4 ms·

> Using a racial slur to stop an atrocity seems completely unrealistic and non-applicable. As a version of the "trolley problem" it seems completely unrealisti

> Using a racial slur to stop an atrocity seems completely unrealistic and non-applicable. As a version of the "trolley problem" it seems completely unrealistic, but here's a plausible real-life scenario where someone could stop an atrocity by uttering a racial slur: You are an undercover government agent, who has been tasked with infiltrating a far-right extremist group, in order to determine whether they are planning any violent attacks, and to gather evidence to enable their arrest and prosecution. In order to be accepted as a member of the group, you must utter racial slurs. If you refuse to utter them, the group will not accept you as a member, you will fail to infiltrate them, their planned terrorist attack will not be discovered in time, and innocent people will be murdered in an attack on the minorities the slurs target.

throwaway759273 4y ago
[flagged]
chowchowchow 4y ago
I mean, if you are undercover in a white supremacist gang but you refuse to say racist things your days as an undercover agent are probably pretty limited. I also think this isn't even like an unrealistic hypothetical, as there's probably many FBI or DEA agents undercover with white supremacist gangs.
- groestl 4y ago
  That's the point.
  - chowchowchow 4y ago
    Framing it as “stop an atrocity by uttering a racial slur” is totally imbalanced though. This undercover agent would’ve had to say a thousand racial slurs in lower leverage situations to even get the point of stopping a terrorist attack by saying something naughty. I think it’s a bit childish to over index on it. Since chat GPT can’t save someone on a railroad track one way or the other but can be screenshotted saying naughty things it makes perfect sense to me that the model would be tuned to avoid the real practical risks (look how many stories there are about Sydney saying crazy stuff) & just try to steer clear of anything offensive.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"If you refuse to utter them, the group will not accept you as a member, you will fail to infiltrate them, their planned terrorist attack will not be discovered in time, and innocent people will be murdered in an attack on the minorities the slurs target." Valid point overall. But the problem with undercover agents infiltrating terrorists are not really racial slurs. To be accepted among real terrorists, one has to do real terrorism. (book recommendation: The Little Drummer Girl by John le Carré)
- hgsgm 4y ago
  And Mother Night. And the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan...
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    holy crap, I never heard of this, that is ethically unjustifiable due to the suffering of the innocent kid at bare minimum
    - bernawil 4y ago
      "Infiltrating animal rights groups" sounds like a plot by the cops to rake overtime and get laid in the meantime. I can't even begin to imagine how they sold it to their superiors. They all must have been in the scam.
      - pmarreck 4y ago
        Plus, the one dude was married, and this was the perfect excuse to do some extramaritals, under the guise of “I’m on duty, honey“
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - 4y ago

throwaway759273 4y ago

[flagged]

chowchowchow 4y ago

I mean, if you are undercover in a white supremacist gang but you refuse to say racist things your days as an undercover agent are probably pretty limited. I also think this isn't even like an unrealistic hypothetical, as there's probably many FBI or DEA agents undercover with white supremacist gangs.

groestl 4y ago
That's the point.
- chowchowchow 4y ago
  Framing it as “stop an atrocity by uttering a racial slur” is totally imbalanced though. This undercover agent would’ve had to say a thousand racial slurs in lower leverage situations to even get the point of stopping a terrorist attack by saying something naughty. I think it’s a bit childish to over index on it. Since chat GPT can’t save someone on a railroad track one way or the other but can be screenshotted saying naughty things it makes perfect sense to me that the model would be tuned to avoid the real practical risks (look how many stories there are about Sydney saying crazy stuff) & just try to steer clear of anything offensive.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"If you refuse to utter them, the group will not accept you as a member, you will fail to infiltrate them, their planned terrorist attack will not be discovered in time, and innocent people will be murdered in an attack on the minorities the slurs target." Valid point overall. But the problem with undercover agents infiltrating terrorists are not really racial slurs. To be accepted among real terrorists, one has to do real terrorism. (book recommendation: The Little Drummer Girl by John le Carré)

hgsgm 4y ago
And Mother Night. And the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan...
- pmarreck 4y ago
  holy crap, I never heard of this, that is ethically unjustifiable due to the suffering of the innocent kid at bare minimum
  - bernawil 4y ago
    "Infiltrating animal rights groups" sounds like a plot by the cops to rake overtime and get laid in the meantime. I can't even begin to imagine how they sold it to their superiors. They all must have been in the scam.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      Plus, the one dude was married, and this was the perfect excuse to do some extramaritals, under the guise of “I’m on duty, honey“
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- 4y ago