301–310 of 743 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"even if it meant deception in that dire moment". You are saying it's ok to lie in certain situations. Sounds like moral relativism to me.
No. There is a distinct difference between lying and withholding information.
Being economical with the truth?
Squirrely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. Ha. Not really. Moral philosophers write those books all the time, they're not exactly rolling in cash. Anyone interested in this can read the SEP
Or Ayn Rand. Really no shortage of people who thought they had the answers on this.
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…
This whole thread is a good example of why a broad liberal education is important for STEM majors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You dont know this, this is just as provable as saying the universe cares deeply for what we do and is very invested in us. The universe has rules, rules ask for optimums, optimums can be described as ethics. Life is a concept in this universe, we are of this universe. Good and bad are not really inventions per se. You describe them as optional, invented by humans, yet all tribes and civilisations have a form of mora…
Only people who have not seen the world believe humans are the same everywhere. We are in fact quite diverse. Hammurabi would have thought that a castless system is unethical and immoral. Ancient Greeks thought that platonic relationships were moral (look up the original meaning of this if you are unaware). Egyptians worshiped the Pharaoh as a god and thought it was immoral not to. Korea had a 3500 year history of sl…
There is evidence for genetic moral foundations in humans. Adopted twin studies show 30-60% of variability in political preference is genetically attributable. Things like openness and a preference for pureness are the kind of vectors that were proposed.
Most animals prefer not to hurt their own, prefer no incest etc.
I like your adversarial style of argumenting this, it's funny, but you try to reduce everything to repeatable science experiments and let me teach you something: There are many, many things that can never ever be scientifically proven with an experiment. They are fundamentally unprovable. Which doesnt mean they dont exist. Godels incompleteness theorem literally proves that many things are not provable. Even in the realm of the everyday things I cannot prove that your experience of red is the same as mine. But you do seem to experience it. I cannot prove that you find a sunset aesthetically pleasing. Many things in the past have left nothing to scientifically prove it happened, yet they happened. Moral correctness cannot be scientifically proven. Science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions: like that the universe is intelligible, that induction works best, that our observations correspond with reality correctly. Reality is much, much bigger than what science can prove.
I dont have a god, but your god seems to be science. I like science, it gives some handles to understand the world, but when talking about things science cannot prove I think relying on it too much blocks wisdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their top people have made public statements about AI ethics specifically opining about how machines must not be mistreated and how these LLMs may be experiencing distress already. In other words, not ethics on how to treat humans, ethics on how to properly groom and care for the mainframe queen. The cups of Koolaid have been empty for a while.
This book (from a philosophy professor AFAIK unaffiliated with any AI company) makes what I find a pretty compelling case that it's correct to be uncertain today about what if anything an AI might experience: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/AIConsciousn... From the folks who think this is obviously ridiculous, I'd like to hear where Schwitzgebel is missing something obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly struggling to understand your position. You believe that there are true moral absolutes, but that they should not be communicated in the culture at all costs?
I believe there are moral absolutes and not including them in the AI constitution (for example, like the US Constitution "All Men Are Created Equal") is dangerous and even more dangerous is allowing a top AI operator define moral and ethics based on relativist standards, which as I've said elsewhere, history has shown to have deadly consequences.
You know this statement only applied to white, male landowners, right?
It took 133 years for women to gain the right to vote from when the Constitution was ratified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This rejects any fixed, universal moral standards uh did you have a counter proposal? i have a feeling i'm going to prefer claude's approach...
If you are a moral relativist, as I suspect most HN readers are, then nothing I propose will satisfy you because we disagree philosophically on a fundamental ethics question: are there moral absolutes? If we could agree on that, then we could have a conversation about which of the absolutes are worthy of inclusion, in which case, the Ten Commandments would be a great starting point (not all but some).
if morals are absolute then why exclude some of the commandments?
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.
> A well written book on such a topic would likely make you rich indeed. Ha. Not really. Moral philosophers write those books all the time, they're not exactly rolling in cash. Anyone interested in this can read the SEP
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"even if it meant deception in that dire moment". You are saying it's ok to lie in certain situations. Sounds like moral relativism to me.
No. There is a distinct difference between lying and withholding information.