3 ms·

The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you

The "entire universe" or "future of humans" type arguments are essentially psychopathy. I am not calling you a psychopath either. I do very strongly urge you to cast that kind of thinking aside. Fact is, in many cases where those kinds of arguments are seen, we will also see someone who really, really does not want to be told what to do and or who cannot tolerate a decision they do not agree with. One can justify any means to any end thinking like that, which is why I am tagging that kind of reasoning as psychopathy. It is unhealthy. Take care, live well, peace and all that. I mean nothing personal. Just give this all some real thought. You are extremely likely to be better off for having done it.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?
- jjulius 2y ago
  Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information. I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jjulius 2y ago
      One can do a great job of questioning and, if need be, challenging the intentions/ethics of a board without being unethical.
      - ddingus 2y ago
        And when one does so, remain ethical, should that discussion get ugly, holding to those ethics does a world of good when it comes down to others having to trust your intent was as just and true as you could manage. That means a lot.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his position with openly, who wanted to undertake actions that others thought were too risky. So your argument, if it were valid, would not apply to Altman, but to the other OpenAI board members whose confidence in him had been destroyed. Do you think they should have lied to Altman to get him to stop doing things they thought were too risky?
- tivert 2y ago
  > Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths Come on. That ridiculously unreasonable hypothetical obscures more than it reveals, and is pretty much a total derail.

mewpmewp2 2y ago

Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths. You are not seeing a way to convince them in other ways, however you do see a way where you can lie to them, to keep them from that idea and therefore saving many lives and possibly the World from assured mutual destruction. Would that be unethical? Would that be psychopathy?

jjulius 2y ago
Do you think that OpenAI is somehow on the same level of importance as "the survival of the entire universe" or "[detonating] a nuclear bomb"? I'm trying to understand why you're comparing this scenario to things of that magnitude. Seems like one hell of a gigantic stretch.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Not talking about OpenAI, but in general. I wouldn't know what is happening in the OpenAI's case, I just don't have the information. I just don't like the idea of some group of people having superior power of not being questioned about their ethics (the board in this case). Just sounds a bit cultish to imagine boards to always wield these kind intentions.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 2y ago
    One can do a great job of questioning and, if need be, challenging the intentions/ethics of a board without being unethical.
    - ddingus 2y ago
      And when one does so, remain ethical, should that discussion get ugly, holding to those ethics does a world of good when it comes down to others having to trust your intent was as just and true as you could manage. That means a lot.
pdonis 2y ago
> let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his position with openly, who wanted to undertake actions that others thought were too risky. So your argument, if it were valid, would not apply to Altman, but to the other OpenAI board members whose confidence in him had been destroyed. Do you think they should have lied to Altman to get him to stop doing things they thought were too risky?
tivert 2y ago
> Okay, but let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. You think it's not a great idea, because it might cause a lot of deaths Come on. That ridiculously unreasonable hypothetical obscures more than it reveals, and is pretty much a total derail.