3 ms·

[flagged]

by jychang 9mo ago

[flagged]

Antibabelic 9mo ago
Your response seems AI-generated (or significantly AI-”enhanced”), so I’m not going to bother responding to any follow-ups. > More importantly, your framework cannot account for moral progress! I don’t think “moral progress” (or any other kind of “progress”, e.g. “technological progress”) is a meaningful category that needs to be “accounted for”. > Why does "hunting babies" feel similar to "torturing prisoners" but different from "eating chicken"? I can see “hunting babies” being more acceptable to “torturing prisoners” to many people. Many people don’t consider babies on par with grown-up humans due to their limited neurological development and consciousness. Vice versa, many people find the idea of eating chicken abhorrent and would say that a society of meat-eaters is worse than a thousand Nazi Germanies. This is not a strawman I came up with, I’ve interacted with people who hold this exact opinion, and I think from their perspective it is justified. > [Without a moral framework you have] no way to reason about novel cases You can easily reason about novel cases without a moral framework. It just won’t be moral reasoning (which wouldn’t add anything in itself). Is stabbing a robot to death okay? We can think about in terms of how I feel about it. It’s kinda human-shaped, so I’d probably feel a bit weird about it. How would others react to me stabbing it this way? They’d probably feel similarly. Plus, it’s expensive electronics, people don’t like wastefulness. Would it be legal? Probably.
- jychang 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Dilettante_ 9mo ago
    >I got lazy with your responses and just threw in a few bullet points to AI This should legit be a permabannable offense. That is titanically disrespectful of not just your discussion partner, but of good discussion culture as a whole.
    - jychang 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - abecedarius 9mo ago
        I'm on your side in this argument (approximately; asking what ethics even is and where it comes from can be productive but shouldn't conclude "and therefore AI agents working with humans don't need to integrate a human moral sense" -- at least that'd be a really bad conclusion to humanity as AI scales up). Can't recommend letting an LLM write for you directly, though. I found myself skipping your third paragraph in the reply above.
        jychang 9mo ago
        That was entirely handwritten.
        Dilettante_ 9mo ago
        Yeah but nobody is gonna read it if they waded through five paragraphs of insubstantial LLM slop from you before. You betrayed the trust of everyone reading that post, wasting their time, energy and quite frankly making us feel a little dirty for reading in good faith what turned out to be something you put zero effort into generating and took us a lot of effort to read. Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me and all that. This is exactly, genuinely, 100% what I was talking about when I said you were being direspectful of good discussion culture. You're turning it from high-trust into low-trust and soon nobody will be reading any comment longer than two sentences by default.
tomhow 9mo ago
Please don't post generated comments on HN. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46717218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46717218 and marked it off topic.

[flagged]

by jychang 9mo ago

[flagged]

Your response seems AI-generated (or significantly AI-”enhanced”), so I’m not going to bother responding to any follow-ups. > More importantly, your framework cannot account for moral progress! I don’t think “moral progress” (or any other kind of “progress”, e.g. “technological progress”) is a meaningful category that needs to be “accounted for”. > Why does "hunting babies" feel similar to "torturing prisoners" but different from "eating chicken"? I can see “hunting babies” being more acceptable to “torturing prisoners” to many people. Many people don’t consider babies on par with grown-up humans due to their limited neurological development and consciousness. Vice versa, many people find the idea of eating chicken abhorrent and would say that a society of meat-eaters is worse than a thousand Nazi Germanies. This is not a strawman I came up with, I’ve interacted with people who hold this exact opinion, and I think from their perspective it is justified. > [Without a moral framework you have] no way to reason about novel cases You can easily reason about novel cases without a moral framework. It just won’t be moral reasoning (which wouldn’t add anything in itself). Is stabbing a robot to death okay? We can think about in terms of how I feel about it. It’s kinda human-shaped, so I’d probably feel a bit weird about it. How would others react to me stabbing it this way? They’d probably feel similarly. Plus, it’s expensive electronics, people don’t like wastefulness. Would it be legal? Probably.

jychang 9mo ago
[flagged]
- Dilettante_ 9mo ago
  >I got lazy with your responses and just threw in a few bullet points to AI This should legit be a permabannable offense. That is titanically disrespectful of not just your discussion partner, but of good discussion culture as a whole.
  - jychang 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - abecedarius 9mo ago
      I'm on your side in this argument (approximately; asking what ethics even is and where it comes from can be productive but shouldn't conclude "and therefore AI agents working with humans don't need to integrate a human moral sense" -- at least that'd be a really bad conclusion to humanity as AI scales up). Can't recommend letting an LLM write for you directly, though. I found myself skipping your third paragraph in the reply above.
      - jychang 9mo ago
        That was entirely handwritten.
        Dilettante_ 9mo ago
        Yeah but nobody is gonna read it if they waded through five paragraphs of insubstantial LLM slop from you before. You betrayed the trust of everyone reading that post, wasting their time, energy and quite frankly making us feel a little dirty for reading in good faith what turned out to be something you put zero effort into generating and took us a lot of effort to read. Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me and all that. This is exactly, genuinely, 100% what I was talking about when I said you were being direspectful of good discussion culture. You're turning it from high-trust into low-trust and soon nobody will be reading any comment longer than two sentences by default.

tomhow 9mo ago

Please don't post generated comments on HN. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46717218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46717218 and marked it off topic.