3 ms·

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/Intuiti

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)
  - textninja 4y ago
    > No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. We may disagree even more than you think ;)
    - 1attice 4y ago
      I was pointing out the self-own: that your stated position motivates an outcome orthogonal to your values. Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)
      - textninja 4y ago
        > Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :) I mean, I did use 3 out of 8 points to rag on ethicists.
textninja 4y ago
The only good ethicist is a fired ethicist. Relax, I’m being flippant, but think about it.

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)
- textninja 4y ago
  > No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. We may disagree even more than you think ;)
  - 1attice 4y ago
    I was pointing out the self-own: that your stated position motivates an outcome orthogonal to your values. Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :)
    - textninja 4y ago
      > Which of course implies that I successfully inferred your accelerationist libertarianism from context. :) I mean, I did use 3 out of 8 points to rag on ethicists.

textninja 4y ago

The only good ethicist is a fired ethicist. Relax, I’m being flippant, but think about it.