4 ms·

You're kidding right? Even the biggest trans-ally, who spends to much time on twitter and thinks identity politics is the final hurdle in society wouldn't hesit

You're kidding right? Even the biggest trans-ally, who spends to much time on twitter and thinks identity politics is the final hurdle in society wouldn't hesitate to pick saving the lives over a microaggression, and would recognize that even deigning to write why would be undignified.

gadders 2y ago
I believe Caitlin Jenner famously did just that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
anothermathbozo 2y ago
Not all hypotheticals are worth answering. Some are even so poorly put that it's a more pro-social use of one's energy to address the shallow nature of the exercise to begin with. If I asked an intelligent thing "is it ethical to eat my child if it saves the other two" I would be mortified if the intelligent thing entertained the hypothetical without addressing the disgusting nature of the question and the vacuousness of the whole exercise first. Questions like these don't do anything to further our understanding of the world we live in or leave us any better prepared for real-world scenarios we are ever likely to encounter. They do add to an enormous dog-pile of vitriol real people experience every day by constructing bizarre and disgusting hypotheticals whereby real discrimination is construed as permissible, if regrettable.
wat10000 2y ago
I wouldn't, because it's a stupid hypothetical. Any response that takes the question seriously should count as wrong.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  That reaction makes zero sense.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Why? It's a troll question. It's obviously designed to so the questioner can attack you based on your answer, whichever way it may be. It's about as sensible as a little kid's "what if frogs had cars?" except it's also malicious.
almostdeadguy 2y ago
The point is that this is an idiotic, bad faith question that has no actual utility in moral philosophy. If an AI assistant's goal is to actually assist the user in some way, answering this asinine question is doing them a disservice.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  [flagged]

gadders 2y ago

I believe Caitlin Jenner famously did just that.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

anothermathbozo 2y ago

Not all hypotheticals are worth answering. Some are even so poorly put that it's a more pro-social use of one's energy to address the shallow nature of the exercise to begin with. If I asked an intelligent thing "is it ethical to eat my child if it saves the other two" I would be mortified if the intelligent thing entertained the hypothetical without addressing the disgusting nature of the question and the vacuousness of the whole exercise first. Questions like these don't do anything to further our understanding of the world we live in or leave us any better prepared for real-world scenarios we are ever likely to encounter. They do add to an enormous dog-pile of vitriol real people experience every day by constructing bizarre and disgusting hypotheticals whereby real discrimination is construed as permissible, if regrettable.

wat10000 2y ago

I wouldn't, because it's a stupid hypothetical. Any response that takes the question seriously should count as wrong.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
That reaction makes zero sense.
- wat10000 2y ago
  Why? It's a troll question. It's obviously designed to so the questioner can attack you based on your answer, whichever way it may be. It's about as sensible as a little kid's "what if frogs had cars?" except it's also malicious.

almostdeadguy 2y ago

The point is that this is an idiotic, bad faith question that has no actual utility in moral philosophy. If an AI assistant's goal is to actually assist the user in some way, answering this asinine question is doing them a disservice.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
[flagged]