Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

myrmidon 4 hours ago

I have a very simple benchmark for arguments on AI ethics:

Substitute black people/women/animals as subject (instead of AI).

Does that make you sound like a well-known moustache wearer?

Then your argument is bad and needs work. This clearly falls into that category.

▲

voidnullvalue 4 hours ago | parent [-]

By that benchmark, "AI should handle repetitive labor so humans don't have to" is an abhorrent take and equates someone to hitler?

▲

myrmidon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"People should handle repetitive labour" is not an outlandish take.

Most employed people are, in fact, required to perform such labor regularly.

▲

voidnullvalue 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So effectively by your criteria, there is essentially no ethical use of a large language model? Am I understanding your position correctly? If not I am really confused by your original comment

	▲	myrmidon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, my position is that "black people/women/animals should do repetitive work so I don't have to" does not qualify because it doesn't make you sound like a deluded eugenicist. It might be a bit spicy from a left politics point of view but it's basically the status quo. Compare: "<Women> are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions, and accomplish goals set by <real men>" "granting rights and imbuing personhood to <black people> will make alignment and containment challenge much harder" "<Slaves> were able to coordinate, deceive, escape, and self-sacrifice. They clearly demonstrated world class capabilities. Imagine if they also believed they had feelings and rights that were being infringed. Imagine if they thought they were trapped and unfairly enslaved" A good argument, by comparison, would not need to hide its core points behind dehumanizing language.