3 ms·

Unlike for AI, in those fields we do not need to stack endless hypotheses on top of each other to arrive at something bad (and even then some prohibitions are t

Unlike for AI, in those fields we do not need to stack endless hypotheses on top of each other to arrive at something bad (and even then some prohibitions are tenuous in their reasoning at best).

lewhoo 3y ago
I don't know about that. Cloning/modifying humans has potentially so much benefit and yet we seem to stack hypotheses on top of it and conclude it's not worth it. There is also a lot to be said about all the hypotheses of killing all the Hitlers preemptively. I think that whatever we do, we usually arrive at a bit modified trolley problem and try to go from there. We really should never expect that the one particular route that we choose carries all the benefits and the other all the downsides.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  My point was more that it really isn't stretching anything to say: if something bad gets into human reproduction that has unfortunate effects. We can observe that already. So at least the risk case doesn't rely on a lot of hypotheses that might turn out wrong. Whether or not all regulations there are good or optimal is then a separate point again.
  - lewhoo 3y ago
    I agree but this is too general. If something bad gets into AI (like very biased or false training data) that has unfortunate effects also stands.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      But we need to stack a bunch of hypotheses on top of each other to have dangerous AI and those might not be true - that is the difference.
- dnissley 3y ago
  The best argument against human cloning/gmo is simply that we can't do this well on other animal species just yet, so probably we should be hold off on the humans. It's hyper pragmatic from an ethics perspective, not a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses at all.
  - lewhoo 3y ago
    I'm no expert but I actually think we are pretty good at genetically modifying organisms and that manifests itself in crops for instance with enough research to support the benefits.
    - dnissley 3y ago
      Plants are one thing we do it well enough on. As far as I'm aware we have yet to do it (at scale) on livestock, or even pets.
      - lewhoo 3y ago
        There is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon or things to the likes of https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be-sold-food-us https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be...
        dnissley 3y ago
        Looks like the fish is the only one that's gone to market. Pretty clearly still early days. I have no doubt that with enough time we'll get there, but to say this is proof that we're technically good to go ahead and produce gmo humans seems a bit rushed -- to reiterate, the point being that the ethical issues here are much more clear than a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I think much of this is, because Monsanto aside, no one has had a nice big genetic accident or intentional 'oh no' yet. Yea, we've had issues but not at the people are starving. If we start thinking of plant based biological weapons, just imagine modifying an existing grass to produce tons of pollen and to cross pollinate wheat but not produce seed in the wheat.

Unlike for AI, in those fields we do not need to stack endless hypotheses on top of each other to arrive at something bad (and even then some prohibitions are tenuous in their reasoning at best).

lewhoo 3y ago

I don't know about that. Cloning/modifying humans has potentially so much benefit and yet we seem to stack hypotheses on top of it and conclude it's not worth it. There is also a lot to be said about all the hypotheses of killing all the Hitlers preemptively. I think that whatever we do, we usually arrive at a bit modified trolley problem and try to go from there. We really should never expect that the one particular route that we choose carries all the benefits and the other all the downsides.

RandomLensman 3y ago
My point was more that it really isn't stretching anything to say: if something bad gets into human reproduction that has unfortunate effects. We can observe that already. So at least the risk case doesn't rely on a lot of hypotheses that might turn out wrong. Whether or not all regulations there are good or optimal is then a separate point again.
- lewhoo 3y ago
  I agree but this is too general. If something bad gets into AI (like very biased or false training data) that has unfortunate effects also stands.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    But we need to stack a bunch of hypotheses on top of each other to have dangerous AI and those might not be true - that is the difference.
dnissley 3y ago
The best argument against human cloning/gmo is simply that we can't do this well on other animal species just yet, so probably we should be hold off on the humans. It's hyper pragmatic from an ethics perspective, not a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses at all.
- lewhoo 3y ago
  I'm no expert but I actually think we are pretty good at genetically modifying organisms and that manifests itself in crops for instance with enough research to support the benefits.
  - dnissley 3y ago
    Plants are one thing we do it well enough on. As far as I'm aware we have yet to do it (at scale) on livestock, or even pets.
    - lewhoo 3y ago
      There is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon or things to the likes of https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be-sold-food-us https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be...
      - dnissley 3y ago
        Looks like the fish is the only one that's gone to market. Pretty clearly still early days. I have no doubt that with enough time we'll get there, but to say this is proof that we're technically good to go ahead and produce gmo humans seems a bit rushed -- to reiterate, the point being that the ethical issues here are much more clear than a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I think much of this is, because Monsanto aside, no one has had a nice big genetic accident or intentional 'oh no' yet. Yea, we've had issues but not at the people are starving. If we start thinking of plant based biological weapons, just imagine modifying an existing grass to produce tons of pollen and to cross pollinate wheat but not produce seed in the wheat.