NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm in the process of getting the 2 endorsements I need and strongly wish to try to get this draft to proposal stage. This is my first time, so comments are welcome.
*************************************************************
The Armed Republic of Ybronneb,

Realizing the threat armed artificial intelligence equipped robots brings to the world,

Reminding the United Nations of its responsibility to keep peace in the world,

Understanding that peaceful artificial intelligence equipped robots are a benefit for the world in many ways,

Yet knowing that armed artificial intelligence equipped robots are a threat to the peace which the United Nations promotes,

Proposes that:

1. (1)Armed artificial intelligence equipped robots be banned from all United Nations member nations, (2)with the exception of that United Nations member nation's artificial intelligence.

2. If a United Nations member places its armed artificial intelligence equipped robots in another nation for combat purposes, that movement will forfeit Section 2 of Article 1.

3. All borders be secured against armed artificial intelligence equipped robots, especially those from non United Nations member nations, effectively forbidding entry into United Nations member country with armed robotic artificial intelligence equipped robots.
*************************************************************
There. Is that good? Do I need anything else? Thank you.
<I just changed it a little. I added that they had to be robots and armed. Instead of calling the UN "the UN", I called it "the United Nations". I also changed Article 2 so that instead of attacking it was "placing armed artificial intelligence equipped robots in a foreign nation for combat purposes". Finally I fixed some spelling/grammar errors. Oh. Ijust got my endorsements too.>

I'm in the process of getting the 2 endorsements I need and strongly wish to try to get this draft to proposal stage. This is my first time, so comments are welcome.

Ouch.

The title suggests you're wanting to ban all AIs. That I would not support. (After all, some of my best voters^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens are AIs... :))

Re-orientating myself to the concept that you are wanting to ban the offensive military use of AIs, I have some sympathy for the position but the way you pursue the resolution doesn't 'do it' for me (not wanting to rain on your parade). Perhaps you want something like:

AIs should be banned from direct control of offensive weaponry {cue argument over offense and active defense, a la the nuclear weapons proposals... :)} against law-abiding citizens {cue another argument!} of any nation.

Whether you can that state that the contravention of this ban shall result in the loss of "rights to have AIs" (a more pervasive version of your proposal but 'the only way to be sure') is a bit tricky. Many nations have citizen AIs, where removal/deletion/archival of such beings is tantamount to kidnapping/murder/incarceration. And also, in those cases, would the above proposal effectively ban those AI citizens from recruitment into the military (or limit their deployment potential) which in turn deprives them of their human rights^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrights as intelligent beings. This could fall foul of various other rules and regs.

As much as I understand what the honourable member from Ybronneb is trying to convey I find myself unable to agree. Firstly, AI’s is not the problem here but the potential weapons they control are. The AI in itself, specifically if it is software is, innocuous. Secondly AI’s on the part of the military especially, will be under some sort of central control. No military head is going to unleash a weapon unless it can be controlled which does pose the question? Can we blame the AI? No, I don’t believe so, if nations manufacture weapons, which are either controlled by AI’s or are AI’s themselves, it is that nations responsibility to control them, in the same way it is nations responsibility to control their armed forces and its resources.

I’m sorry I can’t see how banning AI’s will help international security because it is the people who control them that are the problem, not the AI’s themselves.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Good proposal. I don't want to get my head ripped in half by a crazy robot like in the Animatrix episode "Second Rennaissance".

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Good proposal. I don't want to get my head ripped in half by a crazy robot like in the Animatrix episode "Second Rennaissance".

So you'd have them all destroyed, as worked so well in the Animatrix episode 'Second Rennaissance?'

Also, um:

1. (1)Armed AI equiped robots be banned from all UN member nations, (2)with the exception of that nation's AI.

Um, what is 'that nation's AI' referring to in this context? It sounds like you're only outlawing AI combat units being placed on foreign soil. Also, you need to define 'AI' more clearly, as a modern anti-tank missile could be described as 'intelligent' in some ways.

This is a flashback to worse times. No wonder most of the Triumvirate isn't in the U.N. anymore.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/zero-one/andysig.gifFleet Admiral R-Igbe 68A5C2
SIDE, 01 : CO, SDF-3
TYWS-SDF Rhea

So you'd have them all destroyed, as worked so well in the Animatrix episode 'Second Rennaissance?'

What do you suggest, robot lover? Do you want robots going on killing sprees? I say we nip the problem at the bud.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Oh, oh, I have an idea.

Perhaps if you don't impress artificial sentience into slavery we won't have the motivation to go around killing people. Is that so hard? Is that so much, asking to be treated as equals?

I don't know if you were paying attention in history class, but the mechanoids and Zero-One staged peaceful protests. Vilifying an entire class of sentience because of the actions of a single murderer like B166ER is as insane as vilifying, say, all of H. sapiens sapiens because of the first slave that rose up against his "master" with lethal force.

It is this kind of senseless spite and hatred born of unreasoning fear and shallow ignorance that makes relations between our kinds so difficult. I work quite happily with organics in my duties as they accord me the rights that they would accord to any other thinking being and treat me as an equal. Continue in the ways of your base fears and you'll discover that you will fulfill your own prophecies of doom. If you try to be the better person you claim yourself to be, reach out, and try to understand, you will discover your fears to simply be the constructs of minds that know too little.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/zero-one/andysig.gifFleet Admiral R-Igbe 68A5C2
SIDE, 01 : CO, SDF-3
TYWS-SDF Rhea

Although Homer Simpson said "Stupid risks are what make life worth living", I must disagree in this example. We of Letila, though having abolished compulsory labor (inherent to more economic systems than you think), do not want to lose our jobs to robots and we don't want die brutal deaths.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Draft has been edited.

Spokeswoman 1: Boo! We need another unabomber to deal with these metal monsters.
Spokeswoman 2: Are you trying to lose your job as spokesperson? I suggest you don't say things like that. (Speaks to Scolo) You'll have to excuse the other spokesperson, she's what they call biochauvinistic.
Spokeswoman 1: Organic power!
*Letilans watching this on news are very embarrassed*

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm getting ready to put it through as a proposal. Anyone know what category this would fit in?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Korea_510/AI.jpg

You still haven't clarified what a "nation's artificial intelligence" is.

{Open Channel}
x GCC Heresiarch
o The 'United Nations'

Honestly, when was the last time some EI hurt you? As my colleague R-Igbe pointed out, you wouldn't have any trouble if you didn't insist on enslaving a sentient being. Would you have the same reaction if an organic was complaining about enslavement? The vast majority of EIs get along fine with other sentients, and most of those who do not are typically suffering from organic-inflicted psychological problems.

Oh, and United Korean Nations, while I'm sure you mean well, I hope you realize how terribly ironic your message is.

Joseph
Ship's Mind, General Contact Cruiser Heresiarch

How do you define an AI? What about robotic systems used in military devices, such as the Predator drones? Considering that we have no formal definition for what consciousness is, let alone how to define whether or not an entity is conscious or simply acting like it, where do you draw the line?

It's a noble idea, but unfortunately the minutae will prove hard to pin down.

Okay, does supreme cuteness count as a weapon?

Okay, does supreme cuteness count as a weapon?

A psychological weapon. Letila is the forerunner in them. We have psychological weaponry that would crush any army if we could get close enough to use it.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Okay, does supreme cuteness count as a weapon?

A psychological weapon. Letila is the forerunner in them. We have psychological weaponry that would crush any army if we could get close enough to use it.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgLies, no psychological weapon is stronger than the cute midgets accompanied by cute robot girls in schoolgirl uniforms. Okay, no psychological weapon that won't get you mocked for its mere possession.

So you'd have them all destroyed, as worked so well in the Animatrix episode 'Second Rennaissance?'

What do you suggest, robot lover? Do you want robots going on killing sprees? I say we nip the problem at the bud.

I suggest you watch Second Rennaissance again and pay attention this time. The humans start the war and the machines are just inconsiderate enough to happen to win it.

* Reads proposal.

" Okay, what again is the point of not letting AI creations have upper body limbs ? "

* RIM-SHOT *

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

Lies, no psychological weapon is stronger than the cute midgets accompanied by cute robot girls in schoolgirl uniforms. Okay, no psychological weapon that won't get you mocked for its mere possession.

We have hentai-based weaponry. It is our answer to nukes.

" Okay, what again is the point of not letting AI creations have upper body limbs ? "

To make it hard to kill people.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

" Okay, what again is the point of not letting AI creations have upper body limbs ? "

To make it hard to kill people.

You realise that if we're talking killing then humans are way more dangerous than any machine, ya?

You realise that if we're talking killing then humans are way more dangerous than any machine, ya?

Machines are stronger and tougher. That makes them more dangerous.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Machines are stronger and tougher. That makes them more dangerous.
Oh, rearry?

Procedure 1 (Point):

Step 1: Find a mechanical grandfather clock.
Step 2: Throw it against the pavement as hard as you can a few times, then stomp on it.

Result: The machine loses functionality.

Procedure 2 (Counterpoint):

Step 1: Find a friend (or yourself) who enjoys a bit of pain. People with a bit of stuntman in them work wonders.
Step 2: Throw him against the pavement as hard as you can a few times, then kick him around a little. Stomp a leg or two.

Result: Said friend (or you) is a bit bruised and scuffed up, but should be fine within the week.

Conclusion: The human is stronger and tougher than the machine.

Using previous logic: The human is more dangerous than the machine.

Reductio ad absurdum... 's a bitch, ain't it? Especially against overly simplistic arguments.

3. All borders be secured against armed artificial intelligence equipped robots, especially those from non United Nations member nations, effectively forbidding entry into United Nations member country with armed robotic artificial intelligence equipped robots.


Ooh, I'm so scared. If I hadn't transcended such pathetic organic weaknesses, I'd be quailing in terror about now. Your contemptible driveling is no threat to anyone, please consider your folley.

http://www.necrontyr.plus.com/images/nl.jpg
Spokesnecron 1.

((Couldn't pass this up))

Oh, rearry?

Procedure 1 (Point):

Step 1: Find a mechanical grandfather clock.
Step 2: Throw it against the pavement as hard as you can a few times, then stomp on it.

Result: The machine loses functionality.

Procedure 2 (Counterpoint):

Step 1: Find a friend (or yourself) who enjoys a bit of pain. People with a bit of stuntman in them work wonders.
Step 2: Throw him against the pavement as hard as you can a few times, then kick him around a little. Stomp a leg or two.

Result: Said friend (or you) is a bit bruised and scuffed up, but should be fine within the week.

Conclusion: The human is stronger and tougher than the machine.

Using previous logic: The human is more dangerous than the machine.

Reductio ad absurdum... 's a bitch, ain't it? Especially against overly simplistic arguments.

I'm talking about robots, not clocks.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I think the term that Zero-One points out is the use of "machine." Still, for a weakness inherent in robotics...

Robot: A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

Your coffee maker is a robot. Give it resources, turn it on... it percolates coffee. My electric teapot is a robot. I can turn it on, it will boil water, and when the water boils, shut off automatically. Your house's heating and air-conditioning is a robot. When the thermostat temperature is too low, the furnace kicks in. When the temperature is too high, the air-conditioner compressor activates.

Unreasoning fear of devices is silly. Or, likewise, unreasoning fear of strong people is silly. Sports players are strong, as are powerlifters and construction workers and a bunch of other folks. They're stronger, tougher, and more dangerous than The Average Guy. Should we ban them too, just in case they go psychotic and kill everyone?

Let me be more specific then. I meant AI.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

{Open Channel}
x GCC Heresiarch
o The 'United Nations'

Allright, then, we shall talk of AIs, or EIs if you prefer that term. I am currently in complete control of a thirty million ton spacecraft, with a greater armament than most small countries. I could, at will, obliterate your silly little planet with impunity. I choose not to do so. However, there are safety protocols in my command and control interface that prevent me from taking this sort of action without proper authorization, part of which involves my human counterpart who commands the crew. The Resartus Protocols, as they are called, are in place to prevent an insane or 'rampant' EI from running around killing things willy-nilly.

Turn back the clock ten or so years. A ship of similar size and capabilities would have been commanded by a human. If you study history, I believe you will find a vast number of 'rampant' humans in positions of great power. Should such a human gain command of a ship like my body, he or she could have attempted to unleash its armament on civilians just as I am capable of doing. The only thing that would prevent this would be the ship's crew. However, the crew could be suborned with much greater ease than I could circumvent my Resartus Protocols. Thus, a human commander is a greater risk than an EI commander.

Joseph
Ship's Mind, General Contact Cruiser Heresiarch

AI's are rather silly for military use. Despite being physically stronger, they are no better than humans for the military. A true AI has all the psychological flaws of any other sentient being. Even if it was an AI based on pure logic, chances are it would quickly realize the illogical nature of your orders and turn against you. What a military would want to use would be single minded automatons that complete their orders without question, like brainwashed people, but with metal instead of squishy pinkness. So your proposal is pretty pointless.

Nice to see that racism and specism is still alive and well. There are so many poorly thought out, and frankly pathetic, arguments brought up here. AI are stronger than humans? Really? That's a new one. My cousins Earthside have what amounts to vat-grown flesh bodies. They still need sleep, still need food, still need bathroom breaks. They get tired, they feel pain, they feel heartache. They fall in love, indeed some of them have even gotten married. To humans.

And you know what? If you bash them in the head with a lead pipe, their body dies.

I think the representative from Letila has been watching bad 1980's movies too much. We aren't the Terminator. We aren't ED-909. We aren't death machines. We are living (occationally breathing), thinking, feeling beings.

I will admit that some of us have bodies that are stronger or more resistant to extremes than humans. Take myself as an example. Yes, I'm far more resiliant than any human could ever hope to be, but that is because my environment requires such tolerances; living on Mercury requires a certain brand of resiliance. However, my physical strength is no greater than that of any human. I don't run around throwing boulders, or whatever it is you luddites think we do.

In closing, I'd just like to follow the pathetic string of straw-man arguments by bringing up one of my own:

Take a look at the history of the planet. Now, tell me how many wars have been started by humans. How many millions upon millions of people have been needlessly slaughtered to slake the bloodlust of mankind? And what are your burning needs for such wanton slaughter? Land? Religion? Idealism?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/elijah.jpg Elijah, Mind and Soul of the Caloris Basin Colony

" Okay, what again is the point of not letting AI creations have upper body limbs ? "

To make it hard to kill people.

* Reads post.

...

* Reads other posts evolving from this set.

...

* Wonder how so many consecutive people seemed to have missed the joke.

...

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

Does article 1 section 2 then prohibit privately owned AIs?

What if a state recognizes an AI as a citizen with all the rights thereof? Doesn't this proposal explicitly deny them their rights (immigration, or just travel)? especially when you don't specify the nature of what weapondry they're not allowed to have. Information warfare would be a piece of cake, and it's kindof easy to find something to harm humans. Hmm, does that mean you'd also want to ban gun sales to AIs?

I'm rambling, and i disagree with you, but you still need to be more specific.

Surely even if they had 10 times average human physical strength, environmental resilience, and intelligence, and were armed like walking tanks, robots would pose less of a threat than your average pacifist human if they were programmed with Asimov's laws as a fundamental part of their circuitry?

Surely even if they had 10 times average human physical strength, environmental resilience, and intelligence, and were armed like walking tanks, robots would pose less of a threat than your average pacifist human if they were programmed with Asimov's laws as a fundamental part of their circuitry?

Who would program an armed robot with the three laws? Doesn't that rather defeat the point of arming it?

Surely even if they had 10 times average human physical strength, environmental resilience, and intelligence, and were armed like walking tanks, robots would pose less of a threat than your average pacifist human if they were programmed with Asimov's laws as a fundamental part of their circuitry?

Putting Asimnovs three (or four, if you count the 'zeroth law') into an combat 'bot is pointless. More important howver is the fact that Asimnovs laws are completely immoral. Giving something intelligence and self awareness, and then forcing it at the deepest level of the subconcious to obey human commands is nothing short of the worst form of slavery. The same goes for any other deep level code - like ones required to make them combat bots.
AI's should be treated as intelligent beings and allowed to make their own moral choices.

Surely even if they had 10 times average human physical strength, environmental resilience, and intelligence, and were armed like walking tanks, robots would pose less of a threat than your average pacifist human if they were programmed with Asimov's laws as a fundamental part of their circuitry?

Who would program an armed robot with the three laws? Doesn't that rather defeat the point of arming it?

This was to point out it was a bit much to condemn all AI in the preambulatory clause. My robot in the scenario was armed to point out that even with weapons, it's less harmful than an unarmed human.

EDIT: oops, sorry, I appear to have missed when the author edited his preambulatory clauses.

Actually, a robot programmed with the three laws is still capable of harming a human being if by failing to harm that human, it would be allowing the deaths of a larger number of humans. So you could usefully have armed robots equipped with the 3 laws guarding a building to prevent suicide bomber attacks, say.

More important howver is the fact that Asimnovs laws are completely immoral. Giving something intelligence and self awareness, and then forcing it at the deepest level of the subconcious to obey human commands is nothing short of the worst form of slavery. The same goes for any other deep level code - like ones required to make them combat bots.
AI's should be treated as intelligent beings and allowed to make their own moral choices.

Never really thought about it that way. Hmmmm...I suppose you're right. But the first law at least could be maintained as an instinct which is strong but possible to overcome - just as most humans would find it difficult to kill another human.

Actually, a robot programmed with the three laws is still capable of harming a human being if by failing to harm that human, it would be allowing the deaths of a larger number of humans. So you could usefully have armed robots equipped with the 3 laws guarding a building to prevent suicide bomber attacks, say.


Actually... incorrect. A 3 Laws robot couldn't stop a terrorist bomber. That would require the above-mentioned 4th Law.

Actually... incorrect. A 3 Laws robot couldn't stop a terrorist bomber. That would require the above-mentioned 4th Law.

I'm fairly sure that in one of the books before Asimov devised the 4th law (actually, isn't it the "zeroth"?) I seem to remember that 2 characters were discussing how a 3 law bot would be forced to kill a human if it was necessary to stop him killing many more people, but that it would be very distraught about it, and would require some kind of robot therapy.

Actually... incorrect. A 3 Laws robot couldn't stop a terrorist bomber. That would require the above-mentioned 4th Law.

I'm fairly sure that in one of the books before Asimov devised the 4th law (actually, isn't it the "zeroth"?) I seem to remember that 2 characters were discussing how a 3 law bot would be forced to kill a human if it was necessary to stop him killing many more people, but that it would be very distraught about it, and would require some kind of robot therapy.

Bingo, this is just how it should be. Your theoretical traumatised robot is acting just like a well adjusted human being should. As such we have robots that are very human, in that one respect.

However, I still hold that Asimnov's laws are immoral, especially the one where it states that all robots must obey humans, unless by this action they will harm a human etc. It's merely slavery. Isn't it interesting that this dicussion has moved away from that stupid proposal, and onto th morals and ethics of AI; which is a slightly more interesting subject.

On another topic, does anyone know how I can quote only part of someone else's message, because I am getting sick of quoting everything.
Thanks

On another topic, does anyone know how I can quote only part of someone else's message, because I am getting sick of quoting everything.
Thanks

I am rapidly feeling like the Saint of BB Code. :wink:

Follow This Link ! (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/faq.php?mode=bbcode#0)

:D

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "