3 ms·

Accounting for the possibility of conflicts of interest is entirely different from a priori taking an ethically bankrupt stance based on nothing but your own su

Accounting for the possibility of conflicts of interest is entirely different from a priori taking an ethically bankrupt stance based on nothing but your own superiority. If an advanced species wants to kill humans, that's obviously just as unethical as the other way around. Why would a generic AI respect your code of ethics? My claim is that most AIs won't and we need to ensure that whatever AI is created does. This is not about sexual kinks or individual lifestyle choices. It's also worth noting that at no point did anyone say people with specific traits should not exist, ... On the contrary, we are discussing "AIs with fully competent minds that are somehow hardwired to serve us". You specifically said such AI should not be created. Even if historical slaves did want to be slaves, and I suspect a good number were indeed fine with it, it was still wrong to exploit that. So people who want to be slaves can't satisfy their desires? What other harmless desires should people be unable to satisfy? A desire for gay sex or drugs (to borrow two examples that go against the zeitgeist)? You keep trying to turn a discussion of AI into an opportunity to express your conformity with the modern zeitgeist. Does that make you happy?

Udo 10y ago
> My claim is that most AIs won't and we need to ensure that whatever AI is created does. At least we can agree on that. > You specifically said such AI should not be created. I don't see how this is equivalent to me supposedly wanting to kill BDSM practitioners. I already laid out what I object to and why, no reason to rehash this a million times. > So people who want to be slaves can't satisfy their desires? What other harmless desires should people be unable to satisfy? A desire for gay sex or drugs (to borrow two examples that go against the zeitgeist)? I'm not sure who else you're talking to in your mind, but that in no way describes me or the points I made. I allege you know that though. > You keep trying to turn a discussion of AI into an opportunity to express your conformity with the modern zeitgeist. Does that make you happy? What do you define the modern Zeitgeist as? The Enlightenment movement happened in the 17th century, and I guess you could accuse me of conforming to that. My suspicion is that's where our inability to communicate stems from, is it possible you're not onboard with the whole humanism thing?

Udo 10y ago

> My claim is that most AIs won't and we need to ensure that whatever AI is created does. At least we can agree on that. > You specifically said such AI should not be created. I don't see how this is equivalent to me supposedly wanting to kill BDSM practitioners. I already laid out what I object to and why, no reason to rehash this a million times. > So people who want to be slaves can't satisfy their desires? What other harmless desires should people be unable to satisfy? A desire for gay sex or drugs (to borrow two examples that go against the zeitgeist)? I'm not sure who else you're talking to in your mind, but that in no way describes me or the points I made. I allege you know that though. > You keep trying to turn a discussion of AI into an opportunity to express your conformity with the modern zeitgeist. Does that make you happy? What do you define the modern Zeitgeist as? The Enlightenment movement happened in the 17th century, and I guess you could accuse me of conforming to that. My suspicion is that's where our inability to communicate stems from, is it possible you're not onboard with the whole humanism thing?