4 ms·

This is great. The world will change dramatically, and it is OK to be afraid of that and the unknowns, but the best approach is to take advantage of all the goo

This is great. The world will change dramatically, and it is OK to be afraid of that and the unknowns, but the best approach is to take advantage of all the good things that are coming and do not spend too much time being sad about the things that are going away.

jacquesm 4y ago
That depends on what the good things are that are coming and what the things are that are going away. And it also depends on the bad things that are coming, and what new things are going to come. You are making an ethical argument based on utility, those two are not the best in combinations like that, the ethical argument should be made on an ethical foundation, not on the temporary outcome. It's interesting how one of the most obvious problem spaces, the one of ethical reasoning is one that is least amendable to pure logic without adding a very large dose of humanity. Example: killing is bad. But killing to save someone from endless misery (called Euthanasia) can be a good thing. But it still requires - where I live - two doctors to come to the conclusion that someone is beyond medical help and suffering needlessly. And then there needs to be a clear declaration on the capability of the person making the request that they are able to make such a request in the first place. Ethics isn't simple, even in 'simple' cases.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  It isn't a matter of Ethics. Ethics implies that I have control of the situation (Do I kill the person who wants to die or not) or (Do I stop AI or not) I am not in a position to decide to stop technological progress. So I am choosing control what I can, which is my attitude.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Those that are in control of that progress and whether or not they release certain capabilities to the general public are the ones that will have to deal with the ethical bits, and society as a whole can do so as well. Politicians can make laws based on ethics.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      Do you cure cancer if it means that 100 million people will lose their jobs?
      - newshorts 4y ago
        Yes. It will be painful for some folks to transition to doing something else for sure. I know you are just using random numbers but 10 million people die per year. The benefit would outweigh the cost.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Good question. So what's your answer and why?
      - xarope 4y ago
        Broken windows fallacy. If 100m highly competent people were involved in managing cancer, and we cured cancer, these 100m highly competent people could then turn their attention and skills to something else important. There are plenty of health care crises in the world

jacquesm 4y ago

That depends on what the good things are that are coming and what the things are that are going away. And it also depends on the bad things that are coming, and what new things are going to come. You are making an ethical argument based on utility, those two are not the best in combinations like that, the ethical argument should be made on an ethical foundation, not on the temporary outcome. It's interesting how one of the most obvious problem spaces, the one of ethical reasoning is one that is least amendable to pure logic without adding a very large dose of humanity. Example: killing is bad. But killing to save someone from endless misery (called Euthanasia) can be a good thing. But it still requires - where I live - two doctors to come to the conclusion that someone is beyond medical help and suffering needlessly. And then there needs to be a clear declaration on the capability of the person making the request that they are able to make such a request in the first place. Ethics isn't simple, even in 'simple' cases.

gitfan86 4y ago
It isn't a matter of Ethics. Ethics implies that I have control of the situation (Do I kill the person who wants to die or not) or (Do I stop AI or not) I am not in a position to decide to stop technological progress. So I am choosing control what I can, which is my attitude.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Those that are in control of that progress and whether or not they release certain capabilities to the general public are the ones that will have to deal with the ethical bits, and society as a whole can do so as well. Politicians can make laws based on ethics.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    Do you cure cancer if it means that 100 million people will lose their jobs?
    - newshorts 4y ago
      Yes. It will be painful for some folks to transition to doing something else for sure. I know you are just using random numbers but 10 million people die per year. The benefit would outweigh the cost.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Good question. So what's your answer and why?
    - xarope 4y ago
      Broken windows fallacy. If 100m highly competent people were involved in managing cancer, and we cured cancer, these 100m highly competent people could then turn their attention and skills to something else important. There are plenty of health care crises in the world