4 ms·

I agree that "translating" what they are trying to say could result in accurate conclusions. But I don't see what that has to do with my comment. Are you expli

by vba616 3y ago

I agree that "translating" what they are trying to say could result in accurate conclusions. But I don't see what that has to do with my comment. Are you explicitly a radical behaviorist, or do you think animals have internal experience? Suppose that instead of a dog, we were talking about a human with dementia in a nursing home. Do you think that not being able to witness your own condition to a doctor would put you at a disadvantage? In the absence of a feedback mechanism, the virtue and the intelligence of people who are in control of a system do not count for much.

krisoft 3y ago
> Are you explicitly a radical behaviorist, or do you think animals have internal experience? You will have to use smaller words with me, or explain your vocabulary, if we are to have a discussion. > But I don't see what that has to do with my comment You said these things in your original comment: "If we decide that it does" (here I presumed "does" mean AI let us understanding animals) "then conveniently there's no way for the animals to dispute it." That is what I'm disagreeing with. There are many ways animals can dispute us understanding them. Imagine a scenario that we have a gadget which is supposedly translating horse body language and vocalisations to human language. You step up to a big black mare and use the gizmo. It tells you that the horse wants scratches behind its ear. You reach out, but oh horror it was a complete mistranslation. The horse was in distress by you approaching and is completely spoked by you reaching for their ear. It reacts, bites your hand, kicks you and drags you through the mud. That is how you realise that the gizmo's understanding of horse communication is less than perfect. That is the feedback mechanism. You said there is no way, and here is one way they can do it. > Suppose that instead of a dog, we were talking about a human with dementia in a nursing home. Do you think that not being able to witness your own condition to a doctor would put you at a disadvantage? Sure. But animals are not dementia patients and being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them.
- vba616 3y ago
  >You will have to use smaller words with me, or explain your vocabulary, if we are to have a discussion. Sorry, I was alluding to B.F. Skinner, but I used the term "radical behaviorist" because I didn't want to get drawn into a discussion of him in particular. I think it's a known term, although I'm not sure whether anybody self-identifies as such or if it's more of a caricature by opponents. I threw it out there, thinking if you did recognize it, and identified yourself as one or as not one, I would learn more about how it is used. >But animals are not dementia patients and being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them. "...is the best we can do" is what I see you arguing, and I'm neither affirming nor denying it. It's not relevant to my interests or the intent of my commenting, is all. I seem to recall a (possibly recurring) news item about the poultry industry wherein it explains that non-egg laying chicks are being disposed of in huge shredders, alive. I am certain an industry expert would say that is the best alternative. What does anyone do all day but try to figure out the best way to do things at work? If someone suggests that being shredded might be unpleasant, and you coincidentally work in the industry, you might be concerned that you are being judged as immoral, or that they are on a crusade to stop people eating meat, or otherwise react to an attack on your lifestyle, ethics, and self-image. But maybe (in my case) I just have a bit of a pre-occupation with acknowledging unpleasant aspects of reality, because I worry that people who rationalize treating living creatures that way might shade over to denial of facts and develop faulty intuition about other situations. >being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them. The reason I wrote "to a doctor" was just that I was reaching for a viscerally urgent or critical situation in my example, not because communicating one's mental state is uniquely relevant in medical situations. It could just as well be "saying goodbye to a loved one". One conception of empathy is feeling what someone (or some creature) is feeling, that is, accurately modeling what they feel. On the other hand, in reality, all anyone can know for sure is if they get positive reinforcement for using their model of others' feelings. In any situation of unequal power and/or imperfect communication, there is a danger that the person with power gets positive reinforcement that is detached from reality, without the possibility of correction.

by vba616 3y ago

krisoft 3y ago

> Are you explicitly a radical behaviorist, or do you think animals have internal experience? You will have to use smaller words with me, or explain your vocabulary, if we are to have a discussion. > But I don't see what that has to do with my comment You said these things in your original comment: "If we decide that it does" (here I presumed "does" mean AI let us understanding animals) "then conveniently there's no way for the animals to dispute it." That is what I'm disagreeing with. There are many ways animals can dispute us understanding them. Imagine a scenario that we have a gadget which is supposedly translating horse body language and vocalisations to human language. You step up to a big black mare and use the gizmo. It tells you that the horse wants scratches behind its ear. You reach out, but oh horror it was a complete mistranslation. The horse was in distress by you approaching and is completely spoked by you reaching for their ear. It reacts, bites your hand, kicks you and drags you through the mud. That is how you realise that the gizmo's understanding of horse communication is less than perfect. That is the feedback mechanism. You said there is no way, and here is one way they can do it. > Suppose that instead of a dog, we were talking about a human with dementia in a nursing home. Do you think that not being able to witness your own condition to a doctor would put you at a disadvantage? Sure. But animals are not dementia patients and being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them.

vba616 3y ago
>You will have to use smaller words with me, or explain your vocabulary, if we are to have a discussion. Sorry, I was alluding to B.F. Skinner, but I used the term "radical behaviorist" because I didn't want to get drawn into a discussion of him in particular. I think it's a known term, although I'm not sure whether anybody self-identifies as such or if it's more of a caricature by opponents. I threw it out there, thinking if you did recognize it, and identified yourself as one or as not one, I would learn more about how it is used. >But animals are not dementia patients and being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them. "...is the best we can do" is what I see you arguing, and I'm neither affirming nor denying it. It's not relevant to my interests or the intent of my commenting, is all. I seem to recall a (possibly recurring) news item about the poultry industry wherein it explains that non-egg laying chicks are being disposed of in huge shredders, alive. I am certain an industry expert would say that is the best alternative. What does anyone do all day but try to figure out the best way to do things at work? If someone suggests that being shredded might be unpleasant, and you coincidentally work in the industry, you might be concerned that you are being judged as immoral, or that they are on a crusade to stop people eating meat, or otherwise react to an attack on your lifestyle, ethics, and self-image. But maybe (in my case) I just have a bit of a pre-occupation with acknowledging unpleasant aspects of reality, because I worry that people who rationalize treating living creatures that way might shade over to denial of facts and develop faulty intuition about other situations. >being at a doctor/vet is not the only scenario we can test our understanding of them. The reason I wrote "to a doctor" was just that I was reaching for a viscerally urgent or critical situation in my example, not because communicating one's mental state is uniquely relevant in medical situations. It could just as well be "saying goodbye to a loved one". One conception of empathy is feeling what someone (or some creature) is feeling, that is, accurately modeling what they feel. On the other hand, in reality, all anyone can know for sure is if they get positive reinforcement for using their model of others' feelings. In any situation of unequal power and/or imperfect communication, there is a danger that the person with power gets positive reinforcement that is detached from reality, without the possibility of correction.