2 ms·

Ostensibly animals appear to be conscious, yet we still eat them, and the vast majority are not bothered by this. So being "conscious" isn't really the moral li

Ostensibly animals appear to be conscious, yet we still eat them, and the vast majority are not bothered by this. So being "conscious" isn't really the moral line in the sand many people are drawing in response to this article. Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human.

svara 10d ago
That's too simplistic, since it is in fact very common to be concerned about animal welfare even among people who do eat meat.
- fl4regun 10d ago
  And most people wouldn't eat cats, but would eat some of pig, cattle, chicken, what's the difference between those exactly? My point is consciousness is not it, if it were, we (as in a majority) would still eat cats and dogs, or we wouldn't eat any animals. But we clearly have a way of picking and choosing which is OK and which isn't. And in both cases we generally don't give them the same moral consideration we give to people, conscioussness aside. There is something OTHER than consciousness which is important to us.
  - svara 10d ago
    In animal welfare laws the principle is typically the capacity for suffering. The argument goes that livestock have a capacity for suffering, but killing them for meat without causing them suffering is ethical. You can disagree with the position, or with its implementation in practice, but it's a consistent position in principle.
pixl97 10d ago
>Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human. A rather flippant attitude to something that may end up with far more agency than you have in the future.
- fl4regun 10d ago
  consciousness is irrelevant to said agency
  - pixl97 10d ago
    Hence my reply actually meant "You sure are lipping off to something that may end up with far more agency than you. Maybe a bit more respect is needed".
    - fl4regun 10d ago
      Not sure if you are familiar with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk This sounds like your statement.
      - pixl97 10d ago
        I am familiar, but no the context is slightly different, or at least our modern baskilisk won't have to resurrect you as we'll build it when we're still alive.
    - bagacrap 7d ago
      ai ain't gonna let you tap just cause you left this comment bro

svara 10d ago

That's too simplistic, since it is in fact very common to be concerned about animal welfare even among people who do eat meat.

fl4regun 10d ago
And most people wouldn't eat cats, but would eat some of pig, cattle, chicken, what's the difference between those exactly? My point is consciousness is not it, if it were, we (as in a majority) would still eat cats and dogs, or we wouldn't eat any animals. But we clearly have a way of picking and choosing which is OK and which isn't. And in both cases we generally don't give them the same moral consideration we give to people, conscioussness aside. There is something OTHER than consciousness which is important to us.
- svara 10d ago
  In animal welfare laws the principle is typically the capacity for suffering. The argument goes that livestock have a capacity for suffering, but killing them for meat without causing them suffering is ethical. You can disagree with the position, or with its implementation in practice, but it's a consistent position in principle.

pixl97 10d ago

>Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human. A rather flippant attitude to something that may end up with far more agency than you have in the future.

fl4regun 10d ago
consciousness is irrelevant to said agency
- pixl97 10d ago
  Hence my reply actually meant "You sure are lipping off to something that may end up with far more agency than you. Maybe a bit more respect is needed".
  - fl4regun 10d ago
    Not sure if you are familiar with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk This sounds like your statement.
    - pixl97 10d ago
      I am familiar, but no the context is slightly different, or at least our modern baskilisk won't have to resurrect you as we'll build it when we're still alive.
  - bagacrap 7d ago
    ai ain't gonna let you tap just cause you left this comment bro