3 ms·

Good rhetorical imagery, but ultimately an emotional argument with a subtext loaded with assumptions: 1) that there is an unpoisoned well to begin with 2) tha

Good rhetorical imagery, but ultimately an emotional argument with a subtext loaded with assumptions: 1) that there is an unpoisoned well to begin with 2) that the chemicals are poison or can only be used for poison 3) that increased access to chemicals will result in more poisoned wells 4) that the people who invented the chemicals are benevolent stewards and will not just use them to further their own interests 5) that it is better for aforementioned benevolent stewards to hoard the chemicals than permit access to those who would concoct poisons, antidotes, and preventative measures, not to mention industry innovations that aren’t related to poison at all 6) that the interests of the people on the ethics committees are aligned with the interests of humanity 7) that ethics committees employed by a chemical manufacturing firms is the only thing standing between ethical and responsible management of chemicals and complete chaos and environmental destruction 8) that the fired ethicists were good at their jobs in the first place

1attice 4y ago
This argument does not feel emotional to me, it feels like an intuition pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump). Moral arguments almost always work by analogy, and this is one of them. 1) This assumption does not affect the example. If the well is already somewhat poisoned, making it more poisoned is still Bad. 2) The chemicals are definitely poisonous, but also have non-poisonous uses. 'The does makes the poison,' as Paracelsus put it. You still don't want them in your well water, typically. 3) Increased presence of poisonous chemicals in the well is literally what is presupposed by the example -- it's not an assumption, it's a premise. 4) This argument is anti-chemical-in-wellwater, it in no way touches on 'chemical stewards'. It's weird that you introduce this here -- effectively, you're modifying the analogy, and then pointing to the modified analogy and claiming it doesn't work. 5) See 4 6) See 4 7) This is a pretty reasonable assumption, given that there is no 'Ministry of AI'. 8) The fired ethicists may or may not have been good at their jobs, but no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists. You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed. EDIT @ 19:10PDT: added ', it feels like an intuition pump. ...'
- textninja 4y ago
  For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kill you. For 2, I disagree - you may want chemicals in your well if they’re designed to counteract the poison that was already in there. See 1. In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. > no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists How fallible are we talking here? “Probably” is carrying an awful lot of weight in that argument. > You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed. That’s just like your opinion, man.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3. > That’s just like your opinion, man. Yes, a state of affairs I indicated by using the qualifier 'think.' :) Writing is a competition for the opinions of your readership -- what did you take yourself to be doing? > In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? No analogy can be extended indefinitely, or you wouldn't be working with an analogy, you'd be observing an identity. It doesn't work, rhetorically, to take someone's analogy and point out that it is not `===` with the analogand. That's basically just an assertion that analogy is impossible. Given the analogical elements introduced by the original toot, it works. If I liken thee to a summer's day, it is no fault of mine that you have no solstice. > For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. The SAIC? (with apologies to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago)

1attice 4y ago

This argument does not feel emotional to me, it feels like an intuition pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump). Moral arguments almost always work by analogy, and this is one of them. 1) This assumption does not affect the example. If the well is already somewhat poisoned, making it more poisoned is still Bad. 2) The chemicals are definitely poisonous, but also have non-poisonous uses. 'The does makes the poison,' as Paracelsus put it. You still don't want them in your well water, typically. 3) Increased presence of poisonous chemicals in the well is literally what is presupposed by the example -- it's not an assumption, it's a premise. 4) This argument is anti-chemical-in-wellwater, it in no way touches on 'chemical stewards'. It's weird that you introduce this here -- effectively, you're modifying the analogy, and then pointing to the modified analogy and claiming it doesn't work. 5) See 4 6) See 4 7) This is a pretty reasonable assumption, given that there is no 'Ministry of AI'. 8) The fired ethicists may or may not have been good at their jobs, but no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists. You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed. EDIT @ 19:10PDT: added ', it feels like an intuition pump. ...'

textninja 4y ago
For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kill you. For 2, I disagree - you may want chemicals in your well if they’re designed to counteract the poison that was already in there. See 1. In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. > no ethicists is probably worse than fallible ethicists How fallible are we talking here? “Probably” is carrying an awful lot of weight in that argument. > You want to deflate the wallop this analogy packs, but I don't think you succeed. That’s just like your opinion, man.
- 1attice 4y ago
  N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3. > That’s just like your opinion, man. Yes, a state of affairs I indicated by using the qualifier 'think.' :) Writing is a competition for the opinions of your readership -- what did you take yourself to be doing? > In 4, 5, and 6 it seems you’ve lost sight of the fact that the analogy is being used as an argument against something that’s occurring in the real world. Whether my counter argument perfectly fits the original analogy is irrelevant because I’ve merely co-opted it as a rhetorical device. Are you suggesting it doesn’t fit with reality? No analogy can be extended indefinitely, or you wouldn't be working with an analogy, you'd be observing an identity. It doesn't work, rhetorically, to take someone's analogy and point out that it is not `===` with the analogand. That's basically just an assertion that analogy is impossible. Given the analogical elements introduced by the original toot, it works. If I liken thee to a summer's day, it is no fault of mine that you have no solstice. > For 7 and 8 I’ll just emphasize that the ethicists were employed by the chemical manufacturing companies. A conflict of interest is not a great foundation to build on. No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. The SAIC? (with apologies to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago)