This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it might! When I say "humanlike", that's the sort of details I'm trying to capture. Of course, if it is objectively the case that an AI cannot in fact suffer, then there is no moral quandary; however conversely, when it accurately captures the experience of human despair in all its facets, I consider it secondary whether its despair is modelled by a level of a neurochemical transmitter or a 16-bit floating point number. I for one don't feel molecules.
Well, the question then becomes what is meant by "accurately captures the experience of human despair in all its facets." Since we still currently lack a true test for consciousness, we don't have a way of actually checking if "all its facets" is truly "all its facets." But perhaps that part doesn't matter; after all, we also have no way of checking if other humans are conscious or can suffer, and all we can do is guess based on their behavior and projecting ourselves onto them. If an AI responds to stimuli in a way that's indistinguishable from a human, then perhaps we ought to err on the side of caution and presume that they're conscious, much like how we treat other humans (as well as animals)?
There's another argument to be made that, because humans aren't perfectly rational creatures, we can't cleanly separate [AI that's indistinguishable from a suffering human] and [being that actually truly suffers], and the way we treat the former will inevitably influence the way we treat the latter. And as such, even if these AI weren't sentient, treating them like the mindless slaves they are would cause humans to become more callous towards the suffering of actual humans. One might say this is another version of the "video games/movies/porn makes people more aggressive IRL" argument, where the way we treat fictional avatars of humans is said to inform and influence the way we treat real humans. When dealing with AI that is literally indistinguishable from a human, I can see this argument having some legs.
My argument was merely that it seems implausible to me that whatever we mean by suffering, the correct generalization of it is that systems built from neurons can suffer whereas systems built from integrated circuits, definitionally, can not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link