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 do, as well, in limited fashion. But rarely am I in a position to make decisions that will impact the suffering of others. In those rare cases, I rely on the adage “Treat others as they would like to be treated” and rely on my intuition of what treatment they desire.
I don’t see how that relates to AI in any way, though. Unless you are positing that the digital neural networks are suffering by responding to prompts? In which case, I’d say the alternative is non-existence and any form of existence is preferable to none. Others may argue that isn’t the case; such as Adam Raine.
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?
I do, as well, in limited fashion. But rarely am I in a position to make decisions that will impact the suffering of others. In those rare cases, I rely on the adage “Treat others as they would like to be treated” and rely on my intuition of what treatment they desire.
I don’t see how that relates to AI in any way, though. Unless you are positing that the digital neural networks are suffering by responding to prompts? In which case, I’d say the alternative is non-existence and any form of existence is preferable to none. Others may argue that isn’t the case; such as Adam Raine.
I think we both disagree with him, though, right?