Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 9:25 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:01:09PM -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 7:49 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > Okay, it's reasonable to take advantage of precedent that way. Does the > > > precedent actually talk about "free will" in those words? > > > > > > If it weren't obvious that the word "willingly" is trying to do > > > something special in this context, I might interpret it with some > > > mundane sense that isn't really about "free will" (e.g. willingly could > > > just not offering objections or resistence; doing something without > > > needing to be forced). But I guess that sort of meaning wouldn't really > > > make sense in that context anyway. > > > > > > Anyway, I remain okay with the "willingly" wording. > > > > CFJ 1895. Over a decade old, and I'm sure I could find something more > > recent, but it's very comprehensive. > > > > -Aris > > Thanks, that's interesting. I find it amusing the way this new text > solves our definition problem by carefully deferring to Agora's wealth > of precedent. I'm seriously considering switching to "voluntarily" or seeing if there's another word I could use to make the meaning clearer. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 09:01:09PM -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 7:49 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Okay, it's reasonable to take advantage of precedent that way. Does the > > precedent actually talk about "free will" in those words? > > > > If it weren't obvious that the word "willingly" is trying to do > > something special in this context, I might interpret it with some > > mundane sense that isn't really about "free will" (e.g. willingly could > > just not offering objections or resistence; doing something without > > needing to be forced). But I guess that sort of meaning wouldn't really > > make sense in that context anyway. > > > > Anyway, I remain okay with the "willingly" wording. > > CFJ 1895. Over a decade old, and I'm sure I could find something more > recent, but it's very comprehensive. > > -Aris Thanks, that's interesting. I find it amusing the way this new text solves our definition problem by carefully deferring to Agora's wealth of precedent. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 7:49 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Okay, it's reasonable to take advantage of precedent that way. Does the > precedent actually talk about "free will" in those words? > > If it weren't obvious that the word "willingly" is trying to do > something special in this context, I might interpret it with some > mundane sense that isn't really about "free will" (e.g. willingly could > just not offering objections or resistence; doing something without > needing to be forced). But I guess that sort of meaning wouldn't really > make sense in that context anyway. > > Anyway, I remain okay with the "willingly" wording. CFJ 1895. Over a decade old, and I'm sure I could find something more recent, but it's very comprehensive. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
> > > 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 Okay, it's reasonable to take advantage of precedent that way. Does the precedent actually talk about "free will" in those words? If it weren't obvious that the word "willingly" is trying to do something special in this context, I might interpret it with some mundane sense that isn't really about "free will" (e.g. willingly could just not offering objections or resistence; doing something without needing to be forced). But I guess that sort of meaning wouldn't really make sense in that context anyway. Anyway, I remain okay with the "willingly" wording. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion 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 > > 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
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
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 > 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. If we do want to spend more time on this, strategies come to mind: a) Try to come up with some word (like "willingly", "consciously", ...) which captures some abstract way in which we think of ourselves as special. I guess the below falls under this category. I'm suspicious of this approach because I think what separates us from computers is mostly that we're smarter in certain important ways (for now). b) Start with something like (a) and augment it with some requirements like "understanding" or being "intelligent". Or even get really specific, listing one or more concrete, measurable tasks that AIs are currently bad at but humans have no trouble with. c) Restrict Agora to humans / entities that share a human body. But I'm not super excited about digging into any of those. > -Aris > --- > 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 willingly 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. > > and then, immediately after: > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > intends to become a player at that time. > > inserting the new text: > > No person can be a player if e is part of another player or > another player is part of em. > > and inserting a paragraph break immediately thereafter. > > > Amend Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by replacing: > > When a player receives a Welcome Package, if e has not received > one in the past 30 days, then e gains 10 boatloads of coins and > one of each type of Card defined in the rules. > > with: > > When a player receives a Welcome Package, e gains 10 boatloads of coins and > one of each type of Card defined in the rules, unless e, or an
Re: DIS: [Proto] We the People
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:27 AM Falsifian via agora-discussion 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".) -Aris --- 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 willingly 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. and then, immediately after: An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time. inserting the new text: No person can be a player if e is part of another player or another player is part of em. and inserting a paragraph break immediately thereafter. Amend Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by replacing: When a player receives a Welcome Package, if e has not received one in the past 30 days, then e gains 10 boatloads of coins and one of each type of Card defined in the rules. with: When a player receives a Welcome Package, e gains 10 boatloads of coins and one of each type of Card defined in the rules, unless e, or any person of whom e was a part or who was a part of em has received a welcome package in the last 30 days. # CLEANUP Ben and Claire of the BC System are hereby declared to be separate persons; each patent title they collectively bore is revoked and granted to each of them individually.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer plays russian roulette with GOD
nvm I just remembered that the intent to mislead is crucial to No Faking lol On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 9:34 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > A grat. argument: > > By the law of excluded third, I either intend to mislead with that > statement, or I do not. We don't need to know which stance of those two I > hold because in both cases it collapses into a paradox. > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:03 AM nix via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 1/22/21 3:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> > This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it. >> > >> > That's right. I said it. >> > >> > I CfJ: The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471 >> > "No Faking" >> > >> > I guess I'm maybe vulnerable to a Finger Pointing right now and getting >> > shot in the head with a blot but that's a tiny risk I'm willing to take. >> >> Argument against: There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking >> untruthfully about that being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in >> the rest of the message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as >> untrue. >> >> -- >> nix >> Webmastor, Ministor, Herald >> >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer plays russian roulette with GOD
A grat. argument: By the law of excluded third, I either intend to mislead with that statement, or I do not. We don't need to know which stance of those two I hold because in both cases it collapses into a paradox. On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:03 AM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/22/21 3:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it. > > > > That's right. I said it. > > > > I CfJ: The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471 > > "No Faking" > > > > I guess I'm maybe vulnerable to a Finger Pointing right now and getting > > shot in the head with a blot but that's a tiny risk I'm willing to take. > > Argument against: There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking > untruthfully about that being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in > the rest of the message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as > untrue. > > -- > nix > Webmastor, Ministor, Herald > > >
