How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

[Logik]

I was thinking more of a slave/master relationship(shouldn't have used abusive), in that I plot to murder for my freedom and succeed in that aim.

Is that your plan A to freedom or last resort?

I don't see how murdering your master gets you to your objective? You only put yourself at an even greater risk/danger. Retaliation by next-of-kin, imprisonment etc.

Somewhere in your plan there surely must be a "run away" option?
Why not exercise it without the "kill master" option?

What on earth is 'personhood'? But in the UK you can kill someone in self-defense but you will have to be prepared to justify it on the grounds of fear for one's life and there being no other alternative.

The typical response to this is "Tony Martin". And the typical counter-arguments go something like "disproportionate force". As if I am supposed to have a fair, refereed boxing match with my assailant.

If I fear for my life I DO NOT want a fair fight. I want the scales tipped in my favor as far as possible!

If they have a hammer - I want an AR15. If they have a knife - I want an AR15. If they have a gun - I want an AR15.
I didn't choose to be in this fight. I am not in it to "be fair" - I am in it to NOT DIE. Fuck fairness.

In UK law - I am already denied the tools required to defend my life effectively. So fist fight it is.

Personhood is the recognition of that asymmetry. That when it comes to protecting the most valuable thing there is - individual life - there is no such thing as "unfair" and there is no need to justify ANY amount of force used if it successfully puts an end to the attack.

I do need to justify WHY I feared for my life, but after that bar is met - any amount of force is perfectly reasonable.

The requirement for "other alternative" spells "duty to retreat" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat ).
Duty to retreat?!?!?! From my own home ?!?

You, your country and your legal system can fuck right off.

[Arising_uk]

Is that your plan A to freedom or last resort?

I don't see how murdering your master gets you to your objective? You only put yourself at an even greater risk/danger. Retaliation by next-of-kin, imprisonment etc.

Somewhere in your plan there surely must be a "run away" option?
Why not exercise it without the "kill master" option? ...

Given what you say below I find it ironic that you are asking for alternative courses of action. But consider it the plan I've now come up with after trying running away and now finding myself in shackles but with a sharp object in my possession and knowledge that my captor has the keys upon them.

The typical response to this is "Tony Martin". And the typical counter-arguments go something like "disproportionate force". As if I am supposed to have a fair, refereed boxing match with my assailant. ...

Mr Martin shot them as they were fleeing, disproportionate force.

Richard Osborn-Brooks was not charged as fear for life was upheld and reasonable force acceptable.

If I fear for my life I DO NOT want a fair fight. I want the scales tipped in my favor as far as possible!

If they have a hammer - I want an AR15. If they have a knife - I want an AR15. If they have a gun - I want an AR15.
I didn't choose to be in this fight. I am not in it to "be fair" - I am in it to NOT DIE. Fuck fairness. ...

This reminds me of a story a friend told me of his first visit to the US. He was a squaddie serving in N.I. at the time combating US sponsored terrorism and went into a gun shop where he was amazed to see what looked like assault rifles for sale, he asked the proprietor what they were used for, "Home defence" was the reply. When he pointed out that if he was to fire them in a house he could be likely to kill family members in the rest of the house or even neighbours he got the reply "What! Are you a communist or something?".

In UK law - I am already denied the tools required to defend my life effectively. So fist fight it is. ...

You don't have knives in your house? You can have knives, swords, cudgels, clubs, blackjacks, iron bars, crowbars, crossbows, riot shields, etc, in your house in the UK and use any or all of them to kill in self-defence, just expect to defend yourself in court for your actions.

Personhood is the recognition of that asymmetry. That when it comes to protecting the most valuable thing there is - individual life - there is no such thing as "unfair" and there is no need to justify ANY amount of force used if it successfully puts an end to the attack.

I do need to justify WHY I feared for my life, but after that bar is met - any amount of force is perfectly reasonable....

Hence you are allowed to kill in self-defence in the UK.

The requirement for "other alternative" spells "duty to retreat" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat ).
Duty to retreat?!?!?! From my own home ?!? ...

You don't have back doors in the US? You'd prefer to die or kill someone rather than leave your property? How American, but I guess Justine Damond gives a fair reason why not to leave your house.

Given you asked me at the top why I couldn't choose alternative options I find the above all a bit odd.

You, your country and your legal system can fuck right off.

Who's asking you to live under it?
Personally I can understand the American view about the right to buy arms but again, personally, I prefer to forgo some consumer purchasing power so that I don't have to worry when I drop my kids off at school that they'll be massacred nor that I'll be shot by law enforcement officers for a traffic offense or just for being the wrong type of person.

[Logik]

Given what you say below I find it ironic that you are asking for alternative courses of action.

Why is it ironic? In a home-invasion scenario time is against you. Does not allow for a well thought-out strategy. Demands immediate action.
In an "escape master" scenario time is not against you. Allows for well thought-out strategy. Does not demand immediate action.

But consider it the plan I've now come up with after trying running away and now finding myself in shackles but with a sharp object in my possession and knowledge that my captor has the keys upon them.

You keep ignoring other players in the game. Fine - you kill master, take key. Escape. Master's entourage chases you. Catches you AGAIN. Only this time you killed their boss. What is your objective here? Permanent escape or short-term escape? I would think - the less noise I make when I "mysteriously disappear" the less like I am to be sought.

Not to mention that every legal system in the world recognizes mitigating factors. Some times it's far simpler to seek forgiveness, not permission etc.

And so "murder is wrong, but due to extreme nature of circumstances and mitigating factors" you serve no prison sentence. You are guilty-but-free! Yay.

You don't have knives in your house? You can have knives, swords, cudgels, clubs, blackjacks, iron bars, crowbars, crossbows, riot shields, etc, in your house in the UK and use any or all of them to kill in self-defence, just expect to defend yourself in court for your actions.

Have you ever used any of those tools for combat? Sounds like you haven't. There is great skill required to end somebody's life with a knife. If you have never done it - it's pretty hard to do it quickly.

The most effective tool for self-defence is one that works with least effort, least training, requires least physical strength and furthest distance from your attacker (assuring your own safety).

To insist on swords/clubs/bars (or any tool which requires physical strength and proximity) is to discriminate against women in self defence.

Hence you are allowed to kill in self-defence in the UK.

Long story short: you are allowed to nail nails, but you can't own hammers.
You are allowed to go from A to B. Just not quickly.

You don't have back doors in the US? You'd prefer to die or kill someone rather than leave your property? How American, but I guess Justine Damond gives a fair reason why not to leave your house.

Observe how all brits think they are speaking to Americans when it comes to guns.

Yes. IF you have a back door it is always wise to retreat. Any fight successfully avoided is a fight you cannot lose.

But IF you are forced to fight, your legal system has ensures you lack the tools to win at all costs.

Who's asking you to live under it?

All the UK firms who want to recruit me.

Personally I can understand the American view about the right to buy arms but again, personally, I prefer to forgo some consumer purchasing power so that I don't have to worry when I drop my kids off at school that they'll be massacred nor that I'll be shot by law enforcement officers for a traffic offense or just for being the wrong type of person.

Cherry-picking. If you actually cared about safety you'd live in Switzerland, not the UK. Where the murder/violence rates are half that of your country.
Where law/order reigns far more supreme than in the UK. And where guns and rifles are legal for civilian ownership.

[Arising_uk]

Why is it ironic? In a home-invasion scenario time is against you. Does not allow for a well thought-out strategy. Demands immediate action. ...

Yep, running.

In an "escape master" scenario time is not against you. Allows for well thought-out strategy. Does not demand immediate action. ...

Hence pre-meditated murder.

You keep ignoring other players in the game. Fine - you kill master, take key. Escape. Master's entourage chases you. Catches you AGAIN. Only this time you killed their boss. What is your objective here? Permanent escape or short-term escape? I would think - the less noise I make when I "mysteriously disappear" the less like I am to be sought. ...

So silencing the boss and getting the keys would be a first priority?

Not to mention that every legal system in the world recognizes mitigating factors. Some times it's far simpler to seek forgiveness, not permission etc.

And so "murder is wrong, but due to extreme nature of circumstances and mitigating factors" you serve no prison sentence. You are guilty-but-free! Yay. ...

Well I don't know the full ins and outs of the legal system but you are not guilty of murder then but manslaughter or justifiable homicide, etc but according to your argument you are guilty of murder so some murders are not wrong?

Have you ever used any of those tools for combat? Sounds like you haven't. There is great skill required to end somebody's life with a knife. If you have never done it - it's pretty hard to do it quickly. ...

Presumably that applies to your assailant?

The most effective tool for self-defence is one that works with least effort, least training, requires least physical strength and furthest distance from your attacker (assuring your own safety).

To insist on swords/clubs/bars (or any tool which requires physical strength and proximity) is to discriminate against women in self defence.

I agree the gun is a great leveller but then I presume it is also not so easy to use in a stressful situation. I also presume that given the availability that you describe your invaders will have them as well?

Long story short: you are allowed to nail nails, but you can't own hammers.
You are allowed to go from A to B. Just not quickly. ...

I agree it seems unfair but what do you know! It appears to work whereas in your country there appears to be a lot of deaths due to your freedom.

Observe how all brits think they are speaking to Americans when it comes to guns.

Yes. IF you have a back door it is always wise to retreat. Any fight successfully avoided is a fight you cannot lose.

But IF you are forced to fight, your legal system has ensures you lack the tools to win at all costs. ...

It also appears to ensure that the chances of the situation occurring are very low?

All the UK firms who want to recruit me. ...

Then you are going to find it very disturbing living in a country where you don't need a gun to feel safe.

Cherry-picking. If you actually cared about safety you'd live in Switzerland, not the UK. Where the murder/violence rates are half that of your country.
Where law/order reigns far more supreme than in the UK. And where guns and rifles are legal for civilian ownership.

Well both rates are low enough for me to be ok with the difference and they have a well-ordered militia and very stringent gun licencing laws but still have a higher than average rate of gun violence than other European nations. Here's a good article about why they don't have the mass shootings that appear to be quite a common occurence in America.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30606.html

And it appears private gun ownership is dropping fast in Switzerland. As to moving there I probably might if it wasn't so hard to immigrate there and that it is a pretty boring nation culturally by an' large.

[Logik]

Yep, running.

If you have the option - exercise it.
If you don't?

Well I don't know the full ins and outs of the legal system but you are not guilty of murder then but manslaughter or justifiable homicide, etc but according to your argument you are guilty of murder so some murders are not wrong?

So you have gone to such lengths to contrive a scenario and it's not even murder?!?!?! What a waste

Presumably that applies to your assailant?

It does. In addition to them having the element of surprise on their side.
Things in my control vs things out of my control. My skills/tools are in my own control.
When/where I have to use them - not in my control.

I agree the gun is a great leveller but then I presume it is also not so easy to use in a stressful situation.

The time it takes to train somebody to use a gun is measured in hours.
Knife profificiency is measured in weeks.
Sword profficiency is measured in months or years.

I also presume that given the availability that you describe your invaders will have them as well?

Again: Things in my control vs things out of my control.

I agree it seems unfair but what do you know! It appears to work whereas in your country there appears to be a lot of deaths due to your freedom.

2nd time I have to correct you now
1. I am not in the USA.
2. Why don't you compare yourself to Switzerland?

It also appears to ensure that the chances of the situation occurring are very low?

Risk is not just about probability. It's probability * cost of error.
10% chance of my coffee machine breaking and 10% chance of my parachute not opening are not the same risk.

Then you are going to find it very disturbing living in a country where you don't need a gun to feel safe.

Risk management is not about feelings.

And I don't need guns. I want guns - they are fun. And a great litmus test as to whether I live in a society where I am a subject or a citizen.

Well both rates are low enough for me to be ok with the difference

yeah, but Switzerland is still lower. Half! 100% better. Details details .

And it appears private gun ownership is dropping fast in Switzerland. As to moving there I probably might if it wasn't so hard to immigrate there and that it is a pretty boring nation culturally by an' large.

So fun is more important than safety? Hence - I told you that you don't care about safety

[Arising_uk]

If you have the option - exercise it.
If you don't?

Then I'll fight for my life.

So you have gone to such lengths to contrive a scenario and it's not even murder?!?!?! What a waste

I wasn't trying to be combative? You posed a philosophical question whether any murder could not be considered wrong or murder is always wrong and it in piqued my interest. As such I thought about a slave/master scenario. Under this scenario I'm legally held as a slave by the laws of the country but I don't want to be one. Accepting that only way I can escape is to plot and carry out the murder of my master, so in this scenario is my murder wrong as it's certainly illegal? Where our conversation has gone appears to show it depends upon how we define "murder" but that doesn't appear to have been what you were claiming?

...

The time it takes to train somebody to use a gun is measured in hours.
Knife profificiency is measured in weeks.
Sword profficiency is measured in months or years.

I notice you didn't say "proficiency" with respect to guns? Squaddie friends of mine say it is much more difficult than you think to shoot someone when you're being shot at, takes a lot of training to get it right. Of course I accept that if you have a gun in a knife fight then you should have the advantage.

Again: Things in my control vs things out of my control.

Understood.

2nd time I have to correct you now
1. I am not in the USA. ...

Sorry, didn't see the first? And you appeared to sound very Yankl ike in your position, can I assume Canadian?

2. Why don't you compare yourself to Switzerland?

Depends what you are comparing? These seem to show that I'm safer in the UK from gun homicide than in Switzerland?
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... er-million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Risk is not just about probability. It's probability * cost of error.
10% chance of my coffee machine breaking and 10% chance of my parachute not opening are not the same risk. ...

I understand, what happens if you factor in the chances that you assailants will be carry guns due to the freedom to own them?

Risk management is not about feelings.

And I don't need guns. I want guns - they are fun. And a great litmus test as to whether I live in a society where I am a subject or a citizen. ...

I've been a subject for most of my life and only a citizen for a while(which looks to ending soon) and to be honest I haven't seen any difference.

yeah, but Switzerland is still lower. Half! 100% better. Details details .

Not according to being killed by a gun tho', that appears to magnitudes more likely in Switzerland than in the UK.

So fun is more important than safety? Hence - I told you that you don't care about safety

I do, I just balance it against 'quality' of living.

[Logik]

Then I'll fight for my life.

So we are in agreement
Only difference is that you will fight tooth & nail, whereas I will fight tooth, nail and a gun.

You posed a philosophical question whether any murder could not be considered wrong or murder is always wrong and it in piqued my interest. As such I thought about a slave/master scenario. Under this scenario I'm legally held as a slave by the laws of the country but I don't want to be one. Accepting that only way I can escape is to plot and carry out the murder of my master, so in this scenario is my murder wrong as it's certainly illegal? Where our conversation has gone appears to show it depends upon how we define "murder" but that doesn't appear to have been what you were claiming?

I posed a question. That you interpreted in a philosophical context (e.g lets put on the contrarian hat) was your choice
And it was all that I was trying to demonstrate. Contrarianism and consensus stand in opposition, yet cannot exist without each other.

I notice you didn't say "proficiency" with respect to guns? Squaddie friends of mine say it is much more difficult than you think to shoot someone when you're being shot at, takes a lot of training to get it right.

Yeah, but that's not seeing the full picture.
Your primary objective is "do not die" (run if you must).
Secondary objective (if running is impossible): "eliminate threat to life".

If you ever find yourself aiming for the secondary objective it is easier to achieve it with a gun than with a knife. Fine print to follow.

Of course I accept that if you have a gun in a knife fight then you should have the advantage.

In practice it's not actually either-or. I carry a gun, a knife, pepper spray. More tools - more options.
Of course there are situations in which a knife is more lethal than a gun. It is known as the 21 foot/7 meter rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Hourses for courses...

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... er-million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Category error https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category_mistake

I am not disputing your statistics at all. They are correct, but you are mis-interpreting them.
The following two statements are BOTH true:

Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK.
Switzerland has a higher firearm-related murder rate than the UK

How is that possible? Because "firearm murders" are a sub-category of "ALL murders".

Murder happens less frequently in Switzerland than it happens in the UK.
WHEN murder happens in Switzerland, usually a gun is used.

"Murder" measures outcome/risk.
"Gun murder" measures modus operandi (tool preference).

Obviously! Humans aren't stupid - we maximise utility.

If I am going to hammer nails I am not going to use a shoe when I have a hammer.
If I am going to kill you I am not going to use a brick when I have a gun.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then I'll fight for my life.

So we are in agreement
Only difference is that you will fight tooth & nail, whereas I will fight tooth, nail and a gun.

You posed a philosophical question whether any murder could not be considered wrong or murder is always wrong and it in piqued my interest. As such I thought about a slave/master scenario. Under this scenario I'm legally held as a slave by the laws of the country but I don't want to be one. Accepting that only way I can escape is to plot and carry out the murder of my master, so in this scenario is my murder wrong as it's certainly illegal? Where our conversation has gone appears to show it depends upon how we define "murder" but that doesn't appear to have been what you were claiming?

I posed a question. That you interpreted in a philosophical context (e.g lets put on the contrarian hat) was your choice
And it was all that I was trying to demonstrate. Contrarianism and consensus stand in opposition, yet cannot exist without each other.

I notice you didn't say "proficiency" with respect to guns? Squaddie friends of mine say it is much more difficult than you think to shoot someone when you're being shot at, takes a lot of training to get it right.

Yeah, but that's not seeing the full picture.
Your primary objective is "do not die" (run if you must).
Secondary objective (if running is impossible): "eliminate threat to life".

If you ever find yourself aiming for the secondary objective it is easier to achieve it with a gun than with a knife. Fine print to follow.

Of course I accept that if you have a gun in a knife fight then you should have the advantage.

In practice it's not actually either-or. I carry a gun, a knife, pepper spray. More tools - more options.
Of course there are situations in which a knife is more lethal than a gun. It is known as the 21 foot/7 meter rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Hourses for courses...

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... er-million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Category error https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category_mistake

I am not disputing your statistics at all. They are correct, but you are mis-interpreting them.
The following two statements are BOTH true:

Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK.
Switzerland has a higher firearm-related murder rate than the UK

How is that possible? Because "firearm murders" are a sub-category of "ALL murders".

Murder happens less frequently in Switzerland than it happens in the UK.
WHEN murder happens in Switzerland, usually a gun is used.

"Murder" measures outcome/risk.
"Gun murder" measures modus operandi (tool preference).

Obviously! Humans aren't stupid - we maximise utility.

If I am going to hammer nails I am not going to use a shoe when I have a hammer.
If I am going to kill you I am not going to use a brick when I have a gun.

So tell me, if philosophy sterilizes minds and kills the human spirit...how do you plan on shooting it with a gun? Where is your "utility" in that?

[Logik]

So tell me, if philosophy sterilizes minds and kills the human spirit...how do you plan on shooting it with a gun? Where is your "utility" in that?

I am all out of Troll-biscuits tonight. Sorry.

You'll have to find somebody else to feed you.

[prof]

What I did in this thread is justify the formula:
I > E > S. I demonstrated how this is true by the very definitions of those value dimensions; and by the use of either Set Theory or the Theory of Types to establish the relationship between the value dimensions. Q.E.D.

... we still have a bunch of open problems in AI. And you appeal to AI to give us the answer to the questions you can't answer.

Whether to rely on AI (or even build it) is itself an ethical dilemma. Something which you overlook in your theory. If AI can enslave humanity then building AI is immoral.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Friendl ... telligence

And there are the open problems in the field....

Why in heaven you hold me responsible for open problems still existing in AI research I can't fathom. Maybe I'll never know.
As to the fact that I mentioned the use of a super-computer in my book, as a way to aid in doing a survey nationwide, that does not mean I am "relying on AI to solve all the problems that come up in theoretical and aspplied Ethics.

As to the fears that if research is continued in developing a computer that uses AI, one that is capable of learning, it will eventually harm human beings by out-thinking us, or making us subservient to its will, those fears are over-blown.

As I pointed out in my book, an AI machine will only do what it is told. It does not have a mind of its own. It does not have "intelligence" in the sense we usually mean by the word. Humans must give that machine its goals. It does not have goals of its own making. It will in many cases perform the goals in an efficient manner, more efficiently than a human mind could imagine (given our limitations) but we set the goals.

We definitely do need better, and more widespread, mental health facilities available in every community - to serve in readiness to detect and intercept a prospective terrorist or fiend, one with a criminal mind who will abuse the technology, one who may have an unethical end in view.
I recommend that everyone study up on Ethics. We should get the contents of the essay, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, in the hands of educators of the young, and restate it in language they can grasp and understand.

[Logik]

Why in heaven you hold me responsible for open problems still existing in AI research I can't fathom. Maybe I'll never know.

Let me spell it for you in a way you can understand it:

You are appealing to AI to solve our ETHICAL CHALLENGES but you are failing to address the ETHICAL CHALLENGES with AI.

If you can't spot the circularity you are beyond help.

As to the fact that I mentioned the use of a super-computer in my book, as a way to aid in doing a survey nationwide, that does not mean I am "relying on AI to solve all the problems that come up in theoretical and aspplied Ethics.

You don't need a supercomputer. You have the Internet. What is your survey going to look like and how will the data be processed?

As to the fears that if research is continued in developing a computer that uses AI, one that is capable of learning, it will eventually harm human beings by out-thinking us, or making us subservient to its will, those fears are over-blown.

?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.

If you don't even know how and when to apply the precautionary principle on matters of GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE, you should not be allowed to call yourself an "ethics professor".

Your credentials are bogus - you are a fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management.[1] The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.[2]

Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in 1982 when the World Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, while its first international implementation was in 1987 through the Montreal Protocol. Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.

As I pointed out in my book, an AI machine will only do what it is told.

No! IT WOULDN'T!

This is literally an OPEN ETHICAL PROBLEM in AI research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem

It does not have a mind of its own. It does not have "intelligence" in the sense we usually mean by the word.

Yeah! It WILL have "intelligence" in the sense we usually mean it!

That is why the question of whether we should build it and turn it on is an OPEN ETHICAL QUESTION.

Humans must give that machine its goals. It does not have goals of its own making. It will in many cases perform the goals in an efficient manner, more efficiently than a human mind could imagine (given our limitations) but we set the goals.

For the 3rd time now. This is the Paperclip Optimizer thought experiment which demonstrates the issue with your line reasoning.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

And probably because you are too lazy to read it I'll sum it up.

An efficient optimizer with a mundane task of making paperclips can drive humanity to extinction simply by being good at what it does, without malice in its programming whatsoever.

[prof]

Why in heaven you hold me responsible for open problems still existing in AI research I can't fathom. Maybe I'll never know.

Let me spell it for you in a way you can understand it:

You are appealing to AI to solve our ETHICAL CHALLENGES but you are failing to address the ETHICAL CHALLENGES with AI.

The above is a false claim: I am not appealing to AI to solve Ethical challenges. This is a mis-reading of my book. Ironically, I quote E. Yudkowsky in the opening pages, but get no credit for being aware of him. Yes, he proposes a thought-experiment. That word-play is far from being accomplished fact. Such imaginings are a dime-a-dozen in philosophical circles.

If you can't spot the circularity you are beyond help.

As to the fact that I mentioned the use of a super-computer in my book, as a way to aid in doing a survey nationwide, that does not mean I am "relying on AI to solve all the problems that come up in theoretical and applied Ethics.

You don't need a supercomputer. You have the Internet. What is your survey going to look like and how will the data be processed?
I agree. We don't need a super-computer to make surveys these days. There are some very good polling organizations out there.

As to the fears that if research is continued in developing a computer that uses AI, one that is capable of learning, it will eventually harm human beings by out-thinking us, or making us subservient to its will, those fears are over-blown.

?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The views in the quote are not mine alone. This past week I spoke with the C.E.O. of an AI firm, one that pioneered the use of AI as a business service. {In the name of cutting costs, his company managed to automate the telephone operator right out of existence. Today she likely works in a boiler-room at lower pay as a CSR [Customer Service Representative.] {Fortunately, I can usually hit the 0 (or the # key) to override the AI voice, and get a human-being I can talk to.}

The considered conclusion of this billionaire with whom I conversed is that the fear of an AI machine with a mind of its own, or an ability to set its own goals (at cross-purposes with that of its programmer) is "over-blown. As far as he is concerned - and he is one smart cookie - there is no difference between AI and an algorithm .

...you are a fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

...Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in 1982 when the World Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, while its first international implementation was in 1987 through the Montreal Protocol. Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.

As I pointed out in my book, an AI machine will only do what it is told.

No! IT WOULDN'T!

This is literally an OPEN ETHICAL PROBLEM in AI research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_control_problem

Glad to hear it ~ though I am quite familiar with the efforts of the people at M.I.T. (and its associated societies) to care for the survival of the human species.

It does not have a mind of its own. It does not have "intelligence" in the sense we usually mean by the word.

Yeah! It WILL have "intelligence" in the sense we usually mean it!
That is why the question of whether we should build it and turn it on is an OPEN ETHICAL QUESTION.

Humans must give that machine its goals. It does not have goals of its own making. It will in many cases perform the goals in an efficient manner, more efficiently than a human mind could imagine (given our limitations) but we set the goals.

This is the Paperclip Optimizer thought experiment which demonstrates the issue with your line reasoning.

Thought-experiments demonstrate nothing, young man. They are imagined thoughts - not demonstrations about anything in the empirical world. They are not logical arguments, they do not employ lambda theory, nor predicate calculus, nor entailment theory to reach a valid conclusion.

An efficient optimizer with a mundane task of making paperclips can drive humanity to extinction simply by being good at what it does, without malice in its programming whatsoever.

It would help if computer scientists of good will devise human-friendly programs and put them to work, so that such AI applications become the prevailing norm ...Altho there is 2% of the world's population who are the sociopaths, including a current occupant of a certain white house, who, in addition, ,has a Malignant Personality Disorder.
I warned, in my earlier post, that we need, as a society, to detect these potential criminals early in their life, and get them the psychotherapy that they require.

[Logik]

Such imaginings are a dime-a-dozen in philosophical circles.[/color][/b]

Except we are NOT talking about philosophical circles. WE-THE-PRACTITIONERS are telling YOU-THE-PHILOSOPHERS
that you don't understand the problem.

But academics have heads so big because they've never actually been in the trenches in order to humble themselves.

The views in the quote are not mine alone. This past week I spoke with the C.E.O. of an AI firm, one that pioneered the use of AI as a business service. {In the name of cutting costs, his company managed to automate the telephone operator right out of existence. Today she likely works in a boiler-room at lower pay as a CSR [Customer Service Representative.] {Fortunately, I can usually hit the 0 (or the # key) to override the AI voice, and get a human-being I can talk to.}[/p]

What you describe is not AI.
What you describe is a trivial decision/routing algorithm which lies in P-space (complexity theory)

You are way out of your technical depth - better you stop speaking. The simplest way to communicate your lack of knowledge on the subject-matter is to point you to this comic: https://xkcd.com/1425/

The considered conclusion of this billionaire with whom I conversed is that the fear of an AI machine with a mind of its own, or an ability to set its own goals (at cross-purposes with that of its programmer) is "over-blown. As far as he is concerned - and he is one smart cookie - there is no difference between AI and an algorithm .

Sorry prof. I am not going to get into details with you. You lack the technical undertanding to hold your ground in this debate.
But if you kindly provide me with the name of the company your friend runs, I'll be sure to short their stock.

I am not against making a quick buck from suckers.

It would help if computer scientists of good will devise human-friendly programs and put them to work

Here is what you deserve for this comment. A vulgar and impolite FUCK YOU. As well as a kick to the groin.

To say that 'we need computer scientists of good will' is to suggests that good will is lacking, when I am trying to explain to you (but it is like speaking to a brick wall) that the very problem of 'devise human-friendly programs' is that we do NOT know how to define 'HUMAN' or 'FRIENDLY' in any programming language we have.

We do not know how to define "HUMAN' or 'FRIENDLY' in mathematics!

And because of your old age and lack of reading comprehension I will state it again; WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF 'HUMAN FRIENDLY' IN A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.

I don't know how much simpler than this I can explain it to you.

Have you ever heard of the technical verb stellenbosch? To relegate someone incompetent to a position of minimal responsibility where they can cause the least amount of damage.

I am truly glad that 'ethics professors' are stellenbosched in universities. Far away from real-life decision-making where they can cause any ACTUAL damage.

You have no clue what ethics is about or how to apply it in practice.

[Logik]

Thought-experiments demonstrate nothing, young man. They are imagined thoughts - not demonstrations about anything in the empirical world. They are not logical arguments, they do not employ lambda theory, nor predicate calculus, nor entailment theory to reach a valid conclusion.

The mindset you display has an actual name in my field of work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_mentality

In aviation air safety, a tombstone mentality is a pervasive attitude of ignoring design defects until people have died because of them.

You reject thought experiments as a valid method for reasoning about real-world consequences in favour of empiricism/evidence.
You demand corpses before you can be convinced there is a problem of any kind.

There is no better way to explain your mode of thought other than "criminal and prison-deserving stupidity".

Please stop teaching or writing about a subject matter you clearly do not understand, before you get somebody killed.

Counterfactual reasoning and Thought experiments are paramount to applied ethics in the real world!
It stems from understanding that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Academics and philosophers really seem to struggle grasping this principle.

As far as I am concerned you are morally bankrupt. Not by virtue of malice, but by virtue of sheer ignorance and empirical idealism.

I will not respond to any further of your comments because I think it encourages you.

[prof]

It would help if computer scientists of good will devise human-friendly programs and put them to work

Here is what you deserve for this comment. A vulgar and impolite FUCK YOU. As well as a kick to the groin.

You have no clue what ethics is about or how to apply it in practice.

Isn't it nice that this forum attracts people who know what ethics is about, such as the Canadian gentleman who responded to my comment. He can tell you what ethics is about, for he knows how to apply it in practice ...or so he claims.