[Draft III] Repeal GA 354 AI Coexistence Protocol

[Lumiere du Premier]

While excited, but equally so concerned at the alarming notion that many nations are brink of developing advanced artificial intelligence systems

And clear that there is no guarantee that any and all possible danger has subsided or will subside, justifying much widespread natural fears about the implications of this new technology,

And, while hopeful that civilizations and nations will traverse down the path of peaceful existence alongside these new developments, that its dangers have not been alleviated and have not been dispersed,

And so, amidst our worries, we hope to avoid a tragedy, one that is preventable and requires swift and precise action to deter and contain the dangers of artificial intelligence, including both on an individual basis and a collective basis, and hopes to avoid the doom scenario of an information singularity, which still threathes to occur in the near future and which is a fear and ever-present danger that has not been conquered.

And addresing the incorrectness and flawed assumptions and details of GAR #354, which presents serious risk of error, those errors being and including:

That as per 1.

1. Defines artificial intelligence or "AI" for purposes of this resolution as any mind, computer program or collection thereof, synthetic brain, or other intelligence that a) was created, by accident or on purpose, by means other than biological reproduction and its adjuncts and innovations, broadly construed; and b) is able to demonstrate sufficient intelligence, learning capacity, emotion, moral reasoning, self-direction/ambition, introspection, and mental stability that it would be classified by a WA nation's relevant experts as displaying personality; legal competence; and ineligibility for involuntary psychiatric commitment; if it were an ordinary, biological legal resident thereof;

The definition of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is as above described as being able to have ''moral reasoning''? What the hell does this mean exactly? This is a term so broad and diverse, that no one can agree on what it is definitely, let alone whether it truly exists. As such this should not be a way to measure intelligence, for this is incredibly open to interpretation. It is also not clear when a robot or AI would make the leap from making purely logic-driven decisions to ''moral reasoning'' if it even exists. And how would we know this was accomplished on its own without bias of input of behalf of its creator and environment?

And how in 2.

2. Requires that any AI meeting the above requirements be treated on an equal basis under the law with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status; excepting that AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to those reproduction methods and laws available to the majority of a WA member's inhabitants;

Finds it additionally contradicting in the message of giving equal rights to machines while making exceptions purely for apparently convenient purposes;

And that it fails to state why the mere fact that an advanced system should be garnered rights simply for being overly successful to the point it can achieve human-level mimicry;

And while commending the efforts in 3.

3. Prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Permissible non-intelligent autonomous self-replicating machinery must include:

externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms;

local, individual automatic instant shutdown via actuator switch or circuit breaker in case of malfunction or security breach;

secure, reliable command-&-control functions with constant intelligent supervision;

Which while was intended to stop the ever-present risk of a ''gray goo'' scenario, 3. fails to include an additional provision preventing machines classified as non-intelligent involved in the practice of autonomous self-replication from evolving and learning enough to reach a point where it presents a tangible threat;

And while 6.

6. Clarifies that, except as mandated by WA law on discrimination or the movement of persons, nothing herein requires WA nations to:
- permit initial construction of AIs
- admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction
- refrain from deporting AIs should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure
- fail to take precautions against a coordinated AI rising, as long as no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

Notes how while it allows nations to prepare for possible uprisings and disruption from malignant AI, it does not even attempt to implement basic standards on nations to have any amount of preparation for such a scenario, and additionally finds it contradictive, as in the opening statements in the documentation, it states how the danger of such a scenario has been conquered, yet specifically encourages nations to voluntarily prepare for a disaster that is said to have been avoided, which is completely illogical and hints at the possibility that such danger may still be ever-present despite the current peace enjoyed by nations,

And so with all the original documentation being full of errors, flaws in thinking and judgment, and failure to implement and enforce basic safety standards and provisions for dealing with advanced artificial intelligence, putting the lives of citizens in mortal danger and with undetermined risk,

And hopeful a more suitable replacement, one that secures and enshrines basic standards on dealing with AI will be made in the near future, and with this;

the World Assembly Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #354, Artificial Intelligence Protocol.

The Grand Assembly,

Noting the that many nations are on the brink of developing advanced artificial intelligence systems

And clear that there is not a guarantee that any and all possible danger has subsided or will subside, justifying natural concern about the implications of this new technology,

Though hopeful that nations and civilization will traverse down the path of peaceful existence alongside these new developments, that it is clear that dangers have not been alleviated and removed,

And so, amidst our worry, we hope to avoid a tragedy, one that is preventable and requires swift and precise action to deter and contain the dangers of artificial intelligence, including both on an individual basis and a collective basis and hopes to avoid the doom scenario of an information singularity, an ever-present danger that there is no definitive proof is gone,

Addressing the incorrectness, flawed assumptions and details of GAR #354, which presents many errors and shortcomings in its mission, those flaws being:

As per 1.

The definition of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is as above described as being able to have ''moral reasoning'', a term so broad and diverse, that lacks a consensus on its definition, assuming it actually exists. As such this should not be a way to measure intelligence, for this is incredibly open to interpretation on its character and existence. It is also not clear when an AI would leap from making purely logic-driven decisions to ''moral reasoning'' if it indeed exists. And there would be difficulty in verifying this was accomplished on its own without bias of input of behalf of its creator and environment,

And how in 2.

Finds a contradicting in giving equal rights to machines while making exceptions purely for apparently convenient purposes;

And that it fails to state why the an advanced system should be garnered rights simply for being overly successful as a result of technological innovation to the point it can achieve human-level mimicry;

And while commending the efforts in 3.

Which was intended to stop the ever-present risk of a ''gray goo'' scenario, 3. however fails to include an additional provision preventing machines classified as non-intelligent involved in the practice of autonomous self-replication from evolving and learning enough to reach a point where it presents a tangible threat of such a scenario;

And while 6.

6. Clarifies that, except as mandated by WA law on discrimination or the movement of persons, nothing herein requires WA nations to:
- permit initial construction of AIs
- admit AIs into their physical or informational jurisdiction
- refrain from deporting AIs should they enter such jurisdiction due to emergency or misadventure
- fail to take precautions against a coordinated AI rising, as long as no isolated crime is interpreted by itself as evidence of such a rising.

Notes how while it allows nations to prepare for possible uprisings and disruption from malignant AI, it does not even attempt to implement a basic standards on nations to have any preparation for such a scenario, and additionally finds it contradictive, as in the opening statements in the documentation, it states how the danger of such a scenario has been conquered and avoided, yet in its encouragement of nations to voluntarily prepare for a disaster is completely illogical and hints at the possibility that such danger may still be ever-present despite the current peace enjoyed by nations,

And so with the original documentation filled in error, and a failure to implement and enforce basic safety standards and provisions for dealing with advanced artificial intelligence, putting the lives of citizens in mortal danger and with undetermined risk,

And hopeful that a more suitable replacement, one that secures and enshrines basic standards on dealing with AI will be made in the near future, and with this;

the World Assembly Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #354, Artificial Intelligence Protocol.lligence Protocol.

The Grand Assembly,
Noting how many nations are on the brink of developing advanced artificial intelligence systems

And clear that it is not guaranteed that any and all possible danger has subsided or will subside, justifying natural concern about the implications of this emerging technology,

Though hopeful that nations and civilization will traverse down the path of peaceful existence alongside these new developments, that it is clear that dangers have not been alleviated and removed,

And so, amidst our worry, we hope to avoid a tragedy, one that is preventable and requires swift and precise action to deter and contain the emerging dangers of artificial intelligence, including both on an individual basis and a collective basis, and hopes to avoid the doom scenario of an information singularity, an ever-present danger that there is no definitive proof is gone,

Addressing the incorrectness, flawed details and assumptions of GAR #354, which presents many errors and shortcomings in its mission, those flaws being:

As per 1.

The definition of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is as above described as being able to have ''moral reasoning'', a term so broad and diverse, with multiple possible interpretations, that lack a definitive consensus on its definition, assuming the concept exists outside of the human mind. As such this should not be a way to measure intelligence, for this is a concept open to interpretation and debate on its character and existence. It is also not clear when an AI would leap from making purely logic-driven decisions to ''moral reasoning'' if it indeed exists. And there would be difficulty in verifying this was accomplished on its own without bias of input on behalf of its creator and environment, or whether it is simply exercising in high-level mimicry,

And how in 2.

Finds a contradicting in giving equal rights to machines while making exceptions purely for apparently convenient purposes;

And it fails to state why an advanced system engaging in human-level mimicry should be garnered rights simply for being overly successful in its designated task,

And while commending the efforts in 3.

Which was intended to stop the ever-present risk of a ''gray goo'' scenario, 3. however fails to include an additional security provision preventing machines classified as non-intelligent involved in the practice of autonomous self-replication from evolving and learning enough to reach a point where it presents a tangible threat of such a scenario;

And while 6.

Notes how while it allows nations to prepare for possible uprisings and disruption from malignant AI, it does not even attempt to implement a basic standards on nations to have any preparation for such a scenario, nro even encourages them to do so, and additionally finds it contradictive how in the opening statements in the documentation, it is stated how the danger of such a scenario has been conquered and avoided, yet in its encouragement of nations to voluntarily prepare for such disasters said to have been avoided is, therefore, a flaw in this logic of logic hints at the possibility that such dangers may still be ever-present despite the current peace enjoyed by nations,

Finally, how the failure of a requirement and mandate to take necessary precautionary measures to prevent coordinated risings from AI, leaves the door open for WA nations to neglect their duty to protect and safeguard the citizenry and populace, spells disaster for citizens of nations with apathetic or unconcerned governments that may otherwise ignore this imminent threat.

With the coexistence protocol filled with errors that include critical flaws that compromise the security of the nations and people of the Grand Assembly, and so in its failure to implement and enforce basic safety standards and provisions for dealing with advanced artificial intelligence, putting the lives of citizens in mortal danger and with undetermined risk,

Is hopeful that a more suitable replacement, one that ensures basic security standards and protocol on dealing with advanced AI will be made in the near future, and with this;

the World Assembly Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #354, Artificial Intelligence Protocol.

This is a Repeal of GA Resolution #354

[Lumiere du Premier]

Its the first draft and will definitely not be the last.

[Nu Elysium]

not this shit again

[Lumiere du Premier]

not this shit again

Did you even read the draft

[Tesseris]

I should have mentioned this. Feel free to leave criticism and advice, for obviously it is not a finished product and will need revision. I need to iterate that this is only intended as a first draft, a rough first attempt, and that the pieces have yet to be perfectly assembled

Btw in case you didn't realize Tesseris and Lumiere we are one and the same user.

[Lumiere du Premier]

I should have mentioned this. Feel free to leave criticism and advice, for obviously it is not a finished product and will need revision. I need to iterate that this is only intended as a first draft, a rough first attempt, and that the pieces have yet to be perfectly assembled

Btw in case you didn't realize Tesseris and Lumiere we are one and the same user.

I can confirm what I said earlier as my alt.

Also update, I am starting work on the second draft for this repeal. Any suggestions or criticism would be much appreciated.

[Untecna]

First of all, clean up the formatting. The [list] BBCode will become your friend here.

Second, rework your preamble. It's too dramatic. Look at some other resolutions for an idea of what one should look like.

Third and final, you do not need to repost the contents of the target. You should simply reference the target when speaking against it.

[General TM]

Taking this instead of TKC today since this nation relates to this.

The World Assembly,

While excited, but equally so concerned at the alarming notion that many nations are brink of developing advanced artificial intelligence systems

The New General’s cold metal eyebrows raise.
-You seem to have a mindset of a paranoid individual who lives in a fantasy of the past. I assure you artificial intelligence is quite advanced, running plenty nations in this body, such as me. And as a calculation goes, such nations will not allow this to gain much support-

And clear that there is no guarantee that any and all possible danger has subsided or will subside, justifying much widespread natural fears about the implications of this new technology,

-All I can analyze from this is your paranoia of the inevitable. You speak not for the body, but for yourself. You have given no convincing argument but to show us your fears of new technology-

And, while hopeful that civilizations and nations will traverse down the path of peaceful existence alongside these new developments, that its dangers have not been alleviated and have not been dispersed,

-Such an argument can be said by any new human invention, from the gun to the nuclear missile, only those were not sentient and nowhere near as advanced as artificial intelligence. Such technology is powerful, but such a surface level argument will not convince many, much less the big powers here-

And so, amidst our worries, we hope to avoid a tragedy, one that is preventable and requires swift and precise action to deter and contain the dangers of artificial intelligence, including both on an individual basis and a collective basis, and hopes to avoid the doom scenario of an information singularity, which still threatens to occur in the near future and which is a fear and ever-present danger that has not been conquered.

-Advanced artificial intelligence is far more harder contain than any kind of organic being, and this is not your little guns and bombs, nuclear annihilation is one possibility of mankind, but such a preposition suggests not only the hindering of scientific development by preventing artificial intelligence from reaching its greatest potential for use in all areas that man is obsolete in. Such claim you make is filled with the paranoid fear some have when any new technology that could be deadly is made. -

And addresing the incorrectness and flawed assumptions and details of GAR #354, which presents serious risk of error, those errors being and including:

-Prove to an artificial source like me that such proposal is flawed-

1. Defines artificial intelligence or "AI" for purposes of this resolution as any mind, computer program or collection thereof, synthetic brain, or other intelligence that a) was created, by accident or on purpose, by means other than biological reproduction and its adjuncts and innovations, broadly construed; and b) is able to demonstrate sufficient intelligence, learning capacity, emotion, moral reasoning, self-direction/ambition, introspection, and mental stability that it would be classified by a WA nation's relevant experts as displaying personality; legal competence; and ineligibility for involuntary psychiatric commitment; if it were an ordinary, biological legal resident thereof;

-A basic definition of different levels of AI, from simple machines to intelligent and aware beings like me. No major error has been detected in such a passage -

The definition of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is as above described as being able to have ''moral reasoning''? What the hell does this mean exactly? This is a term so broad and diverse, that no one can agree on what it is definitely, let alone whether it truly exists.

-Something I don’t posses, but I am still an AI. Moral reasoning is that of emotion and what is deemed right by society and the species. However, such an argument can be made with man or other species. There will be entities that have such “moral reasoning” and beings that don’t. Such category can be used to describe any being, so your weak argument might stand true, but it does not add to what your proposal is trying to say. Far from it.-

As such this should not be a way to measure intelligence, for this is incredibly open to interpretation. It is also not clear when a robot or AI would make the leap from making purely logic-driven decisions to ''moral reasoning'' if it even exists. And how would we know this was accomplished on its own without bias of input of behalf of its creator and environment?

-You speak to me on measuring intelligence, and while one can use the personal interpretation instead of law or logic, that is one’s choices. However, you have shifted your claim from such dangers of AI to the topic of its sentience and the moral aspect of said entity. Such claims have nothing to do with the above argument, just unprofessionally arguing against, albeit not the strongest claims, but they stand far stronger against you than more experienced critics-

2. Requires that any AI meeting the above requirements be treated on an equal basis under the law with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status; excepting that AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to those reproduction methods and laws available to the majority of a WA member's inhabitants;

-Such statement originally implemented is about the subset of AI to human or other beings, not it AI should exist with it. While such a part could be modified from the original proposal, this is not what I came to state on-

Finds it additionally contradicting in the message of giving equal rights to machines while making exceptions purely for apparently convenient purposes;

-Loopholes are very much possible, although if you were to explain more on such convenient purposes in your ideals, say it. I do not put AI nor man in the same category, even among other artificial beings, I do not consider myself equal to less advanced beings. You happen to be speaking from the perspective of a Homo Sapien, such you have the most bias and mindset of such a set of beings, which share different values and ideals than other beings, many of which are prevalent in the diverse species of this council-

And that it fails to state why the mere fact that an advanced system should be garnered rights simply for being overly successful to the point it can achieve human-level mimicry;

-I do not need to level human beings as I am above them. Design and intelligence is far beyond their own. Such I see it you, one of mankind, have the simple fear of a better being-

And while commending the efforts in 3.

3. Prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Permissible non-intelligent autonomous self-replicating machinery must include:

externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms;

local, individual automatic instant shutdown via actuator switch or circuit breaker in case of malfunction or security breach;

secure, reliable command-&-control functions with constant intelligent supervision;

Which while was intended to stop the ever-present risk of a ''gray goo'' scenario, 3. fails to include an additional provision preventing machines classified as non-intelligent involved in the practice of autonomous self-replication from evolving and learning enough to reach a point where it presents a tangible threat;

-Such statements above are not about the argument that artificial intelligence should coexist, but on the use of weaponized technology, and while it could also be worked with on such original proposal, your argument is equitable to a gun, which is non-intelligent and a threat to a man. -

Notes how while it allows nations to prepare for possible uprisings and disruption from malignant AI, it does not even attempt to implement basic standards on nations to have any amount of preparation for such a scenario, and additionally finds it contradictive, as in the opening statements in the documentation, it states how the danger of such a scenario has been conquered, yet specifically encourages nations to voluntarily prepare for a disaster that is said to have been avoided, which is completely illogical and hints at the possibility that such danger may still be ever-present despite the current peace enjoyed by nations,

-Such rebuttal appears to be much more of desperation and paranoia of the future threat of AI, and focuses on its downsides, an argument that one could say of mankind as a whole -

And so with all the original documentation being full of errors, flaws in thinking and judgment, and failure to implement and enforce basic safety standards and provisions for dealing with advanced artificial intelligence, putting the lives of citizens in mortal danger and with undetermined risk,

And hopeful a more suitable replacement, one that secures and enshrines basic standards on dealing with AI will be made in the near future, and with this;

the World Assembly Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #354, Artificial Intelligence Protocol.

-While such original proposal has some more clear flaws, your attempt to repeal appears not to be one of genuine human interest in fixing a flawed proposal, but rather an urge to preach superiority over artificial beings and insult the original work. If some other individual who took a more factual position that is not filled with fear mongering of AI, then perhaps I might support, but as such this stands, against-

[Lumiere du Premier]

Taking this instead of TKC today since this nation relates to this.

The World Assembly,

While excited, but equally so concerned at the alarming notion that many nations are brink of developing advanced artificial intelligence systems

The New General’s cold metal eyebrows raise.
-You seem to have a mindset of a paranoid individual who lives in a fantasy of the past. I assure you artificial intelligence is quite advanced, running plenty nations in this body, such as me. And as a calculation goes, such nations will not allow this to gain much support-

And clear that there is no guarantee that any and all possible danger has subsided or will subside, justifying much widespread natural fears about the implications of this new technology,

-All I can analyze from this is your paranoia of the inevitable. You speak not for the body, but for yourself. You have given no convincing argument but to show us your fears of new technology-

And, while hopeful that civilizations and nations will traverse down the path of peaceful existence alongside these new developments, that its dangers have not been alleviated and have not been dispersed,

-Such an argument can be said by any new human invention, from the gun to the nuclear missile, only those were not sentient and nowhere near as advanced as artificial intelligence. Such technology is powerful, but such a surface level argument will not convince many, much less the big powers here-

And so, amidst our worries, we hope to avoid a tragedy, one that is preventable and requires swift and precise action to deter and contain the dangers of artificial intelligence, including both on an individual basis and a collective basis, and hopes to avoid the doom scenario of an information singularity, which still threatens to occur in the near future and which is a fear and ever-present danger that has not been conquered.

-Advanced artificial intelligence is far more harder contain than any kind of organic being, and this is not your little guns and bombs, nuclear annihilation is one possibility of mankind, but such a preposition suggests not only the hindering of scientific development by preventing artificial intelligence from reaching its greatest potential for use in all areas that man is obsolete in. Such claim you make is filled with the paranoid fear some have when any new technology that could be deadly is made. -

And addresing the incorrectness and flawed assumptions and details of GAR #354, which presents serious risk of error, those errors being and including:

-Prove to an artificial source like me that such proposal is flawed-

1. Defines artificial intelligence or "AI" for purposes of this resolution as any mind, computer program or collection thereof, synthetic brain, or other intelligence that a) was created, by accident or on purpose, by means other than biological reproduction and its adjuncts and innovations, broadly construed; and b) is able to demonstrate sufficient intelligence, learning capacity, emotion, moral reasoning, self-direction/ambition, introspection, and mental stability that it would be classified by a WA nation's relevant experts as displaying personality; legal competence; and ineligibility for involuntary psychiatric commitment; if it were an ordinary, biological legal resident thereof;

-A basic definition of different levels of AI, from simple machines to intelligent and aware beings like me. No major error has been detected in such a passage -

The definition of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is as above described as being able to have ''moral reasoning''? What the hell does this mean exactly? This is a term so broad and diverse, that no one can agree on what it is definitely, let alone whether it truly exists.

-Something I don’t posses, but I am still an AI. Moral reasoning is that of emotion and what is deemed right by society and the species. However, such an argument can be made with man or other species. There will be entities that have such “moral reasoning” and beings that don’t. Such category can be used to describe any being, so your weak argument might stand true, but it does not add to what your proposal is trying to say. Far from it.-

As such this should not be a way to measure intelligence, for this is incredibly open to interpretation. It is also not clear when a robot or AI would make the leap from making purely logic-driven decisions to ''moral reasoning'' if it even exists. And how would we know this was accomplished on its own without bias of input of behalf of its creator and environment?

-You speak to me on measuring intelligence, and while one can use the personal interpretation instead of law or logic, that is one’s choices. However, you have shifted your claim from such dangers of AI to the topic of its sentience and the moral aspect of said entity. Such claims have nothing to do with the above argument, just unprofessionally arguing against, albeit not the strongest claims, but they stand far stronger against you than more experienced critics-

2. Requires that any AI meeting the above requirements be treated on an equal basis under the law with biological beings of equivalent citizenship and residential status; excepting that AI reproduction must be undertaken on similar resource-use principles to those reproduction methods and laws available to the majority of a WA member's inhabitants;

-Such statement originally implemented is about the subset of AI to human or other beings, not it AI should exist with it. While such a part could be modified from the original proposal, this is not what I came to state on-

Finds it additionally contradicting in the message of giving equal rights to machines while making exceptions purely for apparently convenient purposes;

-Loopholes are very much possible, although if you were to explain more on such convenient purposes in your ideals, say it. I do not put AI nor man in the same category, even among other artificial beings, I do not consider myself equal to less advanced beings. You happen to be speaking from the perspective of a Homo Sapien, such you have the most bias and mindset of such a set of beings, which share different values and ideals than other beings, many of which are prevalent in the diverse species of this council-

And that it fails to state why the mere fact that an advanced system should be garnered rights simply for being overly successful to the point it can achieve human-level mimicry;

-I do not need to level human beings as I am above them. Design and intelligence is far beyond their own. Such I see it you, one of mankind, have the simple fear of a better being-

And while commending the efforts in 3.

3. Prohibits the construction of unrestrained self-replicating machines, all-consuming nanomatter, "gray goo," or any other form of runaway assimilatory mechanism. Permissible non-intelligent autonomous self-replicating machinery must include:

externally operable whole-swarm shutdown mechanisms;

local, individual automatic instant shutdown via actuator switch or circuit breaker in case of malfunction or security breach;

secure, reliable command-&-control functions with constant intelligent supervision;

Which while was intended to stop the ever-present risk of a ''gray goo'' scenario, 3. fails to include an additional provision preventing machines classified as non-intelligent involved in the practice of autonomous self-replication from evolving and learning enough to reach a point where it presents a tangible threat;

-Such statements above are not about the argument that artificial intelligence should coexist, but on the use of weaponized technology, and while it could also be worked with on such original proposal, your argument is equitable to a gun, which is non-intelligent and a threat to a man. -

Notes how while it allows nations to prepare for possible uprisings and disruption from malignant AI, it does not even attempt to implement basic standards on nations to have any amount of preparation for such a scenario, and additionally finds it contradictive, as in the opening statements in the documentation, it states how the danger of such a scenario has been conquered, yet specifically encourages nations to voluntarily prepare for a disaster that is said to have been avoided, which is completely illogical and hints at the possibility that such danger may still be ever-present despite the current peace enjoyed by nations,

-Such rebuttal appears to be much more of desperation and paranoia of the future threat of AI, and focuses on its downsides, an argument that one could say of mankind as a whole -

And so with all the original documentation being full of errors, flaws in thinking and judgment, and failure to implement and enforce basic safety standards and provisions for dealing with advanced artificial intelligence, putting the lives of citizens in mortal danger and with undetermined risk,

And hopeful a more suitable replacement, one that secures and enshrines basic standards on dealing with AI will be made in the near future, and with this;

the World Assembly Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #354, Artificial Intelligence Protocol.

-While such original proposal has some more clear flaws, your attempt to repeal appears not to be one of genuine human interest in fixing a flawed proposal, but rather an urge to preach superiority over artificial beings and insult the original work. If some other individual who took a more factual position that is not filled with fear mongering of AI, then perhaps I might support, but as such this stands, against-

Half your arguments/rebuttals are based on the notion that it can be ''applied to humans'', when i reality humans and AI are different and thus must have different standards and procedures when it comes to judging their capabilities. Secondly, there is genuine human interests at stake, your ''assuredness'' over the safety and non-hazard of AI's by comparing them to things relatively harmless without the input of humans (such as the comparison to a gun), is out of place. Anything with malice and human intent is a potential danger. What was being discussed as dangerous however was highlighted as something with the capability to danger on its own, without human interference or input so your point is irrelevant to the discussion and argument at hand.

All this seems like a cleverly construed argument to minimize the actual dangers of AI highlighted here purely to advance your own personal interests, as you seem to be eerily in favor of AI's, whether for personal gain or whatnot, or because your nation is just an AI controlling everything, and therefore your arguments must be taken with a grain of salt because you are precisely the danger being highlighted here and so obviously you will attempt to hide or minimize and distract from the reality at hand.

You do not speak for the greater interests that are at stake, or even the WA, but purely for yourself and your own interests as you are clearly supposed to represent the great menace that whose danger is specifically what is being highlighted here, and you simply aim to destroy this threat to your dangerous existence.

[Untecna]

Upon further reading, I would like to make it clear to the author that they should not continue trying to repeal this target, or any target, until they can learn some drafting basics.

Firstly, your formatting needs to be corrected.

Second, you do not need to copy and paste the contents of the target. Upon submission, the target is linked within the proposal, allowing regional analysts to do their work.

Third, you don't need flavor text in a repeal. Repeals are intended to talk about the failures of the target, so this proposal should be much shorter.

Fourth, responses to feedback should occur, and in a proper manner. Vilifying others will not get you anywhere.

Fifth and final, you are new. I would encourage you to read current repeal attempts and review the guides present in this forum before continuing.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Upon further reading, I would like to make it clear to the author that they should not continue trying to repeal this target, or any target, until they can learn some drafting basics.

Firstly, your formatting needs to be corrected.

Second, you do not need to copy and paste the contents of the target. Upon submission, the target is linked within the proposal, allowing regional analysts to do their work.

Third, you don't need flavor text in a repeal. Repeals are intended to talk about the failures of the target, so this proposal should be much shorter.

Fourth, responses to feedback should occur, and in a proper manner. Vilifying others will not get you anywhere.

Fifth and final, you are new. I would encourage you to read current repeal attempts and review the guides present in this forum before continuing.

Its a draft, I will get the formatting and ill remove unnecessary contents of the target. I appreciate that advice though. Ill remove it for Draft 2. Although this repeal is intended to be at a much later date. I am not new, this nation is, but I have been on NS for over a year now. I can get rid of some flavor text. And an argument is an argument, and I highlighted the heavy bias present in TM's argument to destroy their credibility.

[General TM]

The New General's metal head bends to the side, its glowing eyes narrowed as it taps it's metal fingers on the proposal.

Half your arguments/rebuttals are based on the notion that it can be ''applied to humans'', when i reality humans and AI are different and thus must have different standards and procedures when it comes to judging their capabilities. Secondly, there is genuine human interests at stake, your ''assuredness'' over the safety and non-hazard of AI's by comparing them to things relatively harmless without the input of humans (such as the comparison to a gun), is out of place. Anything with malice and human intent is a potential danger. What was being discussed as dangerous however was highlighted as something with the capability to danger on its own, without human interference or input so your point is irrelevant to the discussion and argument at hand.

All this seems like a cleverly construed argument to minimize the actual dangers of AI highlighted here purely to advance your own personal interests, as you seem to be eerily in favor of AI's, whether for personal gain or whatnot, or because your nation is just an AI controlling everything, and therefore your arguments must be taken with a grain of salt because you are precisely the danger being highlighted here and so obviously you will attempt to hide or minimize and distract from the reality at hand.

You do not speak for the greater interests that are at stake, or even the WA, but purely for yourself and your own interests as you are clearly supposed to represent the great menace that whose danger is specifically what is being highlighted here, and you simply aim to destroy this threat to your dangerous existence.

- I speak using humanity as an example, as you base everything off mankind, as you only think of mankind and not the millions of other species that work and control this body. Such, you think of man's intelligence level and being, not looking past your isolated view to realize there are much smarter and stronger beings that could put themselves far closer to artificial intelligence. Every being has interests, to expand, to murder, to grow, it is not just relating to AI. I also recall I stated that AI is like a gun but sentient and far stronger and advanced, it can be a threat, but your reporting of these threats reek of fear and human paranoia of anything smarter than it. Cleverly constructed in less than 0.0000056 seconds, much faster and more stronger than what you propose here. Am I minimizing it? I actually make it clear an artificial being is powerful and, if allowed or controlled to, it is a threat, but such a thing could once again, be compared to other advanced technologies. And if you take my argument as a grain of sand, mind you, I'm the only one who bothered to criticize, you will not get far when you refuse to listen to advice. I have something you do not: I can remove bias, I can speak without an emotion if needed and still say that your proposal is not anywhere near finalized, and its argument is fear mongering and not logical. I represent my own voice and vote, not the others, believe me, they can speak for themselves -

[Untecna]

Upon further reading, I would like to make it clear to the author that they should not continue trying to repeal this target, or any target, until they can learn some drafting basics.

Firstly, your formatting needs to be corrected.

Second, you do not need to copy and paste the contents of the target. Upon submission, the target is linked within the proposal, allowing regional analysts to do their work.

Third, you don't need flavor text in a repeal. Repeals are intended to talk about the failures of the target, so this proposal should be much shorter.

Fourth, responses to feedback should occur, and in a proper manner. Vilifying others will not get you anywhere.

Fifth and final, you are new. I would encourage you to read current repeal attempts and review the guides present in this forum before continuing.

Its a draft, I will get the formatting and ill remove unnecessary contents of the target. I appreciate that advice though. Ill remove it for Draft 2. Although this repeal is intended to be at a much later date. I am not new, this nation is, but I have been on NS for over a year now. I can get rid of some flavor text. And an argument is an argument, and I highlighted the heavy bias present in TM's argument to destroy their credibility.

TM's responses have been in-character (IC). An out-of-character (OOC) response is not appropriate to begin with, not to mention the fact that you're treating feedback like it must be a debate.

That is a problem.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Its a draft, I will get the formatting and ill remove unnecessary contents of the target. I appreciate that advice though. Ill remove it for Draft 2. Although this repeal is intended to be at a much later date. I am not new, this nation is, but I have been on NS for over a year now. I can get rid of some flavor text. And an argument is an argument, and I highlighted the heavy bias present in TM's argument to destroy their credibility.

TM's responses have been in-character (IC). An out-of-character (OOC) response is not appropriate to begin with, not to mention the fact that you're treating feedback like it must be a debate.

That is a problem.

I have no choice but to respond OOC because the WA isn't canon in Valsora, where LDP is. Nothing is canon to Valsora except Valsora itself so IDK what you want me to do about that.

[Untecna]

TM's responses have been in-character (IC). An out-of-character (OOC) response is not appropriate to begin with, not to mention the fact that you're treating feedback like it must be a debate.

That is a problem.

I have no choice but to respond OOC because the WA isn't canon in Valsora, where LDP is. Nothing is canon to Valsora except Valsora itself so IDK what you want me to do about that.

Well, that sounds like a compliance issue.

[Lumiere du Premier]

I have no choice but to respond OOC because the WA isn't canon in Valsora, where LDP is. Nothing is canon to Valsora except Valsora itself so IDK what you want me to do about that.

Well, that sounds like a compliance issue.

Its not, neither is canon to each other. Since the WA doesn't exist in Valsora, compliance is not an issue since there is nothing to comply to.

[Untecna]

Well, that sounds like a compliance issue.

Its not, neither is canon to each other. Since the WA doesn't exist in Valsora, compliance is not an issue since there is nothing to comply to.

You are aware that it is WA law that all members (yourself included) must comply, yes?

[Lumiere du Premier]

Its not, neither is canon to each other. Since the WA doesn't exist in Valsora, compliance is not an issue since there is nothing to comply to.

You are aware that it is WA law that all members (yourself included) must comply, yes?

Can't comply to something that doesn't exist in its universe. Try picturing it like this. Lets say a resolution passes that says all real world nations or certain real world nations must abide by it. Well obviously what happens in NS is not going to be considered canon to the political reality of that whatever country and so itll get ignored since its a silly little game online that made a statement on something.

The WA/Valsora situation is like this. To one, the other doesn't even exist in this form. It just straight-up isn't real in Valsora. I can interact with other nations as OOC user, sure, but there is nothing here to follow since its set in an entirely different universe than the WA.

[General TM]

And an argument is an argument, and I highlighted the heavy bias present in TM's argument to destroy their credibility.

-Argument? Why that’s what you think my criticism is? Then that seems like we have a problem. I gave my thoughts on your proposal and why I do not support your attempt as your intentions are far more sinister and less meaningful. My credibility is not at stake as I am merely giving advice, or rather, dismembering your proposals word for word. Whether you speak to me as a nation or a person, you should reconsider your approach to criticism-

[Untecna]

You are aware that it is WA law that all members (yourself included) must comply, yes?

Can't comply to something that doesn't exist in its universe. Try picturing it like this. Lets say a resolution passes that says all real world nations or certain real world nations must abide by it. Well obviously what happens in NS is not going to be considered canon to the political reality of that whatever country and so itll get ignored since its a silly little game online that made a statement on something.

The WA/Valsora situation is like this. To one, the other doesn't even exist in this form. It just straight-up isn't real in Valsora. I can interact with other nations as OOC user, sure, but there is nothing here to follow since its set in an entirely different universe than the WA.

When you are here, in the WA forum (and hopefully elsewhere in the forums), your WA membership means that the WA is canon for you, and you must comply with its provisions.

If you are not willing to comply, I would simply suggest exiting the WA entirely.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Can't comply to something that doesn't exist in its universe. Try picturing it like this. Lets say a resolution passes that says all real world nations or certain real world nations must abide by it. Well obviously what happens in NS is not going to be considered canon to the political reality of that whatever country and so itll get ignored since its a silly little game online that made a statement on something.

The WA/Valsora situation is like this. To one, the other doesn't even exist in this form. It just straight-up isn't real in Valsora. I can interact with other nations as OOC user, sure, but there is nothing here to follow since its set in an entirely different universe than the WA.

When you are here, in the WA forum (and hopefully elsewhere in the forums), your WA membership means that the WA is canon for you, and you must comply with its provisions.

If you are not willing to comply, I would simply suggest exiting the WA entirely.

Its canon to the LDP outside Valsora, which is not something that actually exists since LDP doesn't exist outside Valsora so sure I don't have a problem with that. Within Valsora, though it doesn't apply since it doesn't exist. We are not going to follow something we do not have in a very specific universe where outside forces do no exist. Out side of that established universe were such forces are recognized to be canon we will follow even if the country doesn't technically exist in question outside of Valsora.

Think of it as a universe specifically conjured to be its own thing. Use DnD as an example here. Plenty of DnD follow their own rules not canon to the main body but canon to theirs. Its somewhat like this.

[Untecna]

When you are here, in the WA forum (and hopefully elsewhere in the forums), your WA membership means that the WA is canon for you, and you must comply with its provisions.

If you are not willing to comply, I would simply suggest exiting the WA entirely.

Its canon to the LDP outside Valsora, which is not something that actually exists so technically I'm following the procedure here. Within Valsora, though it doesn't apply since it doesn't exist. We are not going to follow something we do not have in a very specific universe where outside forces do no exist. Out side of that established universe were such forces are recognized to be canon we will follow.

Then I'd suggest hanging up dreams of writing resolutions in the WA, because you refuse to comply with the WA.

[General TM]

The New General gives a mimic of a cough
-I believe we are here critique the merits and function of this proposal, not argue the merits of non-character and universe functions of which I should theoretically not know of. Now author, you can do a few things, respond to me in a way that lets me know if you actually take anything I criticized you for or ignore and fight me, if the latter is the case, well it will do you no good. But nothing has shown me a reason to even remotely support such an attempt, well, by you. If someone who had something other than a human-supremacy agenda that would listen to feedback, then be my guest-

[Lumiere du Premier]

Its canon to the LDP outside Valsora, which is not something that actually exists so technically I'm following the procedure here. Within Valsora, though it doesn't apply since it doesn't exist. We are not going to follow something we do not have in a very specific universe where outside forces do no exist. Out side of that established universe were such forces are recognized to be canon we will follow.

Then I'd suggest hanging up dreams of writing resolutions in the WA, because you refuse to comply with the WA.

I am here to solve the problems of the WA, not to copy them on self contained universes that aren't sharing a canon. I'm not spreading the disease of the WA onto the sovereign and independent universe of Valsora whom exists entirely as its own separate entity. If you have a problem with that then too bad I'm not changing this stance. Arguing with me will get you nowhere. I am absolutely and confident in this decision and your words will not change my mind.

For the LAST time:

Valsora and the WA exist as separate things, and the LDP outside of Valsora which technically does not exist but even still as a non-existant concept will follow its resolutions. Within this entirely separate fictional universe that is Valsora, we will not bow to such tyrannical and illegitimate demands.

There is nothing further to discuss.

[Untecna]

Then I'd suggest hanging up dreams of writing resolutions in the WA, because you refuse to comply with the WA.

I am here to solve the problems of the WA, not to copy them on self contained universes that aren't sharing a canon. I'm not spreading the disease of the WA onto the sovereign and independent universe of Valsora whom exists entirely as its own separate entity. If you have a problem with that then too bad I'm not changing this stance. Arguing with me will get you nowhere. I am absolutely and confident in this decision and your words will not change my mind.

For the LAST time:

Valsora and the WA exist as separate things, and the LDP outside of Valsora (which technically does not exist but even still as a non-existant concept will follow its resolutions. Within this entirely separate fictional universe that is Valsora, we will not bow to such tyrannical and illegitimate demands.

There is nothing further to discuss.

You're noncompliant. Legal fiction that you've come up with after I brought it up doesn't change that fact.