4 ms·

But you aren't a vegan either. Therefore veganism doesn't work for you as an analogy to your personal ethics? I'm confused.

simonw 4y ago
That's exactly why this analogy does work. I believe that harming to animals is bad. And yet I still chose to eat them. I am not a vegan, even though I understand the moral reasoning for being one. I am uncomfortable that generative AIs are trained on images without the artists consent. And yet I still chose to use those models. If I _was_ a vegan with respect to animal products but chose to use AI models the analogy would not be as fitting for me. Note that I am not saying that either of my moral choices here are the correct ones!
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  I think you are focusing on the wrong questions. 1. Do you believe harming humans is bad? 2. Would you choose to eat them if they taste just like chicken? Perhaps the reason you choose not to eat humans is because it is illegal and is punishable to kill humans for food whereas killing animals for food is still acceptable in society. And hence it is an easy low hanging moralistic fruit to be vegan. It is also likely that you might be harmed if you consume human flesh.(Hello, prions!) There are multiple deterrents to becoming a cannibal vs eating like a non vegan. You haven’t made a moral choice at all when you consume animal flesh while still believing that harming animals is bad. Just like you haven’t made a moral choice at all when you appropriate other artists’ work without their consent. There is no ‘moral choice’ made here because you chose not to choose when there is no stick to be afraid of.. The only reason why it would be easy for AI art to exist is because it is not punishable. There is no law against it. In other words, people will continue indulging in their whims as long as there is no stick to punish them. Your thought?
  - simonw 4y ago
    > You haven’t made a moral choice at all when you consume animal flesh while still believing that harming animals is bad. Just like you haven’t made a moral choice at all when you appropriate other artists’ work without their consent. You seem to be making my argument for me here: this is why I used the vegan analogy. Note that I am not saying that I have made the moral choice here, in either case! In both cases here I have decided to prioritize my own convenience over what can be argued as the morally "right" thing to do.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      The argument was crystal clear, but you weren’t able to articulate it. Or mention it. That suggests to me that you didn’t even think of it. You keep bringing up ‘moral choice’ or the lack of it. That’s very confusing. Is this a morality issue or a legality issue? Why bring up veganism as the base construct when you don’t identify with it? Make a better argument.

simonw 4y ago

That's exactly why this analogy does work. I believe that harming to animals is bad. And yet I still chose to eat them. I am not a vegan, even though I understand the moral reasoning for being one. I am uncomfortable that generative AIs are trained on images without the artists consent. And yet I still chose to use those models. If I _was_ a vegan with respect to animal products but chose to use AI models the analogy would not be as fitting for me. Note that I am not saying that either of my moral choices here are the correct ones!

jelliclesfarm 4y ago
I think you are focusing on the wrong questions. 1. Do you believe harming humans is bad? 2. Would you choose to eat them if they taste just like chicken? Perhaps the reason you choose not to eat humans is because it is illegal and is punishable to kill humans for food whereas killing animals for food is still acceptable in society. And hence it is an easy low hanging moralistic fruit to be vegan. It is also likely that you might be harmed if you consume human flesh.(Hello, prions!) There are multiple deterrents to becoming a cannibal vs eating like a non vegan. You haven’t made a moral choice at all when you consume animal flesh while still believing that harming animals is bad. Just like you haven’t made a moral choice at all when you appropriate other artists’ work without their consent. There is no ‘moral choice’ made here because you chose not to choose when there is no stick to be afraid of.. The only reason why it would be easy for AI art to exist is because it is not punishable. There is no law against it. In other words, people will continue indulging in their whims as long as there is no stick to punish them. Your thought?
- simonw 4y ago
  > You haven’t made a moral choice at all when you consume animal flesh while still believing that harming animals is bad. Just like you haven’t made a moral choice at all when you appropriate other artists’ work without their consent. You seem to be making my argument for me here: this is why I used the vegan analogy. Note that I am not saying that I have made the moral choice here, in either case! In both cases here I have decided to prioritize my own convenience over what can be argued as the morally "right" thing to do.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    The argument was crystal clear, but you weren’t able to articulate it. Or mention it. That suggests to me that you didn’t even think of it. You keep bringing up ‘moral choice’ or the lack of it. That’s very confusing. Is this a morality issue or a legality issue? Why bring up veganism as the base construct when you don’t identify with it? Make a better argument.