On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 02:34:10PM -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Falsifian via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Title: We the People > > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > > Author: Aris > > > > Co-authors: Trigon, nix, G., Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by replacing: > > > > > > > > Any entity that is or ever was an organism generally capable of > > > > freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and > > > > ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other > > > > entities are persons. > > > > > > > > with: > > > > > > > > Any entity (including a group of confederated entities) that is or > > > > ever was able to freely communicate original ideas is a person. Rules > > > > to > > > > the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > > > > > > Questions about personhood are to be resolved equitably, > > > > with regard for the good-faith of those involved and the customs of > > > > honorable play. > > > > > > With this version, I worry even more about not-very-smart computer > > > programs counting as persons. Reading this literally, I would argue a > > > computer program that generates a random somewhat-coherent sentence and > > > then suggests each one as an Agoran activity would be communicating > > > original ideas. > > > > > > Maybe sprinkling in words like "understand" or "intelligent" could > > > help? E.g. "Any intelligent entity ... able to understand and > > > communicate original ideas ...". I'm still not sure current computer > > > programs would be ruled out but I could be more easily convenced. > > > > > > (Why purpose does the word "freely" serve? I know it's there in the > > > current text too.) > > > > > > > This version should resolve those problems? (Basically, I swapped out > > "freely" for "willingly".) > > Maybe it works. I wonder if "consciously" would work better. > > I'm not convinced "willingly" excludes dumb computer programs. E.g. if > you made a program that tried to enforce some policy, you could talk > about what that program is "willing" to permit or "willing" to do for > you. > > It would be a bit more of a stretch to call a dumb computer program > "conscious". I don't really have a definition of "conscious" in mind > though, and I think it's hard to define, so I'm not even 100% certain > that works. > > I'd be okay with voting for "consciously" or "willingly" because I > doubt it's going to be a real problem and we might not find something > really satisfactory anyway.
Consciously actually works less well than willingly. Consciously refers to whether something has a conscious experience. However, we're not really in a position to determine whether a keyboard or a computer has a conscious experience. It's not like we can ask. On the other hand, willing refers to whether the entity has free will. Agora's entire legal system is built on the assumption that humans have free will and current generation computer programs don't. This is how we do the whole "the sender is the last entity in the chain to have free will" thing. So referencing will ties it in with that existing line of precedent, and should work fine as long as judges keep current precedent going. -Aris
