Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I don't really see that as a bad thing. This is a policy decision and as such needs to be based on a rational calculation and values, not the feelings known to be hopelessly biased and generally unreliable.

I hope future AGI doesn't behave this way or we're all fucked.

> So I take it you are extremely pro-life on abortion

Abortion has way more nuance, there isn't a 100% "right" side, ideally there is never a need for abortion, and as someone without a uterus (and has never had one) I shut my mouth on taking sides because it isn't my place to do so. I support uterus owners protecting their own lives and making this decision amongst themselves.

Anyway this is exhausting. I'm not going to convince you. I hope you decide one day that killing people by the millions, which would largely be disadvantages groups, is not a good decision for humanity.



>> I don't really see that as a bad thing. This is a policy decision and as such needs to be based on a rational calculation and values, not the feelings known to be hopelessly biased and generally unreliable.

> I hope future AGI doesn't behave this way or we're all fucked.

So, given what you're responding to, you prefer AGI to not use some values (e.g. DALYs or whatever) and rational tradeoffs, but instead to be based on fuzzy, biased, unreliable heuristics?

I agree this argument is generally not going anywhere, but this kind of response in particular makes me wonder, because I have hard time finding a a charitable interpretation I could respond to - it just sounds like vacuous platitudes nearly without context. Is there a good argument for empathy that isn't?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: