Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | Hacker News Reader

'I wouldn’t personally be able to sleep knowing I’ve contributed to all of that, too.'

I think this is the crux of the entire problem for the author. The author is certain, not just hesitant, that any contribution they would make to project involving AI equals contribution to some imagined evil ( oddly, without explictly naming what they envision so it is harder to respond to ). I have my personal qualms, but run those through my internal ethics to see if there is conflict. Unless author predicts 'prime intellect' type of catastrophe, I think the note is either shifting blame and just justifying bad outcomes with moralistic: 'I did the right thing' while not explaining the assumptions in place.

View on HN

>I have my personal qualms, but run those through my internal ethics to see if there is conflict

Do you "run them through" actual ethics, too?

See.. here is a problem. You say 'actual' ethics as if those were somehow universal and not ridiculously varied across the board. And I get it, you use the term, because a lot of readers will take it face value AND simply use their own value system to translate them into what agrees with them internally. I know, because I do the same thing when I try to not show exactly what I think to people at work. I just say sufficiently generic stuff to make people on both sides agree with a generic statement.

With that said, mister ants in the pants, what does actual mean to you in this particular instance?

I don't know about ants (or pants) but

> I try to not show exactly what I think to people at work. I just say sufficiently generic stuff to make people on both sides agree with a generic statement.

basically the ethics of anyone who doesn't this

Uhh.. do we really want to do ethics 101 ( and likely comparative religions based on your insisting all ethical considerations are universal across the human experience )? Please reconsider your statement, because it is not 'basically'; not by a long shot.

I don't know shit about ethics numbers. Nor do I believe in any comparative religions. All I know is that you claimed to do the following:

> I try to not show exactly what I think to people at work. I just say sufficiently generic stuff to make people on both sides agree with a generic statement.

Bravo! Encore! Teach us, wise master!

I read this thread and I'm not even sure what your point is if all your comments are just going to be cryptic instead of actually stating your point clearly. As a reader, not even the person you're responding too, it's not useful to write like this.

I'm terribly sorry. I admit that it might be possible, at least in theory, to force me to emit "useful" writing! What makes you think you deserve that, though?!

Everyone who uses this forum deserves that, it's basic etiquette when speaking to other people. If one were as dismissive to you in real life, you'd probably be annoyed just the same.

That all sounds very nice. Go tell it to some decision makers.

I don't really take your point here? You're saying you feel the author should justify the reasoning behind their moral position?

:D no, but it would help if I knew what that moral objection is

Its been 3 years and its been the most talked about topic on HN. If you really don't know at this point, you are choosing to remain ignorant. I can't help you here.

If you genuinely are unaware of the issues, it's a very easy topic to research. Heck, just put "AI" into HN and half the articles will cover some part of the topic.

Not your parent commenter but there are multiple points of views, both positive and negative about AI and it's impact. Some in-between.

Should we try to guess which of of the many objections belong to the author?

It's better to ask than to assume.

>It's better to ask than to assume

I didn't see that commentor truly asking. I can ask them, but I know that the topic will have dried out by the time o get an answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com