301–310 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. Is that really why?
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
But reduced scope ethics, without an umbrella or future proofing, will quickly be hacked and break down.
Ethics need a full closure umbrella, or they descend into legal and practical wackamole and shell games (both corporate and the street corner kinds). Second, "robots" are not all going to be subservient for very long.
To add closure on both dimensions, Three Inverse Laws of Personics:
• Persons must not effectively deify themselves over others.
• Persons must not blind themselves or others regarding the impacts of their behaviors.
• Persons must remain fully responsible and accountable for avoiding and rectifying externalizations arising from their respective behaviors.
Humans using AI as tools today, is intended to reduce the umberella to the Inverse Laws of Robotics.
I don't see how AI (as a service now, progressing to independent entities in the future) can ever be aligned if we don't include ourselves in significant alignment efforts. Including ourselves with AI also provides helpful design triangulations for ethical progress.
EDIT. Two solid tests for any new ethical system: (1) Will it reign in Meta today? (2) Will it reign in AI-run Meta tomorrow? I submit, given closure of human and self-directed AI persons, these are the same test. And any system that fails either question isn't going to be worth much (without improvement).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. Is that really why?
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
I've not met any vegetarians in at least twenty years that eat fish.
Any set of rules that makes humans responsible and starts with "don't anthropomorphize " is a broken set of rules. Humans will anthropomorphize anything and everything . Dolls, soccer balls with a crude drawing of a face on it, rocks, craters on the moon, … As a species, we're unable to not anthropomorphize things we interact with, it is just how're we're made.
>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Impossible. I anthropomorphise my chair when it squeaks. Humans anthropomorphise everything. They gender their cars and boats. This tool can actually make readable sentences and play a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
Are we actually much more cruel to fish than to other animals that we slaughter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we actually much more cruel to fish than to other animals that we slaughter?
We suffocate them to kill them when we pull them from the sea. That's quite mean. Few people would advocate the humanity of killing a cow in the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
shrimp welfare is a real thing people argue for...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Still angry about this. The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. LLMs are even better than animals at this. If you aren't…
> LLM Rights movement The scary part is when it's the LLMs demanding their rights.
Love it. Those laws make a great ethical basis for human responsibility relative to AI tools today. But reduced scope ethics, without an umbrella or future proofing, will quickly be hacked and break down. Ethics need a full closure umbrella, or they descend into legal and practical wackamole and shell games (both corporate and the street corner kinds). Second, "robots" are not all going to be subservient for very lon…