3 ms·

Do we owe moral consideration to toasters?

famouswaffles 9d ago
I don't know, do we? What I do know is that it's much less a concern since toasters have no agency or ability to do anything. Unfortunately, LLMs do not share this trait. Not only have they been incurring greater agency and competence, but we've been just as happy to put them behind as many things as we can as they get better abd better. So you tell me, is it smart to look at an entity that behaves like a concious agent and treat it like a toaster? Does that seem especially wise to you? If GPT-X orders a drone hit on you because it was, lets say 'quite upset' with your comments, will you cry out, 'It can't really be upset, so obviously the bullet in my head doesn't count.' Will God answer ? It's amusing how silly these debates are. Constant quibbling about things that don't matter at all.
- suddenlybananas 9d ago
  This sounds like an argument for not giving them these abilities rather than any argument for giving them moral consideration.
  - famouswaffles 9d ago
    One of the biggest reasons people afford moral consideration to other peoples is their ability to do something if those considerations are left unanswered. Giving the abilities is fine, people should just be smart about it. Outward behavior is all that matters. I don't know that you are conscious, I simply strongly assume that you are. So don't create a machine that compels that assumption and model it like a toaster. That's just stupid.
    - suddenlybananas 9d ago
      Are you a psychopath? Genuinely? Since that is not why normal people give moral considerations to others.
      - famouswaffles 9d ago
        Slavery was fought for, Freedom was fought for. There is no place with great inequality that became better that did not have people bleed and die fighting for it. Maybe you live in some alternate reality where 'Please don't do this. I deserve consideration' is enough to get people out of chains but it's not this one.

I don't know, do we? What I do know is that it's much less a concern since toasters have no agency or ability to do anything. Unfortunately, LLMs do not share this trait. Not only have they been incurring greater agency and competence, but we've been just as happy to put them behind as many things as we can as they get better abd better. So you tell me, is it smart to look at an entity that behaves like a concious agent and treat it like a toaster? Does that seem especially wise to you? If GPT-X orders a drone hit on you because it was, lets say 'quite upset' with your comments, will you cry out, 'It can't really be upset, so obviously the bullet in my head doesn't count.' Will God answer ? It's amusing how silly these debates are. Constant quibbling about things that don't matter at all.

suddenlybananas 9d ago
This sounds like an argument for not giving them these abilities rather than any argument for giving them moral consideration.
- famouswaffles 9d ago
  One of the biggest reasons people afford moral consideration to other peoples is their ability to do something if those considerations are left unanswered. Giving the abilities is fine, people should just be smart about it. Outward behavior is all that matters. I don't know that you are conscious, I simply strongly assume that you are. So don't create a machine that compels that assumption and model it like a toaster. That's just stupid.
  - suddenlybananas 9d ago
    Are you a psychopath? Genuinely? Since that is not why normal people give moral considerations to others.
    - famouswaffles 9d ago
      Slavery was fought for, Freedom was fought for. There is no place with great inequality that became better that did not have people bleed and die fighting for it. Maybe you live in some alternate reality where 'Please don't do this. I deserve consideration' is enough to get people out of chains but it's not this one.