4 ms·

There are proponents of viewpoints that I can respect while disagreeing. The Catholic Church, for example, brings some intellectual heft to a litany of debates

There are proponents of viewpoints that I can respect while disagreeing. The Catholic Church, for example, brings some intellectual heft to a litany of debates where I would take the opposite side. They can also claim to be a societal stakeholder simply due to the number of their followers. This is not such a case. Someone peddling Obama-murdered-his-pedophile-accomplices conspiracies has no place in respectable discourse, especially if they have absolutely no nexus with the topic at hand. This is like appointing a few flat earthworms (autocorrect pun) to a medical ethics review board: they are both wrong and off-topic.

ovi256 8y ago
So you're not attacking this person's expertise on the comittee topic, but their public speech on unrelated political topics ? You're not bothered that you're ad personam-ing them and literally politically policing ?
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Let's not pretend that you can consider a persons actions completely in isolation. Your opinions and beliefs on other subjects cast a light on how you think critically as an individual. Believing that Obama murdered his pedophile accomplices seriously impacts a person's trustworthiness when it comes to making good decisions about _anything_.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together. Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else. * Edited. ty.
    - Lucadg 8y ago
      Religious beliefs are a funny thing: both apparently absurd and great metaphors of spiritual life. Much in the same way as a floppy disk icon on your PC is absurd (you are NOT clicking a floppy disk) and incredibly useful. So I think it's better to refrain to refer to religious beliefs as wrong. Disclaimer: I'm not religious.
    - keerthiko 8y ago
      > Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindi to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief". b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.
    - skummetmaelk 8y ago
      I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
      - psychoslave 8y ago
        >we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    Looking back at a panel of experts from, say, one hundred years ago, would we discard all of the input from each person who held now-recognized false beliefs?
    - skummetmaelk 8y ago
      Now-recognized being the key word there. Of course we should not, they were a product of their time. There is a difference between believing the earth is flat in 2019 and in 10000 BC.
  - thesz 8y ago
    Define "critically", I implore you. I can suspect that your definition of criticality will include some form of groupthink. And as a counterexamples to your theory I would like to present to you Isaac Newton (obsessed with Bible) and, famous for equilibrium of his name and beyond, John Nash. You can use decisions and reasoning of people who are strange. You have to understand what they are saying and verify that.
- matt4077 8y ago
  They have zero writings on AI ethics. How is one supposed to judge them, and how did they ever make it on this panel, without taking into account their stated opinions on other matters?
navigatesol 8y ago
So people who peddle wacky pedophile conspiracies are out, but people who actually participate in pedophile conspiracies are fine with you?
- GenericsMotors 8y ago
  Yeah I found this argument weird - the Catholic church has actively covered up and enabled paedophiles in their ranks for decades. Odd place for OP to draw the line...
  - naasking 8y ago
    It doesn't seem so odd if your goal is to meaningfully represent a large segment of the population.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
What would we do with a person like Aristotle? His beliefs about physics/mechanics were discarded centuries ago, but his ideas about ethics are still studied.

ovi256 8y ago

So you're not attacking this person's expertise on the comittee topic, but their public speech on unrelated political topics ? You're not bothered that you're ad personam-ing them and literally politically policing ?

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Let's not pretend that you can consider a persons actions completely in isolation. Your opinions and beliefs on other subjects cast a light on how you think critically as an individual. Believing that Obama murdered his pedophile accomplices seriously impacts a person's trustworthiness when it comes to making good decisions about _anything_.
- roenxi 8y ago
  We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together. Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else. * Edited. ty.
  - Lucadg 8y ago
    Religious beliefs are a funny thing: both apparently absurd and great metaphors of spiritual life. Much in the same way as a floppy disk icon on your PC is absurd (you are NOT clicking a floppy disk) and incredibly useful. So I think it's better to refrain to refer to religious beliefs as wrong. Disclaimer: I'm not religious.
  - keerthiko 8y ago
    > Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindi to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief". b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.
  - skummetmaelk 8y ago
    I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
    - psychoslave 8y ago
      >we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  Looking back at a panel of experts from, say, one hundred years ago, would we discard all of the input from each person who held now-recognized false beliefs?
  - skummetmaelk 8y ago
    Now-recognized being the key word there. Of course we should not, they were a product of their time. There is a difference between believing the earth is flat in 2019 and in 10000 BC.
- thesz 8y ago
  Define "critically", I implore you. I can suspect that your definition of criticality will include some form of groupthink. And as a counterexamples to your theory I would like to present to you Isaac Newton (obsessed with Bible) and, famous for equilibrium of his name and beyond, John Nash. You can use decisions and reasoning of people who are strange. You have to understand what they are saying and verify that.
matt4077 8y ago
They have zero writings on AI ethics. How is one supposed to judge them, and how did they ever make it on this panel, without taking into account their stated opinions on other matters?

navigatesol 8y ago

So people who peddle wacky pedophile conspiracies are out, but people who actually participate in pedophile conspiracies are fine with you?

GenericsMotors 8y ago
Yeah I found this argument weird - the Catholic church has actively covered up and enabled paedophiles in their ranks for decades. Odd place for OP to draw the line...
- naasking 8y ago
  It doesn't seem so odd if your goal is to meaningfully represent a large segment of the population.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

What would we do with a person like Aristotle? His beliefs about physics/mechanics were discarded centuries ago, but his ideas about ethics are still studied.