|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think there is any extra value in a hundred happy, existing people than in five happy, existing people, as long as in neither case there are any unhappy existing people. Why? EDIT: quote:That assumes there is some special value in life existing, which again I do not think there is. Once life does exist I would prefer it to exist in a manner it is happy with, but there is no obligation to make it exist. That is just something you believe apparently axiomatically. No. All I believe is that something is greater than nothing. That N is greater than 0. Since life values existence, more life existing would create more value. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 4, 2021 |
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:29 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:26 |
|
Life only values existence if it exists if it doesn't exist then it doesn't care because there isn't anything to care. If life didn't exist then then it wouldn't matter because there would be nothing around to have the concept of mattering. That's like, the null hypothesis or whatever. It's up to you to prove there is some objective value to the contrary.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:39 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Life only values existence if it exists if it doesn't exist then it doesn't care because there isn't anything to care. Which neatly lands us back at the Thanos gambit, namely is it a moral good to extinguish life from existing (the "blip" was somewhat painless, after all) by all means available, since the null situation of no life is preferable to life which entails bad feelings?
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:45 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Life only values existence if it exists if it doesn't exist then it doesn't care because there isn't anything to care. That doesn't disagree with me at all. Of course this is tautologically true. But life does exist, and most living things do care about continuing to exist, and care very much about propagating themselves and avoiding pain. Even if all we care about is "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist", by its very nature, we are compelled by the self-replicating nature of life to accept that its number will continue to increase over time. And if we care about "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist" then we are compelled to act to sustain it as long as possible. I think you're misunderstanding me. You seem to think that I think that there's some kind of objective "elsewhere-thing" that values life existing above it not existing (like God or something). I do not. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Apr 4, 2021 |
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:46 |
|
OwlFancier posted:That assumes there is some special value in life existing, which again I do not think there is. This is why everyone thinks you're a dumbass, if you were wondering. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:48 |
|
DrSunshine posted:That doesn't disagree with me at all. Of course this is tautologically true. But life does exist, and most living things do care about continuing to exist, and care very much about propagating themselves and avoiding pain. Even if all we care about is "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist", by its very nature, we are compelled by the self-replicating nature of life to accept that its number will continue to increase over time. And if we care about "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist" then we are compelled to act to sustain it as long as possible. That life somehow desires to see more of itself is considered a falsehood in this thought experiment however, whereas in the thought experiment where experience is completely destroyed and yet should hold meaning was not. I'm not sure what to make of the cosmos therein, but it seems like one designed for maximally bad outcomes for everybody involved.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:48 |
|
DrSunshine posted:That doesn't disagree with me at all. Of course this is tautologically true. But life does exist, and most living things do care about continuing to exist, and care very much about propagating themselves and avoiding pain. Even if all we care about is "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist", by its very nature, we are compelled by the self-replicating nature of life to accept that its number will continue to increase over time. And if we care about "allowing life in the universe to continue to exist" then we are compelled to act to sustain it as long as possible. That's just appeal to nature, you're trying to make a moral argument by saying "it's natural" which is daft. That life generally is self perpetuating has absolutely zero bearing on the morality of that tendency. Just going "it does, therefore it should" is silly.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 17:50 |
|
Several posts back, but the response "oh you're just mad at your parents. got it" grinds my gears and is dismissive. Isn't that at least partially the point of this question? I love my parents but when climate change dooms me to a slow, hot, miserable death I will be cursing their name, if I haven't killed myself out of depression or desperation first. My brother did. His twin is close to it on any given day. I would never think to create another life, particularly on this horrible, violent, vicious planet, that would even potentially hate me for it. And even if they didn't hate me, I would feel the guilt of all the pain they would eventually suffer. On top of that, what's the point? The best life they could possibly hope for from being sprung from my loins is to grow up, get a job, pay bills, and make someone else wealthy. No thanks. Yes, I think having kids is wrong. For me, at least.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 23:01 |
|
When you think about it, abstaining from childrearing is the only real form of rebellion against capitalism we truly have: breaking the chain of Number Go Up by not willingly adding another person to the great meat grinder. Witness all the breathless thinkpieces fretting about the replacement rate across the political spectrum.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 23:21 |
|
I thought I’d give my own take because it’s idiosyncratic. I thought about this quite a bit because I tend to go back-and-forth. Let’s just say I place a value on having kids at or about zero so it’s neither a net negative or positive for me personally. The question then turns to what about the effect on everyone else including the hypothetical child. My main concern is that I have some aggression which is genetic. I enjoy the hell out of my life but I know it’s there and it’s obviously a source of potential problems. I’ve never did down to genetic factors in combination with environmental stuff but I know the genetic load is there. So my child could be fine or more or less violent than me or conflicted. I cant know in advance because of the stochastic nature of genetics.. I’m not very violent but I can be. Taking all this together I decided for myself: probably no. My main concern is having a child that’s more violent than me or conflicted and getting them to a situation where they can’t solve it. Then they ask me why they were created when I knew this could’ve happened and could’ve prevented it. Basically I don’t wanna be put in the position where I’m having to tell the kid yeah I knew your life could be hosed up because this but I decided hey what the hell it might be great. To put myself in the kids situation I would look like kind of an idiot for not anticipating the harm that could’ve caused and foregoing. Basically my nightmare situation is a kid that says dad I feel like I have to kill a bunch of people I can’t kill myself and I know it’s hosed up but do it anyway. Then I would say well son you know I had an inkling that this might happen but gosh I just hoped to the stars that we’d be lucky enough to avoid it but here we are. Essentially I have an egotistical concern not to look like an idiot in that situation. I know this is an unusual take but I felt it might help illustrate how this is a very three-dimensional moral problem here where intersecting with a person‘s perspective and experience gives you wildly different results to the moral question. I guess I see it as less a question of suffering and more a question of taking personal responsibility for the risk you take. I don’t reproduce for the same reason I don’t keep highly enriched uranium locked up in my carport shed with a zip tie. I sort of take the equation apart from suffering because I can’t estimate the true value of suffering for different situations but I can estimate risk. Even if I get lucky on the genetic side and my kids normal what if I don’t love them? Creating a sensitive sentient life form that goes I love you daddy and then just....not feeling anything in return. I can’t imagine how devastating that would be.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2021 23:41 |
|
you don't want to have kids because you're afraid your son might be a serial killer and you'd look bad, and that'd be "more violent" than you? this is a ... very specific concern. also uh........
Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 4, 2021 |
# ? Apr 4, 2021 23:49 |
|
Yeah, maybe you shouldn't have kids.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 00:13 |
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:When you think about it, abstaining from childrearing is the only real form of rebellion against capitalism we truly have: breaking the chain of Number Go Up by not willingly adding another person to the great meat grinder. Then you'll just have Japan and capital will focus on automation. There are other ways to rebel, like joining a local socialist group or union. It's a small collective effort, but so is not having children.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 01:46 |
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:When you think about it, abstaining from childrearing is the only real form of rebellion against capitalism we truly have: breaking the chain of Number Go Up by not willingly adding another person to the great meat grinder. Thank you for this, I keep telling my parents that the fact that they don’t have any grandchildren is actually a very brave political act
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 02:18 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:I thought I’d give my own take because it’s idiosyncratic. Your greatest fear is not that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people, but that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people and you look like an idiot?
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 02:26 |
|
Scanned the thread and I didn't catch mention of Antinatalism which is "a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth". David Benatar is a particularly outspoken antinatalist and at the forefront of a lot of modern day thinking in this area, he argues "that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings". I don't think I personally class myself as an antinatalist, but I do agree with some of the points it raises and I personally would prefer not to have children, and some aspects of this moral argument make up part of my position.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:10 |
|
I didn't think we'd advance beyond the guy who got his mind blown by the Avengers movies but "what if my kid does a columbine and it reflects badly on me as a parent???" is an incredible twist
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:29 |
|
some plague rats posted:I didn't think we'd advance beyond the guy who got his mind blown by the Avengers movies but "what if my kid does a columbine and it reflects badly on me as a parent???" is an incredible twist no kids for that guy!!!! my nightmare is the news asking me why i had kids after my son shoots up a school and not having a good answer and getting real embarrassed (but if he shot up a school in a way that doesn't make me look bad then we're all good) Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Apr 5, 2021 |
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:35 |
|
Puppy Galaxy posted:Your greatest fear is not that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people, but that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people and you look like an idiot? No I would say it’s the same fear basically.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:42 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:No I would say it’s the same fear basically. why do you put 'being embarrassed about my kid killing a bunch of people' and 'my kid killing a bunch of people' on the same level. related, buy why do you think you have special violence genes. also related, why do you think propensity to commit violence is a heritable trait. why can't goons just say 'i don't want to have kids because i don't like kids' or 'i don't think anyone should have kids because humanity as a whole is a net negative on the rest of the world so perpetuating the existence of humanity is perpetuating that negative' or even just antinatailism (which is what owlfancier is essentially saying, but poorly, that consciousness creates an inherently negative outcome because the absence of pain is good while the absence of pleasure is not necessarily good, so on the whole depriving one of pain is a greater net good than depriving one of pleasure, and existence necessitates pain) without talking about your special violence genes and worrying your kid will be a serial killer Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Apr 5, 2021 |
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:44 |
|
Puppy Galaxy posted:Your greatest fear is not that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people, but that you have a kid who kills a bunch of people and you look like an idiot? two bad things is worse than just one bad thing
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:52 |
|
Owlspiracy posted:also related, why do you think propensity to commit violence is a heritable trait. Antisocial Personality Disorder https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/antisocial-personality-disorder-a-to-z quote:By definition, people with antisocial personality disorder don't follow society's norms, are deceitful and intimidating in relationships, and are inconsiderate of the rights of others. People with this type of personality may take part in criminal activity. But if they do, they are not sorry for their hurtful deeds. They can be impulsive, reckless and sometimes violent. This disorder is far more common and more apparent in men than women. quote:Genetic (inherited) or biological factors. Antisocial personality traits do appear to be highly heritable. Dark Triad (Narcissism, Psychopathy, Machiavellianism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad#:~:text=In%20psychology%2C%20the%20dark%20triad,because%20of%20their%20malevolent%20qualities. quote:All three traits of the dark triad have been found to have substantial genetic components.[27] It has also been found that the observed relationships among the dark triad, and among the dark triad and the Big Five, are strongly driven by individual differences in genes.[22] However, while psychopathy (h2 = 0.64) and narcissism (h2 = 0.59) both have a relatively large heritable component, Machiavellianism (h2 = 0.31) while also moderately influenced by genetics, has been found to be less heritable than the other two traits.[22][23] I can understand why someone with these problems (albeit I don't know if these are the specific problems they're dealing with) might want to avoid having children. Before you get worked up, no this is not an endorsement of eugenics and having these problems does not guarantee you can't be treated. E: I should also note that these disorders are a minority among mental illnesses, and most disorders no not lead to a propensity for violence against others. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 5, 2021 |
# ? Apr 5, 2021 03:55 |
|
I thought a dark triad was a threesome with two guys and one girl?
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 05:05 |
|
Owlspiracy posted:'i don't think anyone should have kids because humanity as a whole is a net negative on the rest of the world so perpetuating the existence of humanity is perpetuating that negative' This is also an anti-natalist position, literally anti-natalism just means seeing the birth of new humans as morally wrong for one reason or another. I'm not sure why you came up with this arbitrary classification between "normal" and "strange" ideas, as if the average person wouldn't find antinatalist positions to be bizarre or offensive. Unsurprisingly a place where unorthodox ideas can be seen as "normal" will attract people with unorthodox ideas. I might dare to say you're a fellow W E I R D P E R S O N. Puppy Galaxy posted:I thought a dark triad was a threesome with two guys and one girl? Only on Tuesdays America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Apr 5, 2021 |
# ? Apr 5, 2021 05:16 |
|
Puppy Galaxy posted:I thought a dark triad was a threesome with two guys and one girl? "Drinking game!" *gets confirmed by Senate as SCOTUS justice*
|
# ? Apr 5, 2021 22:15 |
|
I've been reading the thread and following the replies, it's very cool to see everyone's thoughts on the subject which is controversial. Someone earlier mentioned antinatalism and I found more about it and I think it's a view that is interesting to me. Found some websites and even a new podcast about the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJPc3I1_P0I I guess at the end of the day it's a very subjective thing like some of you mentioned but it's a huge gamble, life I mean. I do agree that those that already exist should strive to make things better for others in whatever way they can, big or small, which some have expressed before.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 14:15 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Because we are proposing creating more lives, and I think perhaps creating lives that might reasonably want to die but which are also terrified of dying, seems bad! There absolutely is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211011912 quote:The ability to anticipate is a hallmark of cognition. Inferences about what will occur in the future are critical to decision making, enabling us to prepare our actions so as to avoid harm and gain reward. Given the importance of these future projections, one might expect the brain to possess accurate, unbiased foresight. Humans, however, exhibit a pervasive and surprising bias: when it comes to predicting what will happen to us tomorrow, next week, or fifty years from now, we overestimate the likelihood of positive events, and underestimate the likelihood of negative events. For example, we underrate our chances of getting divorced, being in a car accident, or suffering from cancer. We also expect to live longer than objective measures would warrant, overestimate our success in the job market, and believe that our children will be especially talented. This phenomenon is known as the optimism bias, and it is one of the most consistent, prevalent, and robust biases documented in psychology and behavioral economics. The reason Darwin's theory of evolution is so radical is that our brains are not evolved to give us truth, they are evolved to keep us existing. Even before Darwin, Schopenhauer noted this: quote:It is at this point that the biological side to Schopenhauer's argument becomes relevant. From the biological point of view, Schopenhauer reminds us, the human brain is simply "the one great tool" (WR II p .280) by means of which a relatively weak and defenceless animal has managed to survive in a competitive environment (ibid., d. WN pp.272-3, WR II pp. 204-6).What follows from this is that at least the everyday representation of the world generated by the human brain will be one that is calculated to promote survival rather than truth: the intellect, says Schopenhauer, is "thoroughly practical in tendency", a "medium of motives" designed for comprehending those ends on the attainment of which depends individual life and its propagation" but ''by no means intended to present the true absolutely real inner nature of these things in the consciousness of the knower" (WR IIpp .284-6). Appealing to nature will get us nowhere because all nature cares about is making us procreate and if we are all miserable babymaking machines, oh well. We're still making babies so it's a win. I am pretty pessimistic guy and it gets so frustrating when folks, smart or dumb, have this kneejerk reaction to questioning the value of life. Try to be a doomer or something and everyone becomes Steven Pinker. Life absolutely has its benefits and pleasures. The act of having a child is not intrinsically wrong or selfish even if you believe your child will invariably have more suffering in his life than not. Because life isn't all just about us or our "freedoms." Your child, whatever pains they might suffer, could grow up to help a lot of people. Or just a few people. There is value in that. So I don't think it's immoral to have children but you need to have the correct perspective on life to actually ensure you and your children can do the best for yourselves and the world that you can. Understanding the intrinsic suffering of existence should make you more emphatic and altruistic, I think.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 14:35 |
|
What about ai? Is it ethical to invent a creature which can suffer?
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 14:35 |
|
Harold Fjord posted:What about ai? Is it ethical to invent a creature which can suffer? Feels like the same question as having children. I think the act itself is not intrinsically unethical but it really depends on what you do for it and for the world around you.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 14:46 |
|
Harold Fjord posted:What about ai? Is it ethical to invent a creature which can suffer? What about a creature that can't suffer? What if someone made an AI that sensed pleasure a trillion times more than humans and the utility function dictated we had to give all our food to it because it eating it caused more joy per bite than the whole human race combined eating it would have. Thus making humans eating food always immoral.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 14:52 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What about a creature that can't suffer? What if someone made an AI that sensed pleasure a trillion times more than humans and the utility function dictated we had to give all our food to it because it eating it caused more joy per bite than the whole human race combined eating it would have. Thus making humans eating food always immoral. I think trying to rules lawyer fulfillment of basic needs into being immoral is itself clearly, automatically immoral, but I'm anti-Capitalism.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 15:03 |
|
My toaster doesn't need to feel pleasure nor pain, or anything at all. It is a toaster, a tool for burning bread, nothing more. The same applies to all machines we build or will build. Humans are not machines because we can't manufacture more with sapience or pain/pleasure detection disabled. It's a complete apples to oranges comparison.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 15:09 |
|
Why doesn't the perverse conclusion apply to suffering though? Should killing people, thereby preventing all the future suffering they and their theoretically infinite offspring could have endured, be the most moral action then? This has always been my problem with the David Benatar school of thought, it posits a categorical imperative in terms of creating life, but doesn't follow it through to its logical conclusion, if it took itself seriously. Instead, it's just more mealymouthed nihilism that allows the argument that not having kids is somehow a principled moral action, instead of a personal choice. NikkolasKing posted:So I don't think it's immoral to have children but you need to have the correct perspective on life to actually ensure you and your children can do the best for yourselves and the world that you can. Understanding the intrinsic suffering of existence should make you more emphatic and altruistic, I think. Optimism bias isn't what he Owlfancier said, in fact people have shown that his theory, that you remember things better than they were and lessen pain and suffering, is the opposite of true. He then, twisting himself into pretzels, goes against his original premise to state that "well that just adds extra suffering doesn't it", even though his original premise is that suffering exists seperate and indepedent from recollection of it by an organism, that it has an inherent value that should be minimized. But only by personally not having kids, not by mass murder. Now, this is not to say there aren't plenty of good reasons to not have kids, including the state of the world and your own genetics! But, if the core argument, which this thread seems to have started with, is that reproducing is ethically wrong intrinsically, then it all becomes suspect. There's also no room in any of these discussions for the idea of continuity of culture. Yes, no one is sad over potential people who could have been born but were never conceived, but people mourn the loss of their culture and the continuity of their traditions and ideas. That is, in a sense, a mourning of the potential offspring that could have been. But, with a hyperfocus on individual suffering, there's not way to even argue for that, because it doesn't come into the reductive moral calculus being posited as the premise. That's why this entire debate, every time it comes up, is stupid, because it lures in people with a nihilistic outlook/untreated depression and have them rehash the same stupid arguments over and over again. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Apr 6, 2021 |
# ? Apr 6, 2021 15:13 |
|
Beelzebufo posted:Why doesn't the perverse conclusion apply to suffering though? Should killing people, thereby preventing all the future suffering they and their theoretically infinite offspring could have endured, be the most moral action then? This has always been my problem with the David Benatar school of thought, it posits a categorical imperative in terms of creating life, but doesn't follow it through to its logical conclusion, if it took itself seriously. Instead, it's just more mealymouthed nihilism that allows the argument that not having kids is somehow a principled moral action, instead of a personal choice. So I agree with this. Most antinatalists I know, at least the philosophically trained ones, are Kantians. Kantian fixations on individuals, autonomy and inviolable rules are all wrongheaded ways of understanding people. I don' t intend to ever have children because I just wouldn't be a good parent and I don't think I'll ever find a partner who wants a child. But I agree wholeheartedly that folks do value things more than pleasure and pain. In an odd way, antinatalism is sort of hedonistic, just in the opposite way most people think. It's so fixated on the eradication of pain it ignores the higher values most people abide by; that a lot of people would gladly endure pain to continue their culture or whatnot.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 15:51 |
|
NikkolasKing posted:So I agree with this. Most antinatalists I know, at least the philosophically trained ones, are Kantians. Kantian fixations on individuals, autonomy and inviolable rules are all wrongheaded ways of understanding people. Like you, I also do not intend to have children, but I will say that talking to people in indigenous movements (First Nations/Inuit/Metis is Canada in my case), I have learned to appreciate how choosing to have children and trying to ensure that continuity is itself an act of resistance for many, many people across the planet. And i've seen that dismissed out of hand by, let's face it, mostly white philosopher types who have decided that their moral outlook is the only possible one. There's also the question of what counts as suffering, that's inherent in the AI discussion too. Tardigrades have a neuronal network with a clearly defined brain! Does that mean that I, every time I boil water from an unflitered source, like when I'm camping, create enormous waves of pain for the microscopic life? Are our water treatment plants torture factories? It can't just be all negative stimulus, because I don't think anyone here would argue that microorganisms moving away from negative chemical/temperature stimulus would count as suffering. But then, is it a complexity thing? If so, at what threshold? who decides? This isn't to argue that there should be no limits, or that animals don't feel pain. The point is that suffering reduction is rooted in human morality and is based on human value judgements. It is inescapably linked to culture and society, and positing a valuation of pain and pleasure outside of that is, yes, wrongheaded and really solipsistic. It assumes the person's subjective experience (since really, that's the only thing you have to go on in terms of understanding how other being experience suffering) can be read as universal truth. E: Actually, here's a fun thought experiment. Is it morally right to allow a pregnant woman to starve to death, knowing that you are sparing the child a lifetime of suffering? In a pure utilitarian calculus sense, if you do believe that by definition suffering is assymetric to pleasure, then I don't see how you could argue that your moral obligation wouldn't be to do nothing and allow it to happen. In both cases, no action is required from you to do the moral thing. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Apr 6, 2021 |
# ? Apr 6, 2021 16:12 |
|
Harold Fjord posted:What about ai? Is it ethical to invent a creature which can suffer? But is suffering wrong? Pain is an important tool to avoid harm. Creating a creature, biological or mechanical that can't suffer means it will harm itself, and rather quickly. Look at children who are genetically incapable of feeling pain, they come pretty close to killing themselves accidentally unless constantly watched. Suffering is a tool through which we can extend our lives. From a philosophical point, it is also something that can give greater meaning to joy. Endless paradise and orgasms probably suck. With no reference point, it's just existing, and you can get used to pretty much anything. I'd argue suffering is an integral and important point of existence. Creating a creature incapable of suffering would be foolish.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 17:18 |
|
Konomex posted:But is suffering wrong? Pain is an important tool to avoid harm. Creating a creature, biological or mechanical that can't suffer means it will harm itself, and rather quickly. Look at children who are genetically incapable of feeling pain, they come pretty close to killing themselves accidentally unless constantly watched. Suffering is a tool through which we can extend our lives. I guess the question is whether suffering is just any stimulus that the experiencer would classify as negative. Machine Learning uses that right now, but I'm not sure you would argue that deep dream neural nets are suffering when they are optimize away from something. I think you'd have to nail down how you even determine if an artificial lifeform is sapient before being able to determine if it's "suffering". But on a broader level I think your point stands. Any AI will have to have negative and positive valuations of things to function, so it the very act of giving it things it wants to avoid tantamount to causing suffering? If we program a little mars rover with a true AI and teach it to avoid shadows so it can keep charged, do the AI suffer if it needs to go through shadows? Does it experience less insolation on its solar panels as a type of suffering? Or is an organic sensation of pain required to meet the definition? Before you even get into programming an AI with existential questions or anything like that, it seems like there are basic questions as to what constitutes pain or suffering that need to be answered.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 17:27 |
|
What is the point of creating an artificial being that feels at all, beyond research purposes? A computer has sensors that can detect abnormalities and automatically stop operation until repaired, they don't need pain or the qualia of suffering to accomplish that task. People bond to dumb chatbots for psychological comfort just fine. Mass production of self-aware and especially feeling AI would be incredibly inefficient and obviously cruel.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 17:30 |
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:What is the point of creating It's kinda just what we do, regardless of what you put after this (including children, to circle back to the origin topic)
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 17:32 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:26 |
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's kinda just what we do, regardless of what you put after this (including children, to circle back to the origin topic) That's why I specified "other than research purposes". Self-aware AI is unnecessary, even dangerous, for real world applications. They're machines, we don't need their opinions or navel gazing, we need them to just do their drat tasks with a minimal of fuss. That's the whole point of inventing machines in the first place: to streamline and relieve human labor.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2021 17:37 |