4 ms·

It's coherent (just) for something to be an affront to humanity and helpful for some tasks. It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affr

It's coherent (just) for something to be an affront to humanity and helpful for some tasks. It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affront to humanity and to condone using it.

happytoexplain 2y ago
I disagree. Generically speaking that's true, but specifically speaking, AI has a wide variety of use cases, and they do not all, from the perspective of a normal user, appear to help spread what they perceive to be the bad parts. Obviously if we could somehow separate the good from the bad, we should, but it seems like an intractable problem. This dichotomy (polychotomy?) is also aggravated by the fact that when people talk about AI, they are probably 99% referring to generation of prose, art, and code (as opposed to e.g. medical diagnosis).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > they are probably 99% referring to generation of prose, art, and code That was what I took TFA to be speaking about. It's ambiguous, probably because author didn't expect an audience of HN readers, but most of the enumerated concerns and uses cases are specific to "AI as replacement for human creativity, in artistic endeavors."
pxc 2y ago
> It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affront to humanity and to condone using it. A lot of people (particularly Americans) seem to think of nuclear bombs in exactly this way. They typically see the 'some task' to be of extremely outsized necessity and importance, and I think they'd say that makes the two ideas cohere.
- tempfile 2y ago
  Then those people do not seriously think nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity. It doesn't just mean "very bad". It's against human dignity. You shouldn't do it, ever. Killing isn't an affront to humanity, but torture is, for example. If you think using nuclear weapons can be justified, then you don't think they're evil, you just think they're dangerous.
  - pxc 2y ago
    I absolutely agree about nukes. The US' use of nukes was barbaric imperialism and when USians' say it was justified I think that's a transparent post-hoc rationalization. And I agree totally that the position I outlined is deeply hypocritical. I'm less sure that it's an outright logical contradiction, but I'm inclined to agree with you there as well.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    If you claim something is an "affront to humanity" it clearly induces doubt in your opponent that you would use it. Not a good negotiating position where deterrence is concerned.
Vecr 2y ago
Not really, many AI doomer types use AI for various tasks. Obviously they need to for research, but even outside that they say they get benefit.

happytoexplain 2y ago

I disagree. Generically speaking that's true, but specifically speaking, AI has a wide variety of use cases, and they do not all, from the perspective of a normal user, appear to help spread what they perceive to be the bad parts. Obviously if we could somehow separate the good from the bad, we should, but it seems like an intractable problem. This dichotomy (polychotomy?) is also aggravated by the fact that when people talk about AI, they are probably 99% referring to generation of prose, art, and code (as opposed to e.g. medical diagnosis).

ethbr1 2y ago
> they are probably 99% referring to generation of prose, art, and code That was what I took TFA to be speaking about. It's ambiguous, probably because author didn't expect an audience of HN readers, but most of the enumerated concerns and uses cases are specific to "AI as replacement for human creativity, in artistic endeavors."

pxc 2y ago

> It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affront to humanity and to condone using it. A lot of people (particularly Americans) seem to think of nuclear bombs in exactly this way. They typically see the 'some task' to be of extremely outsized necessity and importance, and I think they'd say that makes the two ideas cohere.

tempfile 2y ago
Then those people do not seriously think nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity. It doesn't just mean "very bad". It's against human dignity. You shouldn't do it, ever. Killing isn't an affront to humanity, but torture is, for example. If you think using nuclear weapons can be justified, then you don't think they're evil, you just think they're dangerous.
- pxc 2y ago
  I absolutely agree about nukes. The US' use of nukes was barbaric imperialism and when USians' say it was justified I think that's a transparent post-hoc rationalization. And I agree totally that the position I outlined is deeply hypocritical. I'm less sure that it's an outright logical contradiction, but I'm inclined to agree with you there as well.
- Vecr 2y ago
  If you claim something is an "affront to humanity" it clearly induces doubt in your opponent that you would use it. Not a good negotiating position where deterrence is concerned.

Vecr 2y ago

Not really, many AI doomer types use AI for various tasks. Obviously they need to for research, but even outside that they say they get benefit.