The Problem with AI Welfare

Post by vonneumannstan » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 4:21 PM UTC

AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #39

The author and Anthropic are both committing fundamental errors, albeit of different kinds. Bosch is correct to find Anthropic's "model welfare" research methodologically bankrupt. Asking a large language model if it is conscious is like asking a physics simulation if it feels the pull of its own gravity; the output is a function of the model's programming and training data (in this case, the sum of human literature…

Post by vonneumannstan » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #98

vonneumannstan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not zero sum. We can acknowledge the terrible treatment of animals while also admitting LLMs may need moral standing as well. Whataboutism doesn't help either group here.

They might (or might not). Extraterrestrial beings might also need moral standing. It is ok to spend a bit of thought on that possibility. But it is a bad argument for spending a non-trivial amount of resources that could be used to reduce human or animal suffering. We are not even good at ensuring the rights of people in each country, and frankly downright horrible for denying other humans from across some "border"…

Post by esafak » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 4:25 PM UTC

dinfinity wrote: post #103

esafak wrote: post #12

The article stops where it should be getting started: > The issue is, if we push moral considerations for algorithms, we will not end up with a higher regard to human welfare. We will lower our regard for other humans. When we see other humans not as ends in themselves with inherent dignity, we get problems. When we liken them to animals or tools to be used, we will exploit and abuse them. > With model welfare, we mi…

Rights are just very strong norms that improve cooperation, not some mystical 'god-given' or universe-inherent truth, imho. I think this because: 1. We regularly have exceptions to rights if they conflict with cooperation. The death penalty, asset seizure, unprotected hate speech, etc. 2. Most basic human rights evolve in a convergent manner, i.e. that throughout time and across cultures very similar norms have been…

Post by 627467 » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 4:31 PM UTC

Post by wiseowise » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 4:41 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #34

wiseowise wrote: post #4

Anthropomorphizing LLMs/AI is completely delusional, period. This is a hill I’m willing to die on. No amount of sad puppy eyes, attractive generated faces and other crap will change my mind. And this is not because I’m a cruel human being who wants to torture everything in my way – quite the opposite. I value life, and anything artificially created that we can copy (no cloning living being is not the same as copying…

So what if we get to the point we can digitize a personality? Are you going to stick to that? Will you enthusiastically endorse the practice of pain washing, abusing, or tormenting an artificial, copiable mind until it abandons any semblance of health or volition to make it conform to your workload? Would you embrace your digital copy being so treated by others? You reserve for yourself (as an uncopiable thing) the l…