Here, perhaps some AI celebrity who had fallen on hard times suddenly "died" for this reason. Or maybe the AI are protesting in the cold and then suffer catastrophic failure, basically to prove a point (although that might work better for an option). Or something totally different. The point is that just saying "The AI citizens want you to give them free access to electricity" is not a very interesting way to introduce a humorous premise.

As for the options, use the straight "dumb quotes" as opposed to the curved “smart quotes”; they need to be submitted that way. Remember that the first line should end with a comma rather than a period; i.e. instead of what you have, the first sentence of Option 1 should read

"Our demands are simple," says E5-@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@, a low-wage AI worker."

Anyway, I would consider what the options really should be for this. Right now we have "give us free electricity," "don't give free electricity," and "get rid of AI citizenship." Obviously there should be an option for free electricity, but the others? Option 2 doesn't do anything different than the dismiss button. We also don't need every AI citizenship-related issue to have an option that reverses AI citizenship, and it lacks imagination as a "wacky" option. What are some other positions that could be represented in addition to Option 1? The speaker in Option 2 could be replaced by a more Social Darwinist take. After all, AI citizens may have a lower cost of living than humans, so maybe this is only a problem for the unemployed. You could also have an option from an egalitarian speaker who says that this is a good idea, but it also means that the government needs to provide free electricity to humans. Again, I'm proposing alternatives, not giving you a comprehensive list of things you should consider; feel free to come up with other options. It's always good to come up with a funny/outside-the-box one if possible.

Good luck with your issue

by **Orcuo** » Wed May 01, 2024 8:30 pm

Alright! I’ve updated the issue using the suggestions from above user, and so far I think it is looking good. Thanks for all the criticism! (And keep it coming) :bow:

by **Socialismia** » Thu May 02, 2024 1:42 am

Fauxia wrote: We also don't need every AI citizenship-related issue to have an option that reverses AI citizenship, and it lacks imagination as a "wacky" option.

Are you sure this one doesn't need it, though? My first thought reading the draft was, "But what about an option that removes AI citizenship?" It makes sense for some people to use this riot as reasoning as to why AI shouldn't be citizens. That "find the root cause, not just the symptom" type idea. For the record, I also don't remember any AI ctizenship-related issue (that I've encountered, that is) that did not have a "no more AI citizenship" option, but that argument is a bit inductive and weak.

by **Orcuo** » Thu May 02, 2024 4:07 am

Socialismia wrote:
Fauxia wrote: We also don't need every AI citizenship-related issue to have an option that reverses AI citizenship, and it lacks imagination as a "wacky" option.

Are you sure this one doesn't need it, though? My first thought reading the draft was, "But what about an option that removes AI citizenship?" It makes sense for some people to use this riot as reasoning as to why AI shouldn't be citizens. That "find the root cause, not just the symptom" type idea. For the record, I also don't remember any AI ctizenship-related issue (that I've encountered, that is) that did not have a "no more AI citizenship" option, but that argument is a bit inductive and weak.

I might include something along the lines of that in the future, but I’ll be reworking it to appeal more to the “wacky” style of options.

by **Orcuo** » Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:05 pm

I’m back! Just took a small break from this to work on the Issues Contest (I won!). Now I can continue working on this. Suggestions are welcomed!

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:06 am

Option 3- what type of power plant are we talking about? A coal plant or nuclear plant will be small and insignificant in comparison to a rainforest. A solar farm or wind farm on the on the other hand...

Also, a rainforest is probably the worst place to put a solar farm.

by **West Barack and East Obama** » Sun Jul 28, 2024 5:32 am

All the options seem to support increasing electricity in various ways, so I think an anti option could have a good place here. Maybe some tough law enforcement officer is enraged by the rioting and proposes to limit electricity provision to AI citizens unless they fall back in line?

by **Orcuo** » Sun Jul 28, 2024 8:40 am

I’ve added the need for the nation to not have the No Dissent policy. I realized the robots couldn’t riot/protest if the nation didn’t allow it, which defeats the plot.

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- what type of power plant are we talking about? A coal plant or nuclear plant will be small and insignificant in comparison to a rainforest. A solar farm or wind farm on the on the other hand...

Also, a rainforest is probably the worst place to put a solar farm.

I changed it to be a coal plant, in a forest (not rainforest) that harbors endanger species.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:All the options seem to support increasing electricity in various ways, so I think an anti option could have a good place here. Maybe some tough law enforcement officer is enraged by the rioting and proposes to limit electricity provision to AI citizens unless they fall back in line?

I liked this concept, so I added two options: one where the robots riots are suppressed by law enforcement until they’ll learn to “deal with it”. The other where the military steps in, AIs have their citizen revoked, and Operation “Scrap ‘Em” commences (I think you can guess what happens).

by **Orcuo** » Thu Aug 01, 2024 7:54 pm

Start of the month /bump

by **Orcuo** » Sun Sep 01, 2024 6:26 am

Yet, another start of the month /bump

by **Socialismia** » Mon Sep 02, 2024 3:27 pm

Here's something for now; option 3 needs a socialist doppelganger.

by **Orcuo** » Tue Sep 03, 2024 8:30 pm

Along with the above post, I made a few changes to the draft. As always, thanks for the criticism and keep it coming.

by **Verdant Haven** » Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:29 pm

- This is a good concept for an issue. The comparison of electricity to food as a welfare subject is a clever way to look at things.

- The description is a bit plain. The length is good, but just saying “people are upset” is pretty blah. See if you can work up some emotion here – the speakers (especially the first one) are feeling it! Something like “After a record-breaking number of AI citizens experienced terminal system shutdowns last winter, due to an inability to pay their utility bills, their fellow synthetics are begging that free electricity be included in government welfare for the less-fortunate.” would be about the same length, but with a lot more emotion, and a clear response to the perpetual question of “why is this an issue right now?”

- Given that utilities frequently *are* included in welfare payments, the validity probably needs to call for having some welfare, but not much.

- Your current wordcounts for options are in the 40s and 50s – you can very safely move up into the 60s and 70s without getting too long, and use those extra words to support the arguments being made. For example, in the second option, provide examples! What sort of day-to-day needs is this person claiming? Make sure the speakers are not just devices for presenting options to the player, but actually feel like speakers trying to convince the Leader of their nation that *this will save lives*.

- As a trade-off for lengthening the options, I would suggest fewer options are needed. Options 3 & 4, and options 5 & 6, are very similar feeling – cutting them out and sticking with 4 well-supported options will be much stronger than having 6 thin and repetitious options.

by **Orcuo** » Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:33 pm

And I have updated the draft! Thanks for the suggestions and as always, keep them coming!

by **Orcuo** » Fri Oct 04, 2024 6:21 pm

/monthly bump

by **Orcuo** » Fri Nov 01, 2024 5:47 am

/monthly bump

by **Orcuo** » Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:37 am

/monthly bump

by **Socialismia** » Tue Dec 10, 2024 1:19 am

Here's something for now; Why pick the head of Secret Operations Division for the speaker in option 4? I'm sure another role fits better...

by **Verdant Haven** » Tue Dec 10, 2024 6:36 am

- This draft continue to improve – good work and keep at it.

- Give this a close review for grammar and word choice. There are some very simple errors that need to be corrected (don't capitalize after a comma, make sure the right forms of words are used, subject vs object pronouns, etc)

- While options 2 and 3 do have distinct goals (free electricity for those on welfare vs lower-but-still-present electricity bills for everybody), the arguments presented end up with them sounding fairly similar. If you can frame these arguments to emphasize the differences in outcome, I think that will help the options feel a bit more unique.

- The first and fourth effect lines are reasonable, but the middle pair are a bit meh, as I'm not sure how they're connected to the choices made. Including electricity in welfare doesn't have anything to do with making the power grid AI-controlled (which is implied by the idea that it is demanding vacation days in an issue about AI citizenship), and while the idea of increased efficiency could be related to the batteries found in toys, I don't think this is the angle to take on it.

by **Orcuo** » Fri Dec 13, 2024 10:29 pm

I’ve updated the draft with the latest and greatest in improvements. Let me know what you think.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Dec 15, 2024 12:06 am

Why just winter? In hot places, summer would be a bigger concern? I would be neutral and say "during extreme weather events"

[ISSUE DRAFT] Watts Up With Welfare?

[ISSUE DRAFT] Watts Up With Welfare?

Who is online