3 ms·
Sure, but no matter what, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". At the end of the day we merely tell these algorithms what is the case. No matter what goes
by knzhou 7y ago
Sure, but no matter what, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". At the end of the day we merely tell these algorithms what is the case. No matter what goes on inside, they cannot output moral prescriptions.
- logicchains 7y ago>Sure, but no matter what, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". The same applies to humans, no?
- Iolaum 7y agoNo it doesn't. When a humam gets wronged by what "is" they can likely feel or imagine a better "ought".
- jmmcd 7y agoThey can feel or imagine an "ought", but the point of Hume is that they can't argue for it.
- goatlover 7y agoAnd yet humans do, all the time. It's similar to Hume's attack on causality. You can't show that A caused B, but yet we all act like it's the case, when B always follows A. Kant's critique comes next.
- naveen99 7y agoYou don’t think an machines can learn to classify situations as good or bad for them ?