You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Morality of Artificial Intelligence
It is a fascinating topic. You ask the question "what morality should super intelligent beings have?" And there is the other side of the coin, what should be our ethical considerations in interacting with them?
Are artificial intelligences moral agents? Do they have interests? Is there something it is like to be an artificial intelligence (I love that framing)?
It will take longer than we have to work all these things out, I'm afraid. We haven't even gotten human morality down yet.
As they say, may you live in interesting times... ;)
I'm almost done with Nick Bostrom's book, and he talks about "Mind Crime" and the ethical challenges we may face if we choose to simulate intelligence in order to figure out the best way forward without destroying ourselves. It's really fascinating stuff, but also a bit scary. We definitely haven't figured out morality (though I'm a big fan of the NAP), but I do think the potential to use super intelligence to help us learn it is fascinating.
As you can imagine, I'm not a fan of the NAP at all. I don't believe in property rights. I would be in favor of a social convention that provides for some manner of possession, but it would be more akin to "personal effects" than anything like ownership of land, for example.
This is actually very close to where our philosophical differences begin to diverge. I would argue that it is a matter of consistency. Such property rights are not something found in nature, early societies, or even many cultures that currently exist. They are a relatively new phenomenon.
They initially required an assertion of a right which then could only be defended through force, or at least the threat of force. The very existence of these forms of property would seem to violate the NAP, had it been a governing principle when they were established. Wouldn't an adherent of the NAP have to find that it is unjustified to profit from violations of the NAP, in order to remain consistent and intellectually honest?
I've heard the "personal effects" argument in anarchist Facebook debate groups (I'm in several), and it always breaks down for me. I prefer Jeffrey Tucker's perspective on property rights which he talked about recently at PorcFest. Here's one of his articles which I liked:
https://tucker.liberty.me/the-defense-of-private-property-aristotle-and-mises/
As for defending land rights, that's definitely a more sticky topic. Go back far enough and you'll always find violence. That said, go back further than that and you'll also find non-humans, so we have to be careful to avoid a naturalistic fallacy as well. And yes, I get that agriculture may have been bad for humans, leading to The State and to war, but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
Okay, @bacchist, you made me do it. Let's have a full discussion of where morality comes from over here: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@lukestokes/where-does-your-morality-come-from
Thank you, as well! It's been a healthy discussion.
I found a lot to take issue with in Tucker's article, but I'll just comment on bit that you quoted. It relies on an argument from Aristotle that is really quite absurd on its face.
He is making a defense of the idea that women and children are property of men. The alternative that he is defending against is the prospect of "having women and children common." This supposes that women and children can be nothing more than property in one form or another, that they are objects or tools to be used by men as they see fit. He defends the idea of private ownership of women and children on the basis that a man couldn't regard them tenderly unless they were considered his property.
I think that it's a rather sad way of looking at the world.
And it's far from necessary to base social relationships in terms of ownership and objectification. We have knowledge of a much wider range of adaptive strategies than Aristotle was even capable of considering. Cultures throughout the world employ many different configurations of how kinship and descent are organized.
The framing of social relationships in terms of ownership of property is most commonly found in those societies in which there is a strong state with an active military, and whose economic system is based on slavery or bondage in one form or another. This isn't the result of a thought experiment, this is empirical evidence, historical record.
I completely fail to see how this view of the world can be advocated by anyone who favors freedom.
(Replying to @bacchist)
An important point regarding human ownership:
I know for certain Tucker isn't advocating slavery here. Private ownership is...
and
I agree that:
All that said, I probably should explore more of the ideas behind "personal" property verses "private" property. The arguments I've seen so far in the Facebook groups I've mentioned have not been very compelling, but I always like challenging myself. Thanks again for the dialogue!
Thank you for bringing up a topic which moves me.
Hmm ... I read most of the books you mentioned and am interested in the questions you named.
"We" (as humans) indeed figured out morality.
Study Buddhism and you will find a fascinating world of psychology, sociology, humor and a great amount of intelligence. The Buddhist model doesn't include a creator, which is the most significant difference to other models of religion. Have you ever listened to Alan Watts? I deeply recommend his lectures, they are fascinating and give new and extraordinary insights in the way of thinking.
There are sources which we can take our ethics from. I would go so far to say that without strong ethics within your every day actions - for example programming a computer application, examining a patient, teaching kids, going to the groceries - no matter what you think, do and touch - nothing really is of importance. Or I should say: Ones actions and reactions are in general just random and mostly influenced by other things but ethics. For instance convenience, distraction, fear, boredom, excitement, dullness, .... you name it.
Morality isn't that difficult to find. Mostly within interaction with living beings not so much by theory.
Bummer that I cannot give you my writings on this, because I am a German speaking person.
Good day for you.
I was just listening to a Very Bad Wizards podcast recently about how evolutionary psychology aligns well to support the concepts of Buddhism. Very interesting stuff.
can you give a link or name? Thank you.
Here you go: https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/120
Thank you, I'll give you response on that.