81–90 of 208 posts
I have no exposure to connectomes - or really anything quite like this (as opposed to good ol’ fashioned perceptrons) - so forgive my following uninformed question: Can someone explain if this software is ethical?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your circle of empathy includes fruit flies, fuck no, we murdered so many of those guys to figure out how their tiny brains work. If you do not think of fruit flies as moral patients, sure, yeah, who cares, they're like just fruit flies you know?
If your circle of empathy doesn’t include fruit flies, endeavor to expand your circular of empathy until it does. Goto 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethics has nothing to do with how an action is perceived, rather its focus is on is the action moral. One should never take any action without considering the ethical implications of that action. Being capable of that is, arguably, the sole thing that meaningfully separates us from the (real or simulated) fruitfly.
I think the question is valid. Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements? Is there any analogous situation where capacity engenders responsibility? Are gorillas more responsible for how they use their strength, since they're stronger than humans? >Being capable of tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethics has nothing to do with how an action is perceived, rather its focus is on is the action moral. One should never take any action without considering the ethical implications of that action. Being capable of that is, arguably, the sole thing that meaningfully separates us from the (real or simulated) fruitfly.
I think the question is valid. Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements? Is there any analogous situation where capacity engenders responsibility? Are gorillas more responsible for how they use their strength, since they're stronger than humans? >Being capable of tha…
Because as a human you recognize patterns in other animals that are similar to ours - the deepest pattern being alive - so you can project your feelings over them. This is also called empathy, and some in our kind lack it completely, but I would dare to say that is globally one of the defining traits of the human species.
> What's modeled vs. measured > Honesty section: I wouldn’t mind an human written README
> Honesty section: This one gets to me. Not only is it useless (paragraph would have the same meaning if it was removed) but wdym "honesty section," Claude? The whole readme should be honest! One of the many causes of psychological damage when reading AI-generated technical writing is the reminder that one of its tics is that declares when it's being honest or real, casting doubt on the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it reproduces it perfectly it's not a symbolic representation of the thing, it is the thing, by any definition that makes sense.
It's not the thing, because the thing is made of substance, not electronic impulses. No matter how hard you compute, you will never compute the simulation into a real, tangible object. The simulation and the real object are extremely, obviously distinguishable, even though they're structurally analogous. If you could simulate a human perfectly , the simulated human would not be a human, it would be a simulated human.…
If the simulation of electronic impulses is exactly the same as what occurs 'in the substance', then merely the medium over which signals occur is different. In my eyes, whatever is experiencing these signals will experience them the same way.
I appreciate the open source approach over the startup's sensational claims. This is more transparent. That said, I think it still presents itself as if the fly is being controlled by the connectome, when (if I'm reading the source correctly) it's more accurate to say scripted behaviors have been hooked up to be triggered by the connectome. Put another way, you might as well have the "escape" trigger open a YouTube v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your circle of empathy includes fruit flies, fuck no, we murdered so many of those guys to figure out how their tiny brains work. If you do not think of fruit flies as moral patients, sure, yeah, who cares, they're like just fruit flies you know?
If your circle of empathy doesn’t include fruit flies, endeavor to expand your circular of empathy until it does. Goto 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question is valid. Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements? Is there any analogous situation where capacity engenders responsibility? Are gorillas more responsible for how they use their strength, since they're stronger than humans? >Being capable of tha…
> Why should a human have a moral responsibility towards non-humans, while a cat doesn't have a moral responsibility towards non-cats, just because the human is capable of making moral judgements? Because as a human you recognize patterns in other animals that are similar to ours - the deepest pattern being alive - so you can project your feelings over them. This is also called empathy, and some in our kind lack it c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the thing, because the thing is made of substance, not electronic impulses. No matter how hard you compute, you will never compute the simulation into a real, tangible object. The simulation and the real object are extremely, obviously distinguishable, even though they're structurally analogous. If you could simulate a human perfectly , the simulated human would not be a human, it would be a simulated human.…
I disagree. If the simulation of electronic impulses is exactly the same as what occurs 'in the substance', then merely the medium over which signals occur is different. In my eyes, whatever is experiencing these signals will experience them the same way. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175140#48177554
>If the simulation of electronic impulses is exactly the same as what occurs 'in the substance', then merely the medium over which signals occur is different. In my eyes, whatever is experiencing these signals will experience them the same way.
and I don't see how it's in contradiction with anything I said.