Ban the use of artificial intelligence to make proposals!

[Anarquia124]

We are going through something at the world assembly. Several nations are using chatgpt or artificial intelligence to make proposals at the world assembly or the security council. I believe that The best thing to do is to prohibit the use of artificial intelligence to make any proposal, not to mention that people are wasting hours writing proposals while others ask chatgpt to do it. And then simply copy and then the proposal goes to vote and is denied by the majority of users who already know that the proposal was developed by artificial intelligence, let's make a proposal for Put an end to this.

(Leave your opinion)

[Raiding puPpeT]

1. I dont think the GA has the powers to ban AI from proposals. you could make a declaration in the SC discouraging AI
2. if you really wanna ban the use of AI in the WA then make a technical thread and mods will get to you about if they will ban AI from the WA

[Untecna]

1. I dont think the GA has the powers to ban AI from proposals. you could make a declaration in the SC discouraging AI
2. if you really wanna ban the use of AI in the WA then make a technical thread and mods will get to you about if they will ban AI from the WA

It would boil down to a rule against it, which would strike all AI-generated proposals as illegal.

[Yelda]

The question of whether AI should be banned from writing World Assembly (WA) proposals in NationStates is an interesting one, and it touches on several important issues regarding fairness, creativity, and the role of automation in gaming communities. Here's a breakdown of the arguments on both sides:

Arguments for banning AI in writing WA proposals:
Human Creativity and Effort:

Writing WA proposals requires a certain level of human creativity, political thought, and engagement with the community. AI-generated proposals might undermine the effort that players put into crafting proposals that reflect their personal or national values.
The use of AI could discourage players from developing their own writing skills and may reduce the overall quality of proposals, making them feel more formulaic or generic.
Fairness and Balance:

Allowing AI to write proposals could give players with access to advanced AI tools an unfair advantage over those who do not, leading to inequality in the gameplay experience.
Some players might be able to generate proposals more quickly and effectively than others, potentially overpowering less experienced or less technically savvy individuals.
Community Integrity:

NationStates has a strong community focus, and proposals are often a means for players to express their values and beliefs. If AI were used excessively, it could weaken the authenticity and personal engagement that the community values.
The World Assembly is a platform for political and diplomatic expression. If the system becomes flooded with AI-generated proposals, it could reduce the sense of genuine debate and discourse, turning it into a more transactional or robotic process.
Exploiting AI for “Spamming”:

There's a risk that players might use AI to flood the system with low-effort or spammy proposals, overwhelming others who are trying to make thoughtful contributions. This could potentially lead to a degradation of the quality of the proposals and create a more chaotic environment in the WA.
Arguments against banning AI in writing WA proposals:
AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement:

AI could be viewed as just another tool that assists players in writing proposals, rather than a means to replace human creativity. For instance, AI might help with brainstorming or organizing ideas, which could actually enhance the quality of proposals by making it easier for players to structure their thoughts.
Just as players use guides or templates to help with writing, AI could be an extension of this process, offering assistance without detracting from the player's personal input.
Leveling the Playing Field:

Not every player has the same experience, skills, or access to resources. AI could be a way to level the playing field, especially for those who are less confident in their writing abilities or who struggle to come up with ideas on their own.
In this sense, AI could allow for more diverse proposals and encourage new players to get involved, who might otherwise shy away from writing complex or lengthy proposals.
Encouraging Innovation:

AI might allow players to think in new and innovative ways by suggesting alternative approaches to policy or legal proposals that they might not have considered otherwise.
With AI’s assistance, players can experiment with different angles of argumentation, or even test out multiple variations of a proposal to see which resonates more with the community.
AI’s Role in the Future of Gaming:

As AI becomes more integrated into everyday life, banning it could limit how players interact with the game in the future. AI might become a natural part of gaming communities, as it is in other forms of media (such as game design, story writing, etc.). Embracing it could reflect the evolving nature of how players and communities engage with virtual environments.
Quality Control via Community Oversight:

Even if AI is used, players still have the ability to critique and vote on proposals. If a proposal lacks substance, is poorly written, or doesn't fit the community’s standards, it can be rejected or ignored by the community. This built-in system of democratic participation can serve as a safeguard against low-quality AI-generated content.
Conclusion:
The decision to ban or allow AI in writing WA proposals in NationStates comes down to how the community values personal engagement, fairness, and creativity versus the desire to innovate and provide tools for players of all skill levels. A potential middle ground could be to allow AI use but with clear guidelines, such as requiring players to disclose AI assistance or setting limits on the extent to which AI can be used.

Ultimately, the community would need to consider the long-term impact on the culture of the game and how it aligns with the values they wish to promote. A balanced approach could ensure that the integrity of the WA is maintained while still embracing the tools of the future.

[Anarquia124]

The question of whether AI should be banned from writing World Assembly (WA) proposals in NationStates is an interesting one, and it touches on several important issues regarding fairness, creativity, and the role of automation in gaming communities. Here's a breakdown of the arguments on both sides:

Arguments for banning AI in writing WA proposals:
Human Creativity and Effort:

Writing WA proposals requires a certain level of human creativity, political thought, and engagement with the community. AI-generated proposals might undermine the effort that players put into crafting proposals that reflect their personal or national values.
The use of AI could discourage players from developing their own writing skills and may reduce the overall quality of proposals, making them feel more formulaic or generic.
Fairness and Balance:

Allowing AI to write proposals could give players with access to advanced AI tools an unfair advantage over those who do not, leading to inequality in the gameplay experience.
Some players might be able to generate proposals more quickly and effectively than others, potentially overpowering less experienced or less technically savvy individuals.
Community Integrity:

NationStates has a strong community focus, and proposals are often a means for players to express their values and beliefs. If AI were used excessively, it could weaken the authenticity and personal engagement that the community values.
The World Assembly is a platform for political and diplomatic expression. If the system becomes flooded with AI-generated proposals, it could reduce the sense of genuine debate and discourse, turning it into a more transactional or robotic process.
Exploiting AI for “Spamming”:

There's a risk that players might use AI to flood the system with low-effort or spammy proposals, overwhelming others who are trying to make thoughtful contributions. This could potentially lead to a degradation of the quality of the proposals and create a more chaotic environment in the WA.
Arguments against banning AI in writing WA proposals:
AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement:

AI could be viewed as just another tool that assists players in writing proposals, rather than a means to replace human creativity. For instance, AI might help with brainstorming or organizing ideas, which could actually enhance the quality of proposals by making it easier for players to structure their thoughts.
Just as players use guides or templates to help with writing, AI could be an extension of this process, offering assistance without detracting from the player's personal input.
Leveling the Playing Field:

Not every player has the same experience, skills, or access to resources. AI could be a way to level the playing field, especially for those who are less confident in their writing abilities or who struggle to come up with ideas on their own.
In this sense, AI could allow for more diverse proposals and encourage new players to get involved, who might otherwise shy away from writing complex or lengthy proposals.
Encouraging Innovation:

AI might allow players to think in new and innovative ways by suggesting alternative approaches to policy or legal proposals that they might not have considered otherwise.
With AI’s assistance, players can experiment with different angles of argumentation, or even test out multiple variations of a proposal to see which resonates more with the community.
AI’s Role in the Future of Gaming:

As AI becomes more integrated into everyday life, banning it could limit how players interact with the game in the future. AI might become a natural part of gaming communities, as it is in other forms of media (such as game design, story writing, etc.). Embracing it could reflect the evolving nature of how players and communities engage with virtual environments.
Quality Control via Community Oversight:

Even if AI is used, players still have the ability to critique and vote on proposals. If a proposal lacks substance, is poorly written, or doesn't fit the community’s standards, it can be rejected or ignored by the community. This built-in system of democratic participation can serve as a safeguard against low-quality AI-generated content.
Conclusion:
The decision to ban or allow AI in writing WA proposals in NationStates comes down to how the community values personal engagement, fairness, and creativity versus the desire to innovate and provide tools for players of all skill levels. A potential middle ground could be to allow AI use but with clear guidelines, such as requiring players to disclose AI assistance or setting limits on the extent to which AI can be used.

Ultimately, the community would need to consider the long-term impact on the culture of the game and how it aligns with the values they wish to promote. A balanced approach could ensure that the integrity of the WA is maintained while still embracing the tools of the future.

It turns out that users strongly hate the use of artificial intelligence in proposals. It's okay for artificial intelligence to give you an idea, but it writes it for you, so it doesn't.

[Yelda]

It turns out that users strongly hate the use of artificial intelligence in proposals. It's okay for artificial intelligence to give you an idea, but it writes it for you, so it doesn't.

That whole process took about a minute, heck maybe more like 30 seconds. However long it took me to type the question, hit Enter, copy it and paste it here. Zero effort on my part.

[The Overmind]

I'd say you should request that this be moved to technical, as that's where it belongs, but the moderation team have already made it clear that they have no plans, at this time, of banning AI use from the World Assembly.

[Reploid Productions]

I'd say you should request that this be moved to technical, as that's where it belongs, but the moderation team have already made it clear that they have no plans, at this time, of banning AI use from the World Assembly.

Pretty much this. Mainly because we have no good, reliable, systemic method with which to definitively ascertain whether or not a given proposal is in fact AI-generated. AI detectors are still in their infancy and prone to false positives and we have no interest in inflicting a half-baked robot detector on our users (we're not Facebook!) If that tech improves to such a point that it becomes reliable enough to accurately identify AI-generated proposals we could certainly revisit the subject in the future. For now though, the community is welcome to condemn the practice via in-game tools such as not endorsing suspected AI content, voting and campaigning against it, and just generally leveraging community pressure against those suspected of (or confirmed to be) using AI to write their stuff which is already happening.