4 ms·

In the U.S. at least, most people consider it morally outrageous to eat a dog. And yet, many of the same people will eat a hamburger. While there are obvious cu

In the U.S. at least, most people consider it morally outrageous to eat a dog. And yet, many of the same people will eat a hamburger. While there are obvious cultural/emotional reasons people feel this way, I can't think of any logical reason why eating a cow is less troubling than eating a dog. Put simply, most popular moral frameworks people follow seem full of contradictions like this. And yet, it seems like any attempt to force a different moral framework on people would be a tyrannical force of misery. Any resolution a computer could offer to the contradiction above would make a lot of people deeply unhappy, which is in and of itself a moral problem. People are emotionally driven, and I'm not sure there exists any logical set of rules that could define a morality people are happy with.

jawns 7y ago
But the proposal does not attempt to force a different moral framework on people. It takes as an input your moral framework and objectives, and the proposed output are actions that are in line with that framework and objectives. I have no idea whether a system like that would work in practice, but I think there are analogs to apps that help people achieve fitness goals. These apps probably aren't going to change someone's mind about whether to make fitness a priority. But if the person has already made up their mind that they want to make it a priority, the apps can help suggest routines and exercises that help them achieve their goals.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Humans are wonderfully adept at compartmentalizing, I think because comprehensive consistency checks are expensive, which leads to presence of conflicting beliefs and necessity of cheap ways to resolving them. There is no cheaper solution to a problem than ignoring it. If we offload consistency checks to machines, which get our goals and values as input and then grade decisions on how they stack against all values, much of bullet biting would ensue... Nah, who are we kidding. Most people will keep resolving machine-revealed inconsistencies using the same tried and true method. "I value consistency" / "I'm a kind person who values animal welfare" / "I like hamburgers" is merely another set of contradicting things to compartmentalize away. You don't even have to pick two. Just have it all and flex the ignoring muscle.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Let's not also forget that people are extremely adept at hypocrisy. Such as valuing honesty but lying when it suits them. And then there are degrees of ethics that would be obviated in special situations such as: When would you consider killing another person justifiable? (Vigilante problem) Ethics are not absolute for most people. And many don't even know they are not. And the answers change based on emotional state.

jawns 7y ago

But the proposal does not attempt to force a different moral framework on people. It takes as an input your moral framework and objectives, and the proposed output are actions that are in line with that framework and objectives. I have no idea whether a system like that would work in practice, but I think there are analogs to apps that help people achieve fitness goals. These apps probably aren't going to change someone's mind about whether to make fitness a priority. But if the person has already made up their mind that they want to make it a priority, the apps can help suggest routines and exercises that help them achieve their goals.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Humans are wonderfully adept at compartmentalizing, I think because comprehensive consistency checks are expensive, which leads to presence of conflicting beliefs and necessity of cheap ways to resolving them. There is no cheaper solution to a problem than ignoring it. If we offload consistency checks to machines, which get our goals and values as input and then grade decisions on how they stack against all values, much of bullet biting would ensue... Nah, who are we kidding. Most people will keep resolving machine-revealed inconsistencies using the same tried and true method. "I value consistency" / "I'm a kind person who values animal welfare" / "I like hamburgers" is merely another set of contradicting things to compartmentalize away. You don't even have to pick two. Just have it all and flex the ignoring muscle.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Let's not also forget that people are extremely adept at hypocrisy. Such as valuing honesty but lying when it suits them. And then there are degrees of ethics that would be obviated in special situations such as: When would you consider killing another person justifiable? (Vigilante problem) Ethics are not absolute for most people. And many don't even know they are not. And the answers change based on emotional state.