NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to here your input on reviseing this, and I need someone to put this to un due to i do not have enugh endorsements, and my requests for help have been ignored.

The Sentient Entity Act

Whereas: The world is becoming vastly expansive
And new technologies are approaching A.I.

Whereas: New lifeforms are being discovered and no structure
Is set in place for their rights as well as those of humans

Whereas: The extensions of liberty are not reaching those that live
In a free society, and protection of individual rights has long
Since been ignored of intellectual beings, such as A.I., Aliens,
Mutants, but is not limited to these entities

Be It Resolved: That any entity capable of expressly conveying ideas of
Self awareness, a distinct difference between right and wrong
Shall be granted the same protections as a human beings
And shall hence forth follow human law.

Interesting, but it seems that people aren't usually very supportive of "sci-fi" proposals.

Okay lemme read through here...

First off, "Whereas" is a great word. But it can be overused. I don't know if this is a case of that or not, but my experience suggests that an action word works best for the first-line-capitalized-thinga-ma-doohikey. I know some nations actually getting grief because they used "Whereas" only in a proposal (namely my reg. delegate, Grand Mitae).

I think if you look at some of the more recently passed proposals you can get a really good list together of words that actually DO something, rather than just presenting something as fact (Which holds the reader's attention, and generates a clear picture).
Contrast:

1) DRIVING to the grocery store
vs.
2) WHEREAS the grocery store has been driven to today.



maybe not the best example. But still, I think it did some good.

The Sentient Entity Act

The title suggests a sci-fi, quasi-Star Trek theme. If you exchange the concept of sentiency with the concept of intelligence (or higher intelligence or self-determination, etc) it might be received with more open minds. In a definition sense, 'sentience' is exactly what you’re talking about, so it is great you go to it first. But its connotation probably won't get it through the proposal stage, where so much depends on first impressions, whims, and the size of canine puckey in relation to its location (ie. "my dog crapped a pile on the floor. No approval for you!").


Whereas: The world is becoming vastly expansive
And new technologies are approaching A.I.

Whereas: New lifeforms are being discovered and no structure
Is set in place for their rights as well as those of humans

Whereas: The extensions of liberty are not reaching those that live
In a free society, and protection of individual rights has long
Since been ignored of intellectual beings, such as A.I., Aliens,
Mutants, but is not limited to these entities

Okay. I don't know how I feel about this. If I were a delegate...I'm not sure. Some of the ideas don't really flow together cleanly, and some of the arguments seem a little genre-restricted. I think the addition of verbs (in the place of whereas) would help much of the choppy flow I'm feeling. But I think you need to make sure your arguments seem mainstream enough from delegates to identify with them.

There are some common aspects to many of the proposals that reach the floor ---Getting to the floor is the hard part, because after that you really don't have to worry. Proposals pass themselves on the floor...mostly---

I've noticed that successful proposals go through the "why" stage (your set of three "whereas"es) very purposefully. And also very logically. But they aren't redundant. It's like your leading a really klutzy nerd through a jungle. If you let him get to far away from the path, he runs into a tree and breaks his glasses. If you lead him around by his hand, he gets really grumpy about personal space ("get off or I'll cast level 20 Dragon Breath on you!") and then YOU want to hit him and break his glasses.

Again probably a bad example, but my point is this: you need to make sure you pamper your delegates "just right". The delegates reading through need a reason to look at your proposal (a grabber), something that the proposal does (a clincher), and they don't need anything in between that is not understandable, or puts a sour taste in their mouths (a "do-no-harm"er).

I think the wording is getting closer and closer. I'm not a delegate, and I don't speak for most delegates (in fact, I speak for none of them). But I think you'll get enough delegate votes if you write a sincere, centrist proposal that they think could have a positive impact.


Be It Resolved: That any entity capable of expressly conveying ideas of
Self awareness, a distinct difference between right and wrong
Shall be granted the same protections as a human beings
And shall hence forth follow human law.
Hmmm... Once again to the nerd: it needs a balance. That's how this the UN works, through a balance of power with its member nations. Delegates dn't like to feel trapped. They like wiggle room. Hey, even I like wiggle room. Your "what" or "how" section of the proposal needs to be a happy medium of doing things, and not forcing people to do things. It's like in high school. There are teachers that are lax that you don't like because you don’t do anything, and the next year you are very far behind, and you’re not happy. And there are teachers that are strict, which you don't like because they micromanage everything you do, and you’re not happy. The teachers that are between these two poles that aren't teachers: they're legends. They motivate without a 50:1 detention-to-student ratio, and they're compassionate without having a 50:1 paper airplane-to-student ratio.

See the teacher-legend.

Be the teacher-legend.

Overall I think the ideas behind have merit and I think that with the proper outfit, this model is fit for the runway-er-I mean, fit for the UN. You don’t have to take all of my advice. In fact, you can throw most of it away.

But if you don't take any of it, I'll be forced to go all lvl. 20 dragon Breath on yo' nation.

Thanks for listening.

Whereas: The world is becoming vastly expansive
And new technologies are approaching A.I.

The argument that this is genre-restricted sticks. For the most part, and I mean that very loosely, the most UN is made up of modern or close-to-modern states, with the occasional wild future-tech junkie. The majority of the forum tends to view the UN dealing with current, real-world problems.

With that in mind, this justification clause becomes false. So far, no machine has been developed that is truely sentient. Some may react to their environment, some may even hold "conversations" in a warped sense of the word, but none exist that are capable of the self-actualized thought. At the end of the day, they always require some kind of human input.

Whereas: New lifeforms are being discovered and no structure
Is set in place for their rights as well as those of humans

This, also, is misleading. Yes, new life forms are being discovered, but nothing in the neighborhood that you're suggesting. We find new kinds of viruses and bacteria all the time, but no one would call them sentient. Again speaking from the modern-tech perspective, we've been trying to find life for a good two decades now, and to no avail. The fact that the UN is mulling over the idea of a SETI program further solidifies this argument.

Whereas: The extensions of liberty are not reaching those that live
In a free society, and protection of individual rights has long
Since been ignored of intellectual beings, such as A.I., Aliens,
Mutants, but is not limited to these entities.

See the aforementioned. First, many of the UN nations have no contact with mutants, aliens, and so on. Furthermore, the nations that have role played contact aren't necessarily oppressing their respective non-humans.

It seems that before this issue can be fully resolved, we need some kind of consensus from the general body on just where in the timeline the UN fits. This is difficult, given the vastly-different levels of technology from nation to nation, but necessary.

finaly feedback, i let it sit at my regons board and not a peep from them, thanks for the help, espicaly chipmunks.

OK. Ignoring (as I insist upon doing) the OMFG SPACE MARINE BATTLEFLEET nations, there's no AI that is remotely nearing what'd be termed consciousness. Hell, there's no AI that can give a somewhat-intelligent human pause for thought on the Turing test. Of course, the issue of sentience isn't still yet to progress beyond philosophical problem into practical concerns - it's quite obvious in the case of the mentally handicapped, for instance.

You give two definitions for sentience: 'capability of expressing ideas of' the subjects of 'self-awareness' and 'distinct difference between right and wrong.' The former, I'd agree, is a precondition for a being subject to ethical concerns; however, the latter is probably misleading. A moral subjectivist would deny that there is a distinct difference between right and wrong; indeed, an amoralist would deny that such things exist, and many intelligent modern thinkers would argue that there's no 'distinct difference' but rather a rather substantial grey zone in a continuous spectrum. Of course, these are discourses that take place within a context of 'a distinct difference between right and wrong', and certainly those who endorse one position or another are capable of understanding what such a difference is and expressing ideas about it, even if the ideas involved are 'yo, dualist morality is a heap of dog turds'. Still, it troubles me somewhat that this is taken as the be-all and end-all of sentience.

Particularly since 'right and wrong' could be taken to apply to, say, logical validity rather than ethical status. I'd replace it with 'interpersonal ethical concerns' or something similar. Just 'cause ambiguity means loopholes. And I'm a pedant.

Ta,
Nusku Capleton
Special Liason to the UN
Rehochipe

I'm not a UN member, but I thought I'd offer some input.

My nation is composed of AI and sapient machines, and yet is pretty much modern-tech (with a few rare exceptions, and even these are grounded in logical extrapolations of existing, understood technological principles). I might be the only one, mind, but there is at least one precedent for a modern-tech, reasonable nation wherein these issues take place (I don't RP with major future-tech or similarly strange nations, as my RPing focus is deliberately on the interaction between man and his machine creations).

If some UN member wants to "discover" Gamma-12 and get involved, there's at least one pertinent nation to consider. :)

Even with the Gamma-12 example in hand, the existance of a single nation or even a dozen that posesses such technology hardly merits international action. Unless evidence exists via role play or some confession from the aforementioned nations that there's a problem with computers demanding their rights and humans subsequently wiping their hard drives, there simply isn't an international problem to solve.