pdonis

25 ms·

181.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> If you want to talk about ends, you're talking Axiology, not strictly Ethics. Even if I accept this quibbling over definitions, I don't see how it's relevant. We're talking about how to actually make choices. That
182.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> there are plenty of people with the ethical chops to do so, and, I daresay, plenty who combine that with the technical chops. Can you name some? > What's lacking is the money & power. How do you know money and power wou
183.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> the actual argument that badly flown and maintained aircraft represent a threat to people that didn't make an informed choice to fly on them. So our airline safety regulations have nothing to do with the safety of the, um, passe
184.
by pdonis 5mo ago
The control benefit isn't just psychological; it can have real financial consequences. If you own your home, you can't be told by a landlord that their pet policy has changed and you will have to move out. You also can't have
185.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Neither Deontology, Virtue Ethics, nor Consequentialism describe the ends If you insist on just looking at the general, abstract terms as categories, instead of the actual ethical systems that are usually described as falling into th
186.
by pdonis 5mo ago
But how do you judge the consequences? Either you have an infinite regress, or you end up declaring by fiat that some things are good and others are bad, just because. Which is...deontology--what "consequentialism" was supposed to
187.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> It's an algorithmic decision based on content designed to influence the end user, it's exactly the same thing. That's certainly one way to view it, yes. Indeed, court rulings (prior to Anderson v. TikTok) basically too
188.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Legally, I think making algorithmic decisions based on content should be treated as a first-party act of publishing. That was basically the direction the ruling in Anderson v. TikTok was pointing, yes? The question is going to be whe
189.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> No, I think that ycombinator, who provides this forum... shouldn't. Good, then we're in agreement on that. > This thing where we've traded societal trust for profits for the companies destroying it is a bad choice
190.
by pdonis 5mo ago
So you think that, for example, ycombinator, who provides this forum, should have to be prepared to defend in court every single action it takes that restricts someone's use of this site? (For example, every time a post gets restricted
191.
by pdonis 5mo ago
The engine noise can still be conducted through the body of the plane. With the kind of ramjet being talked about, I think that's still likely to be significant even at very high altitude.
192.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> people do not consent to be hit by drunk drivers True. > or poorly maintained aeroplanes But that's not something a person can affect by their choice of whether to fly on such an airplane, which is what we've been talk
193.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> the libertarian fantasy that if the government doesn't regulate something the private sector will do a much better job I have never claimed "much better". But given the overall track record of government regulation in
194.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> there's this not-that-little country called Indonesia whose airlines were banned from operating in the West for a long time because of an extremely well known lack of adequate safety standards, and an accompanying tendency to plu
195.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Some people are willing to be drive drunk. In addition to all the other things I pointed out, there's a very simple and obvious difference between this and the airplane case: a person choosing to drive drunk imposes some risk on
196.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> a "free market" where "unencumbered" by regulation there wasn't even proper investigation or disclosure. Straw man. As I pointed out in another post upthread, in a free market, nobody would fly on Boeing airc
197.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> This argument is on the level of anti vaxxers questioning vaccines when they dont see those diseases anymore. I have no idea where you're getting this from; the argument I'm making is nothing at all like this. Indeed, I hav
198.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Some people are willing to be drive drunk. This doesn't mean that taking into account the views of people who don't want to be killed by drunk people when determining who gets to use the roads is "overestimating the val
199.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> We lived through the unregulated version for centuries In the sense that we didn't have, say, the FDA, yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean food production, for example, was unregulated. It means it was regulated by
200.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> I don't think the free market would have selected for the current cost vs safety balance on its own. Possibly not. Possibly in a free market people still would fly on an aircraft type that was known to have had two recent crashe
201.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Getting rid of government regulations in their entirety just cedes all the decision making power to corporations. The massive power that corporations have, as compared to individuals, is itself a product of the fact that our society
202.
by pdonis 5mo ago
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that people being harmed and killed is acceptable. My disagreement is about whether government regulations, on net, actually result in fewer people being harmed and killed, or more. That&#
203.
by pdonis 5mo ago
How do you suppose the conditions in the Chicago meat packing industry that Upton Sinclair wrote about, or those that produced superfund sites, came about? If you think it was a "free market" that did it, you are the one who doesn
204.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Giving up is not a strategy. Nor is it what I advocated. > Regulations are painful in that they obviously reduce economic productivity That's usually true, but it's not the main problem. The main problem is that the re
205.
by pdonis 5mo ago
There is no magic solution to the "problem" of "how to dictate rules to a large society that will keep things smooth and productive". The problem is fundamentally intractable if you insist on looking at it that way. Ther
206.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> the wide body of regulation we've grown to require for a smooth and healthy and productive society. If you actually believe this is true, I have some sad news for you. Does the term "regulatory capture" mean anything t
207.
by pdonis 5mo ago
Ah, ok. I certainly agree with that. My question would be whether it's even possible for we humans as we are now to make an AI with a deliberate eye to ethical behavior. Sam Altman clearly is not someone who can do that (nor is Elon
208.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> A people interested in good faith attempt to do good dont end up in Sam Altman position. I strongly disagree. Human history is full of examples of people who made good faith attempts to do good that backfired tremendously. A good fai
209.
by pdonis 5mo ago
I'm not sure I agree that Altman has made the AI situation worse. I think Altman was right that Google, and Microsoft and others for that matter, were going to pursue AI no matter what. Even if OpenAI had never existed and Altman had n
210.
by pdonis 5mo ago
I don't know that the hypothetical I described requires that the open source part was sincere. The article focuses on Altman's belief that someone was going to develop AI and he thought it would be bad if Google did it first--mean

More ›