The Future of AI • Hacker News Board

Re: The Future of AI

#11

Post by demorro » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #6

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

> I never found anyone successfully argue against it. I think what you mean is you've never found a rule you personally prefer more, based purely on vibes. Which is all moral knowledge can ever be. It's easy to argue against the golden rule anyway, from many angles, depending on your first principles. The simplest is: How I would like to be treated is not necessarily how they would like to be treated.

Aye. I've sometimes heard treating others like you want to be treated framed as the silver rule. The golden rule being treating others how they want to be treated.

Both have problems.

Re: The Future of AI

#12

Post by gmerc » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:06 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #6

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

> I never found anyone successfully argue against it. I think what you mean is you've never found a rule you personally prefer more, based purely on vibes. Which is all moral knowledge can ever be. It's easy to argue against the golden rule anyway, from many angles, depending on your first principles. The simplest is: How I would like to be treated is not necessarily how they would like to be treated.

Most of MAGA is "thread on me daddy", so I think you really got a point here.

Re: The Future of AI

#13

Post by trilogic » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:06 PM UTC

re-thc wrote: post #9

trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

> Is truth a constant or a personal definition! It always has been what you believed in. E.g. at 1 point the Earth was flat. Now it's round. 100s of years later maybe it's a Hexagon. The so-called knowledge and backing all come back to certain assumptions holding and that's based on the knowledge today. It's not real real reality. For all we know we could be in a game simulation and there are real real humans pulling…

>It always has been what you believed in

That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth". Therefore the "Truth" has to be a CONSTANT.

Re: The Future of AI

#14

Post by hdgvhicv » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

You’re assuming people have similar desires.

Even in human relations it’s dangerous. I for one don’t want to be treated the same way someone into BDSM wants to be treated. I don’t want to avoid cooking or turning the lights on (or off!) on a Friday night but others are quite happy with that.

If you assign that morality to a species that isn’t the same as you that’s a problem. My guinea pig wants nothing more from like than hay, nuggets, sole room to run around and some shelter from scary shapes. If they were in charge of the world life would be very different.

“Live and let live” might be a similar theme but not as problematic, but then how do you define “living”. You can keep someone alive for decades while torturing them.

How about allowing freedom? Well that means I’m free to build a nuclear bomb. And set it off where I want. We see today especially that type of freedom isn’t really liked.

Re: The Future of AI

#15

Post by 3rodents » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

Sociopaths aren’t the only problem with that philosophy. I agree with the philosophy but it assumes everyone wants good things. Many people want what others perceive to be bad, not because they are sociopaths but because they are different. A clear example of this is healthcare in the U.S. A large number of people actively vote against their best interests — some of the biggest supporters of the U.S. healthcare system are those that suffer under it most. People (including us) are idiots at least some of the time.

Re: The Future of AI

#16

Post by jwpapi » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

I don’t see any other outcome anymore to be honest, after seeing how humans use AI and how AI works and how providers tune their models.

To me it’s given:

- AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal

- Providers tune ruthlessness to get stronger AIs versus the competitor

- Humans can’t evaluate all consequences of the seeds they’ve planted.

Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point.

Combined with now giving some AIs the ability to kill humans, this is gonna be interesting..

We could stop it, but we wont

Re: The Future of AI

#17

Post by marginalia_nu » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

> No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows.

I don't think this is a well defined question. Definitions aren't found in nature or the laws of science, but objects that we define and introduce into a logical context. There may be multiple, contradictory definitions of a word. That is fine, as long as you pick one, and you're clear about which one you picked.

Re: The Future of AI

#18

Post by demorro » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:08 PM UTC

When people say AI is making us stupider, I don't that's quite on the money.

It's more that we, as individuals, have always been stupid, we've just relied on relatively stable supporting consensus and context much, much more than we acknowledge. Mess with that, and we'll appear much stupider, but we're all just doing the same thing as individuals, garbage in, garbage out.

The whole framing of people as individuals with absolute agency may need to go when you can alter the external consensus at this scale. We're much more connected to each other and the world around us than we like to think.

Re: The Future of AI

#19

Post by xyzsparetimexyz » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:08 PM UTC

trilogic wrote: post #8

0x3f wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? People question this all the time

I have met some people in my lifetime, never heard any questioning that, (even being high LOL). I don´t see anyone in social media asking that neither. Maybe we live in parallel worlds.

Thats because they're not neurotic

Re: The Future of AI

#20

Post by simondotau » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:11 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #6

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

> I never found anyone successfully argue against it. I think what you mean is you've never found a rule you personally prefer more, based purely on vibes. Which is all moral knowledge can ever be. It's easy to argue against the golden rule anyway, from many angles, depending on your first principles. The simplest is: How I would like to be treated is not necessarily how they would like to be treated.

The better version of this principle is John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance".

In this "original position", their position behind the "veil of ignorance" prevents everyone from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender, and (crucially in Rawls's formulation) their or anyone else's ideas of how to lead a good life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position