4 ms·
> If a kid sends an AI-generated letter to a celebrity and no one notices, was the outrage ever justified? It’s a specific instance of then ends justifying the
by digitalPhonix 2y ago
> If a kid sends an AI-generated letter to a celebrity and no one notices, was the outrage ever justified?
It’s a specific instance of then ends justifying the means dilema. There’s no unambiguous answer but it’s a pretty common thing to teach kids that generally ends do not justify the means.
Stepping back though - It’s not about using tools to make work more efficient. The backlash is about the specific case of making a sincere gesture feel less sincere by having a tool do some of the work.
No one expects any level of emotional sincerity solving a maths/stats problem.
- Der_Einzige 2y agoAs was commonly said in the world of LD debate, "Util-is-Truthtil". Utilitarianism/Consequentualism is literally the only way humans actually act in the world, all other beliefs are delusion. Deontologists follow the Categorical Imperative only because they prefer to not live in a world without universal maxims (egoism), even if they won't directly admit to it in such language. As they also said in LD, "Kant was a C*nt" and Schopenhauer's/Stirner's critique of him on this exact point was right on the money.
- tines 2y ago> Utilitarianism/Consequentualism is literally the only way humans actually act in the world From what I understand, both of those systems define utility/consequence in terms of the entirety of society instead of only the individual doing the action or his tribe, so I’d say very few people act according to them.
- jazzyjackson 2y agoLincoln-Douglas debates?