4 ms·

It's been my experience that in conversations about AI, literally nobody actually wants empathy. People want to talk about empathy and deplore the people they d

by Kalium 3y ago

It's been my experience that in conversations about AI, literally nobody actually wants empathy. People want to talk about empathy and deplore the people they disagree with as lacking it. The underlying assumption and implication is that a person experiencing genuine empathy would both display it in some legible manner and agree with the speaker's positions on things. In short, the idea of empathy is weaponized. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this falls down on several points. It's just a disgusting way to talk about your fellow human beings when it's your own failures tripping you up. I imagine this is a cognitive limitation directly related to their own empathic limitations. In conversations about AI, people usually want changed behavior and similar concrete shifts. Empathy is viewed as a lever to produce those changes. When the changes are not forthcoming, the conclusion people reach is that clearly it's because the emotional experience of empathy isn't happening. This avoids considering awkward and unpleasant questions such as if there may be other good reasons why those changes are not forthcoming from a person who may be experiencing sincere and genuine empathy. I spent a lot of years as a professional software engineer. Many of those left me daily on the receiving end of people for whom calling on the empathy of others was their preferred means of shaping behavior. I had to learn to set aside those emotions in order to preserve my own judgment. Now I see, daily, the same kind of people deploring that the tools they taught me to resist are not working. What I see in this blog post is someone relating a story in which an awkward encounter is anonymized. The anonymization is itself a form of empathy in action - the person is not called out specifically, only the conversation. There's plenty of room to criticize the author in what is presented, but we really have no idea who missed what cues in that conversation. It's not a kind comment on either person.

chefandy 3y ago
a) I was responding to an admittedly off-topic comment, and not the article. b) Your argument that people solely use empathy as a kudgel to get their way is not reflected in reality. What you describe is emotional manipulation, and as far as I can tell, you're essentially arguing that all calls for empathy in conversation are emotional manipulation... which is ridiculous. c) Simply speaking about people respectfully is actually important and doesn't change the concrete components of a conversation. Discussing whether or not there should be some concrete action in response to a bunch of people losing their livelihood doesn't benefit from "lol get a new career, idiot." If you don't understand that, you've probably got a serious problem understanding the effect your words have on other people.
- Kalium 3y ago
  My argument was and is that specifically and narrowly in conversations about AI and its impacts on the livelihoods of people, calling for empathy from others is deliberate emotional manipulation with the objective of cudgeling people into compliance. It's also often a rallying cry, used to de-legitimize the positions of their counterparts as cold, uncaring, unfeeling, and devoid of humanity. Common enough ad-hominem material, though obviously fully emotionally justified. The only broader comment I offered was that I have worked with a number of people who operate that way on a daily basis. I understand why. It helps them hit their professional goals, ensuring their livelihood and those of their families. Many of them see a resistance to these tools as a lack of respect for their skills, abilities, hard work, or reasonable economic interests. As to personal respect - how prepared are you to see respect in someone saying they understand but disagree? I can both understand the impact of my words on other people and refuse to shift my position because of their emotional response. Many others may not react as well as you to a compassionate, empathic, kind, caring, and understanding essay arguing that creatives feeling threatened by AI should seriously consider a change of career.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    > My argument was and is that specifically and narrowly in conversations about AI and its impacts on the livelihoods of people, calling for empathy from others is deliberate emotional manipulation with the objective of cudgeling people into compliance. It's also often a rallying cry, used to de-legitimize the positions of their counterparts as cold, uncaring, unfeeling, and devoid of humanity. Common enough ad-hominem material, though obviously fully emotionally justified. Sorry, no. You're conflating two very different things. Saying it's unethical to entirely disregard people's livelihoods when deploying new technology doesn't even resemble an ad-hominem attack. Saying that anybody who has an opinion that doesn't match yours is arguing in bad faith IS an ad-hominem. For example: equating advocating for considering people's livlihood as being emotionally manipulative, full stop. It's pretty ironic that you're accusing them of not respecting opposing opinions. > The only broader comment I offered was that I have worked with a number of people who operate that way on a daily basis. I understand why. It helps them hit their professional goals, ensuring their livelihood and those of their families. Many of them see a resistance to these tools as a lack of respect for their skills, abilities, hard work, or reasonable economic interests. I don't know anything about your daily life, but I do know that trying to apply the motivations of the difficult people in your life to others you find similarly difficult is pretty intellectually lazy. > As to personal respect - how prepared are you to see respect in someone saying they understand but disagree? I do it all the time. I'm always the one trying to get people to see things from someone else's perspective. In this topic, specifically-- I strongly argue with people who think these technologies need to be locked down and left to huge companies solely to protect people's careers. I argue with developers who don't think they need to consider anything beyond technological advancement when deploying technology. Both opinions completely fail to acknowledge the needs of other people and the consequences for protecting their self-interest. > I can both understand the impact of my words on other people and refuse to shift my position because of their emotional response. Ok, great. Unless you prove that's true of everybody else, that doesn't address what I initially said. > Many others may not react as well as you to a compassionate, empathic, kind, caring, and understanding essay arguing that creatives feeling threatened by AI should seriously consider a change of career. You're right. Many others might not react well to a respectfully worded essay that said those things. You'll notice that I never, ever said that people who advocate for balancing technological advancement with the needs of the people replaced by it are fundamentally unethical. At all.

by Kalium 3y ago

chefandy 3y ago

a) I was responding to an admittedly off-topic comment, and not the article. b) Your argument that people solely use empathy as a kudgel to get their way is not reflected in reality. What you describe is emotional manipulation, and as far as I can tell, you're essentially arguing that all calls for empathy in conversation are emotional manipulation... which is ridiculous. c) Simply speaking about people respectfully is actually important and doesn't change the concrete components of a conversation. Discussing whether or not there should be some concrete action in response to a bunch of people losing their livelihood doesn't benefit from "lol get a new career, idiot." If you don't understand that, you've probably got a serious problem understanding the effect your words have on other people.

Kalium 3y ago
My argument was and is that specifically and narrowly in conversations about AI and its impacts on the livelihoods of people, calling for empathy from others is deliberate emotional manipulation with the objective of cudgeling people into compliance. It's also often a rallying cry, used to de-legitimize the positions of their counterparts as cold, uncaring, unfeeling, and devoid of humanity. Common enough ad-hominem material, though obviously fully emotionally justified. The only broader comment I offered was that I have worked with a number of people who operate that way on a daily basis. I understand why. It helps them hit their professional goals, ensuring their livelihood and those of their families. Many of them see a resistance to these tools as a lack of respect for their skills, abilities, hard work, or reasonable economic interests. As to personal respect - how prepared are you to see respect in someone saying they understand but disagree? I can both understand the impact of my words on other people and refuse to shift my position because of their emotional response. Many others may not react as well as you to a compassionate, empathic, kind, caring, and understanding essay arguing that creatives feeling threatened by AI should seriously consider a change of career.
- chefandy 3y ago
  > My argument was and is that specifically and narrowly in conversations about AI and its impacts on the livelihoods of people, calling for empathy from others is deliberate emotional manipulation with the objective of cudgeling people into compliance. It's also often a rallying cry, used to de-legitimize the positions of their counterparts as cold, uncaring, unfeeling, and devoid of humanity. Common enough ad-hominem material, though obviously fully emotionally justified. Sorry, no. You're conflating two very different things. Saying it's unethical to entirely disregard people's livelihoods when deploying new technology doesn't even resemble an ad-hominem attack. Saying that anybody who has an opinion that doesn't match yours is arguing in bad faith IS an ad-hominem. For example: equating advocating for considering people's livlihood as being emotionally manipulative, full stop. It's pretty ironic that you're accusing them of not respecting opposing opinions. > The only broader comment I offered was that I have worked with a number of people who operate that way on a daily basis. I understand why. It helps them hit their professional goals, ensuring their livelihood and those of their families. Many of them see a resistance to these tools as a lack of respect for their skills, abilities, hard work, or reasonable economic interests. I don't know anything about your daily life, but I do know that trying to apply the motivations of the difficult people in your life to others you find similarly difficult is pretty intellectually lazy. > As to personal respect - how prepared are you to see respect in someone saying they understand but disagree? I do it all the time. I'm always the one trying to get people to see things from someone else's perspective. In this topic, specifically-- I strongly argue with people who think these technologies need to be locked down and left to huge companies solely to protect people's careers. I argue with developers who don't think they need to consider anything beyond technological advancement when deploying technology. Both opinions completely fail to acknowledge the needs of other people and the consequences for protecting their self-interest. > I can both understand the impact of my words on other people and refuse to shift my position because of their emotional response. Ok, great. Unless you prove that's true of everybody else, that doesn't address what I initially said. > Many others may not react as well as you to a compassionate, empathic, kind, caring, and understanding essay arguing that creatives feeling threatened by AI should seriously consider a change of career. You're right. Many others might not react well to a respectfully worded essay that said those things. You'll notice that I never, ever said that people who advocate for balancing technological advancement with the needs of the people replaced by it are fundamentally unethical. At all.