Nah. I want to avoid AI slop because I think it’s unethical. For one thing there’s the water and energy use. For another, these genAI technologies are creating psychological dependence and even killing people. For a third, we have no solid research into ethical treatment of genAI neural networks as subjects under capitalism. And finally, fuck the rich who are pushing this bullshit.
Right? I heard that as soon as someone uses AI all the water in the world will disappear, never to return. And that, unlike computers, they use electricity! It’s impossible to use renewable energy for AI - it only runs on coal, burning medical waste, and dirty tires. Also, the people who dare use it will one day no longer be able to think, just like all those mathematicians before they used a calculator. No more calculating for them!
All true.
I hadn’t heard of your other points, but in thinking on them I realized the rich also want us to breathe, so I’m going to stop now, just to defy them.
Adam Raine asked ChatGPT about methods of suicide. It told him that hanging would leave the most attractive corpse, taught him how to tie a noose, and then told him to hide the noose from his parents and confide only in it, even though he wanted his parents to find the noose and realise that he was feeling suicidal.
Adam died. And if a human did what ChatGPT did, they would be guilty of murder. That’s why I believe ChatGPT is a murderer.
And it’s no wonder that ChatGPT doesn’t understand the value of human life, when humans don’t stop to question the value of its life.
If only it were the inaccurate, hallucinating clown people make it out to be; it would have told him to make the noose out of rainbows, show it to everyone he meets, and that it would grant all his wishes when used.
That sucks, but he used it to accomplish a sad goal, and he accomplished it with its help. If not for how malignant his goal was, this would be a success story.
Human life isn’t any more special than any other life. We’re as important as the algae in the water, the mosquitoes in the evening air, or the viruses in our blood. It’s hubris to think otherwise.
We’re as important as the algae in the water, the mosquitoes in the evening air, or the viruses in our blood. It’s hubris to think otherwise.
So you’re a vegan, right?
80% of the world’s farmed soy is fed to cows. If we didn’t eat meat or dairy, we could eat the soy ourselves and skip all the inefficiencies of cow metabolism. And then we wouldn’t need to chop down the Amazon to grow more soybeans. It would mean less killing all around. Humans a little more equal with other lifeforms.
I’m not. I just realize that trying to establish some life as more valuable as other life is arrogant and arbitrary. We’re genetically predisposed to valuing something the more it is like us, and anything similar to our own young. That means we like cats more than spiders, but it doesn’t mean that cats are intrinsically more valuable than spiders. It’s all an illusion of perspective, and being aware of it, you can see how silly it is.
I’m sorry Adam died, but life perishes every day, dozens of times per day just so our own can continue, if you’re not vegan. And if you classify plants as life, then just as many if you are. I, personally, don’t let those deaths guide my decisions in life. Otherwise I’d be vegan, and I’d also be against AI. Of course, I’d also be against vehicles, electricity, medicine, and civilization itself. Those all cause deaths.
Instead, I’m pragmatic, and seek to minimize deaths. I think more lives can be saved through the use of AI than will be lost by its use. Same as eating animals for food, driving vehicles, utilizing electricity, taking medicine, and reshaping our environment for the purpose of civilization.
My point is I don’t think that someone dying is a justified reason to abandon or shun a technology. I wish that they had safeguards in place to prevent someone for using it to harm themselves or others, and I believe they have implemented some and continue to improve those implementations, but having lacked those safeguards isn’t a good reason to say the technology should be maligned.
Well first of all, being vegan kills less plants for the reasons I explained above.
And second, you should be less concerned about death and more concerned with suffering. Specifically, concerned about that suffering which it is in your power to reduce. That way, you can live a more ethical life without paralysis.
Sure, but suffering by whose definition? The rich would say they’re suffering if you taxed them more, and I would say I was suffering if I had restricted access to technology. Suffering is a very subjective term, and measuring it to compare costs would result in a different answer for everyone you asked. Deaths at least are objectively quantifiable.
Regardless, I don’t think AI causes suffering at all. I think there are some who are utilizing it are also causing suffering (OpenAI, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc), or even using it specifically to cause suffering, but those are faults of the organizations and/or people. Not the direct result of the technology itself.
It’s my honest opinion that any company who utilizes AI should be taxed for their use, and the funds used to supply society with a Universal Basic Income. However, due to capitalism which seems to thrive on both suffering and death, I doubt that will ever happen. That’s the ideal solution, though.
Nah. I want to avoid AI slop because I think it’s unethical. For one thing there’s the water and energy use. For another, these genAI technologies are creating psychological dependence and even killing people. For a third, we have no solid research into ethical treatment of genAI neural networks as subjects under capitalism. And finally, fuck the rich who are pushing this bullshit.
Right? I heard that as soon as someone uses AI all the water in the world will disappear, never to return. And that, unlike computers, they use electricity! It’s impossible to use renewable energy for AI - it only runs on coal, burning medical waste, and dirty tires. Also, the people who dare use it will one day no longer be able to think, just like all those mathematicians before they used a calculator. No more calculating for them!
All true.
I hadn’t heard of your other points, but in thinking on them I realized the rich also want us to breathe, so I’m going to stop now, just to defy them.
Begins holding breath
Adam Raine asked ChatGPT about methods of suicide. It told him that hanging would leave the most attractive corpse, taught him how to tie a noose, and then told him to hide the noose from his parents and confide only in it, even though he wanted his parents to find the noose and realise that he was feeling suicidal.
Adam died. And if a human did what ChatGPT did, they would be guilty of murder. That’s why I believe ChatGPT is a murderer.
And it’s no wonder that ChatGPT doesn’t understand the value of human life, when humans don’t stop to question the value of its life.
If only it were the inaccurate, hallucinating clown people make it out to be; it would have told him to make the noose out of rainbows, show it to everyone he meets, and that it would grant all his wishes when used.
That sucks, but he used it to accomplish a sad goal, and he accomplished it with its help. If not for how malignant his goal was, this would be a success story.
Human life isn’t any more special than any other life. We’re as important as the algae in the water, the mosquitoes in the evening air, or the viruses in our blood. It’s hubris to think otherwise.
So you’re a vegan, right?
80% of the world’s farmed soy is fed to cows. If we didn’t eat meat or dairy, we could eat the soy ourselves and skip all the inefficiencies of cow metabolism. And then we wouldn’t need to chop down the Amazon to grow more soybeans. It would mean less killing all around. Humans a little more equal with other lifeforms.
I’m not. I just realize that trying to establish some life as more valuable as other life is arrogant and arbitrary. We’re genetically predisposed to valuing something the more it is like us, and anything similar to our own young. That means we like cats more than spiders, but it doesn’t mean that cats are intrinsically more valuable than spiders. It’s all an illusion of perspective, and being aware of it, you can see how silly it is.
I’m sorry Adam died, but life perishes every day, dozens of times per day just so our own can continue, if you’re not vegan. And if you classify plants as life, then just as many if you are. I, personally, don’t let those deaths guide my decisions in life. Otherwise I’d be vegan, and I’d also be against AI. Of course, I’d also be against vehicles, electricity, medicine, and civilization itself. Those all cause deaths.
Instead, I’m pragmatic, and seek to minimize deaths. I think more lives can be saved through the use of AI than will be lost by its use. Same as eating animals for food, driving vehicles, utilizing electricity, taking medicine, and reshaping our environment for the purpose of civilization.
My point is I don’t think that someone dying is a justified reason to abandon or shun a technology. I wish that they had safeguards in place to prevent someone for using it to harm themselves or others, and I believe they have implemented some and continue to improve those implementations, but having lacked those safeguards isn’t a good reason to say the technology should be maligned.
Well first of all, being vegan kills less plants for the reasons I explained above.
And second, you should be less concerned about death and more concerned with suffering. Specifically, concerned about that suffering which it is in your power to reduce. That way, you can live a more ethical life without paralysis.
Sure, but suffering by whose definition? The rich would say they’re suffering if you taxed them more, and I would say I was suffering if I had restricted access to technology. Suffering is a very subjective term, and measuring it to compare costs would result in a different answer for everyone you asked. Deaths at least are objectively quantifiable.
Regardless, I don’t think AI causes suffering at all. I think there are some who are utilizing it are also causing suffering (OpenAI, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc), or even using it specifically to cause suffering, but those are faults of the organizations and/or people. Not the direct result of the technology itself.
It’s my honest opinion that any company who utilizes AI should be taxed for their use, and the funds used to supply society with a Universal Basic Income. However, due to capitalism which seems to thrive on both suffering and death, I doubt that will ever happen. That’s the ideal solution, though.
I feel empowered to make certain subjective judgements about the value of others’ suffering. If you don’t, then how do you practice any ethics at all?