Bryan, despite his wisdom, is sadly mistaken on animal welfare. He and I would agree that insect welfare is nonobvious, but we would also agree that it is a logical corollary of the wrongness of torturing dogs for fun. I think ‘it is evil to torture a dog for fun because of harm to the dog’ is more obvious than ‘insects never deserve moral consideration.’ Frankly, I think many people would move toward this position just by looking at zoomed-in pictures of bees. They have faces, just like us.
Dear Bryan, I appreciate the moderate defense of EAs but this is just pseudo-philosophy: 'Morality rests on the value of human well-being and prima face human rights. If you demand an argument for any of these, the right response is: “It’s obvious. The end.”' See https://walterveit.substack.com/p/most-a-priori-philosophy-is-a-waste
> Betting aside, if you really thought the world was likely to end, you should be going into massive debt, secure in the knowledge that you won’t have to repay it. But almost no AI doomster — EA or otherwise — does so. I know, they’ve got just-so stories about why they’re not playing the obvious strategy given their stated beliefs. The best explanation, however, is that their stated beliefs are mere lip service.
This seems only obviously true if you think the probability of doom is very high (80%+?). Most people concerned with AI safety think the risk is more in the 10-30% range. That might justify a slightly greater-than-typical rate of spending, but not going into massive debt.
Some of the non-doom scenarios could involve massive investment returns and the invention of new goods (but lower employment income), which could all suggest saving *more* than typically makes sense.
The overall effect of AI on how much to spend vs. save seems unclear and pretty sensitive to the probability you put on different scenarios.
I'm very worried about the real-world harm of belief in bug welfare. I think AI with bug welfare values is one of the most likely scenarios in which AI would exterminate humanity.
I put 5% odds on AI exterminating humanity in order to create more bugs (or shrimp or computer pleasure machines etc.) at 10% some time between 2050 and 2150.
Semi-off-topic, I wondered for a long time what exactly was animal cruelty. Is pushing a dog's nose into its pee cruel (quite aside from whether it works)?
The only simple and vaguely objective definition I could come with was "anything worse than life in the wild, which includes being eaten to death or starving to death after an injury". So don't stub out cigarettes on your dog. That sounds like a pretty sensible definition until you realize it forbids chaining dogs up in the back yard, and cooping up birds in cages and clipping their wings so they can't fly away.
I also had numerous side thoughts which amused me.
* Why is it moral for predators to eat prey alive, but immoral for ranchers to slaughter animals "humanely"?
* If humans slaughtering livestock for food is immoral, why is it moral to applaud wolves to eat livestock?
* Are ranchers who execute murdering wolves dispensing justice?
* Is it cruel for cats and other animal mamas to catch and use prey to teach their cubs how to hunt? Why can't humans keep pets and have bear baiting entertainment?
Yeah i like your definition of animal cruelty as "worse than what would have been in the wild"
By that logic tho, bryans arguments against animal welfare fall short though. I have no problem eating a chicken that lived free in the wild and died fighting for its survival. I do have a problem with one cooped up its entire life in a cage, pecking other chickens from frustration and injected with growth hormones to speed up its slaughter.
The bugs argument doesn't apply here because as far as I know, we don't (yet?) have bug farms. Its not eating meat that's cruel/unethical, it's the animal farming industry that has to reform
It was a fun thought experiment that lasted for several years, and convinced me that there can be no objective definition of animal cruelty. It can only be handled by customs and what neighbors or community put up with. I don't think legislation can do anything except inflame passions.
Bryan, despite his wisdom, is sadly mistaken on animal welfare. He and I would agree that insect welfare is nonobvious, but we would also agree that it is a logical corollary of the wrongness of torturing dogs for fun. I think ‘it is evil to torture a dog for fun because of harm to the dog’ is more obvious than ‘insects never deserve moral consideration.’ Frankly, I think many people would move toward this position just by looking at zoomed-in pictures of bees. They have faces, just like us.
Dear Bryan, I appreciate the moderate defense of EAs but this is just pseudo-philosophy: 'Morality rests on the value of human well-being and prima face human rights. If you demand an argument for any of these, the right response is: “It’s obvious. The end.”' See https://walterveit.substack.com/p/most-a-priori-philosophy-is-a-waste
> Betting aside, if you really thought the world was likely to end, you should be going into massive debt, secure in the knowledge that you won’t have to repay it. But almost no AI doomster — EA or otherwise — does so. I know, they’ve got just-so stories about why they’re not playing the obvious strategy given their stated beliefs. The best explanation, however, is that their stated beliefs are mere lip service.
This seems only obviously true if you think the probability of doom is very high (80%+?). Most people concerned with AI safety think the risk is more in the 10-30% range. That might justify a slightly greater-than-typical rate of spending, but not going into massive debt.
Some of the non-doom scenarios could involve massive investment returns and the invention of new goods (but lower employment income), which could all suggest saving *more* than typically makes sense.
The overall effect of AI on how much to spend vs. save seems unclear and pretty sensitive to the probability you put on different scenarios.
I'm very worried about the real-world harm of belief in bug welfare. I think AI with bug welfare values is one of the most likely scenarios in which AI would exterminate humanity.
I put 5% odds on AI exterminating humanity in order to create more bugs (or shrimp or computer pleasure machines etc.) at 10% some time between 2050 and 2150.
Semi-off-topic, I wondered for a long time what exactly was animal cruelty. Is pushing a dog's nose into its pee cruel (quite aside from whether it works)?
The only simple and vaguely objective definition I could come with was "anything worse than life in the wild, which includes being eaten to death or starving to death after an injury". So don't stub out cigarettes on your dog. That sounds like a pretty sensible definition until you realize it forbids chaining dogs up in the back yard, and cooping up birds in cages and clipping their wings so they can't fly away.
I also had numerous side thoughts which amused me.
* Why is it moral for predators to eat prey alive, but immoral for ranchers to slaughter animals "humanely"?
* If humans slaughtering livestock for food is immoral, why is it moral to applaud wolves to eat livestock?
* Are ranchers who execute murdering wolves dispensing justice?
* Is it cruel for cats and other animal mamas to catch and use prey to teach their cubs how to hunt? Why can't humans keep pets and have bear baiting entertainment?
Yeah i like your definition of animal cruelty as "worse than what would have been in the wild"
By that logic tho, bryans arguments against animal welfare fall short though. I have no problem eating a chicken that lived free in the wild and died fighting for its survival. I do have a problem with one cooped up its entire life in a cage, pecking other chickens from frustration and injected with growth hormones to speed up its slaughter.
The bugs argument doesn't apply here because as far as I know, we don't (yet?) have bug farms. Its not eating meat that's cruel/unethical, it's the animal farming industry that has to reform
It was a fun thought experiment that lasted for several years, and convinced me that there can be no objective definition of animal cruelty. It can only be handled by customs and what neighbors or community put up with. I don't think legislation can do anything except inflame passions.