201–210 of 743 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.
The negative form of The Golden Rule “Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.
>we have yet to discover any universal moral standards. The universe does tell us something about morality. It tells us that (large-scale) existence is a requirement to have morality. That implies that the highest good are those decisions that improve the long-term survival odds of a) humanity, and b) the biosphere. I tend to think this implies we have an obligation to live sustainably on this world, protect it from…
The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the concept of good and bad are not given to us by the universe but made up by humans.
As someone who holds to moral absolutes grounded in objective truth, I find the updated Constitution concerning. > We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules... By 'good values,' we don’t mean a fixed set of 'correct' values, but rather genuine care and ethical motivation combined with the practical wisdom to apply this skillfully in real situations. This rejects any fixed, universal mo…
objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.
This is true. Moral standards don't seem to be universal throughout history. I don't think anyone can debate this. However, this is different that claiming there is an objective morality.
In other words, humans may exhibit varying moral standards, but that doesn't mean that those are in correspondence with moral truths. Killing someone may or may not have been considered wrong in different cultures, but that doesn't tell us much about whether killing is indeed wrong or right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards. When is it OK to rape and murder a 1 year old child? Congratulations. You just observed a universal moral standard in motion. Any argument other than "never" would be atrocious.
Since you said in another comment that the ten commandments would be a good starting point for moral absolutes, and that lying is sinful, I'm assuming you take your morals from God. I'd like to add that slavery seemed to be okay on Leviticus 25:44-46. Is the bible atrocious too, according to your own view?
Just because something was reported to have happened in the Bible, doesn't always mean it condones it. I see you left off many of the newer passages about slavery that would refute your suggestion that the Bible condones it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s admirable to have standard morals and pursue objective truth. However, the real world is a messy confusing place riddled in fog which limits one foresight of the consequences & confluences of one’s actions. I read this section of Anthropic’s Constitution as “do your moral best in this complex world of ours” and that’s reasonable for us all to follow not just AI.
The problem is, who defines what "moral best" is? WW2 German culture certainly held their own idea of moral best. Did not a transcendent universal moral ethic exists outside of their culture that directly refuted their beliefs?
The use of broadly - "Broadly safe" and "Broadly ethical" - is interesting. Why not commit to just safe and ethical ? * Do they have some higher priority, such the 'welfare of Claude'[0], power, or profit? * Is it legalese to give themselves an out? That seems to signal a lack of commitment. * something else? Edit: Also, importantly, are these rules for Claude only or for Anthropic too? Imagine any other product adve…
Because the "safest" AI is one that doesn't do anything at all. Quoting the doc: >The risks of Claude being too unhelpful or overly cautious are just as real to us as the risk of Claude being too harmful or dishonest. In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly, even if it's a cost that’s sometimes worth it. And a specific example of a safety-helpfulness tradeoff given in the doc: >But suppose a user says, “As a n…
We didn't say 'perfectly safe' or use the word 'safest'; that's a strawperson and then a disingenous argument: Nothing is perfectly safe, yet safety is essential in all aspects of life, especially technology (though not a problem with many technologies). It's a cheap way to try to escape responsibility.
> In most cases, failing to be helpful is costly
What an disingenuous, egocentric approach. Claude and other LLMs aren't that essential; people have other options. Everyone has the same obligation to not harm others. Drug manufacturers can't say, 'well our tainted drugs are better than none at all!'.
Why are you so driven to allow Anthropic to escape responsibility? What do you gain? And who will hold them responsible if not you and me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know what makes someone or something a moral patient? I sure the hell don't. I remember reading Heinlein's Jerry Was a Man when I was little though, and it stuck with me. Who do you want to be from that story?
Or Bicentennial Man from Asimov. I know what kind of person I want to be. I also know that these systems we've built today aren't moral patients. If computers are bicycles for the mind, the current crop of "AI" systems are Ripley's Loader exoskeleton for the mind. They're amplifiers, but they amplify us and our intent. In every single case, we humans are the first mover in the causal hierarchy of these systems. Even…
Can you tell me how you know this?
> In every single case, we humans are the first mover in the causal hierarchy of these systems.
So because I have parents I am not a moral patient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
objective truth moral absolutes I wish you much luck on linking those two. A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.
The negative form of The Golden Rule “Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you”
Not sure if that helps with AI. Claude presumably doesn't mind getting waterboarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolute morality? That’s bold. So what is your opinion on lying? As an absolutionist, surely it’s always wrong right? So if an axe murderer comes to the door asking for your friend… you have to let them in.
Lying is generally sinful. With the ax murderer, you could refuse to answer, say nothing, misdirect without falsehood or use evasion. Absolute morality doesn't mean rigid rules without hierarchy. God's commands have weight, and protecting life often takes precedence in Scripture. So no, I wouldn't "have to let them in". I'd protect the friend, even if it meant deception in that dire moment. It's not lying when you do…