This AI written article seems to be substituting ethics for “taste” and making similar arguments to those from the past. Choosing what to do is more important than doing it is a taste problem, of which ethics is an aspect but one of many.
Ethics as opposed to morality is about codified rules. This seems to be somewhat conflating the two.
Also this sounds like it's talking about both designing those rules and also applying existing rules, without noticing much distinction between those aspects.
For applying existing rules, is there any reason that can't be mechanized aside from "the tools just aren't that capable yet"?
Designing the rules does have a "will this work as intended" component that can probably be machine-enhanced, but is largely about preferences / "should" questions.
> Every skill humans once bragged about is getting commoditized. Writing, coding, analysis, translation, design, research. A machine does each of them faster, cheaper, and increasingly better.
This is very much up for debate. I also would have liked your article to delve into whether thing’s that bring us humans joy actually need to be faster, and cheaper.
Knowing why you do something crucially depends on knowing the thing being done. It’s very hard to cast an ethic judgement over a process you don’t understand.
If your argument is that we need to be ethic stewards of machines but need to step aside the doing then your premise might lead you straight into tautology.
I agree with most of what it says there and the overall sentiment.
Two notes:
1. Whoever wrote this, add your name there. Otherwise it is a 0.2x credibility multiplier.
2. I like this topic a lot and would like to discuss it with others that also like it a lot. Reach out (email in my profile), let's make a small discussion group around this :).
You could argue that in a corrupt system, ethics tends to work against the interests of that system... but I'd say at the civilizational level they're indispensable, and going back to Aristotle ethics is rooted at the civilizational level (or some would say at the God-and-man level with necessary implications for civilization).
A lot of our relatively new institutions are set up to run like perpetual-motion machines with voracious appetites constrained only by positive law -- so much for those institutions. What we really need is to recognize the many ways in which we've lost our bearings plus a cooling-off period that allows us to search for them again.
> So the filter runs, generation after generation, and what comes out the top is disproportionately people who lie well and feel nothing about it. Not because voters want liars, but because the machinery reliably promotes them.
The reason is that 99% of states are monarchies, and there is immense propaganda effort to make people believe that they in fact live in a democratic system.
Hollywood and the startup world enables nepo kids to lie to themselves and to the public about their "selfmade" status until they receive their ancestral Lordship from the King of England, and this fake meritocracy keeps everyone in line trying their best because one day you could be a billionaire, too.
It's a charade where your last name decides everything, even before you were born. But this is also the most peaceful and stable economic system humanity has come up with after horrors such as the crusades, the Holocaust and Rhodesia. It rewards achievements of many generations past no matter what modern ethics might think about those achievements, and it allows monarchs to peacefully blend in with the peasants.
With this in mind, the only thing a strive for "ethics" gives you is a spot on the weekly kill list.
> This is a selection problem, not a character problem.
This is a times problem, not a selection problem. The unipolar world order is ending, and everyone responds by turning inward and looking for strong leaders who will protect them against the rest.
The US can't force China do what they want and China can now also prevent the US doing whatever it wants to third countries too. Not all of them but definitely some.
It does not seem so to me. There does not seem genuine wish for protection from danger as much as genuine wish to see the leader to be cruel to others or take advantage as others.
Also this sounds like it's talking about both designing those rules and also applying existing rules, without noticing much distinction between those aspects.
For applying existing rules, is there any reason that can't be mechanized aside from "the tools just aren't that capable yet"?
Designing the rules does have a "will this work as intended" component that can probably be machine-enhanced, but is largely about preferences / "should" questions.
This is very much up for debate. I also would have liked your article to delve into whether thing’s that bring us humans joy actually need to be faster, and cheaper. Knowing why you do something crucially depends on knowing the thing being done. It’s very hard to cast an ethic judgement over a process you don’t understand. If your argument is that we need to be ethic stewards of machines but need to step aside the doing then your premise might lead you straight into tautology.
Two notes:
1. Whoever wrote this, add your name there. Otherwise it is a 0.2x credibility multiplier.
2. I like this topic a lot and would like to discuss it with others that also like it a lot. Reach out (email in my profile), let's make a small discussion group around this :).
A lot of our relatively new institutions are set up to run like perpetual-motion machines with voracious appetites constrained only by positive law -- so much for those institutions. What we really need is to recognize the many ways in which we've lost our bearings plus a cooling-off period that allows us to search for them again.
Is how Claude ends 90% of articles. So yes LLM slop.
The reason is that 99% of states are monarchies, and there is immense propaganda effort to make people believe that they in fact live in a democratic system.
Hollywood and the startup world enables nepo kids to lie to themselves and to the public about their "selfmade" status until they receive their ancestral Lordship from the King of England, and this fake meritocracy keeps everyone in line trying their best because one day you could be a billionaire, too.
It's a charade where your last name decides everything, even before you were born. But this is also the most peaceful and stable economic system humanity has come up with after horrors such as the crusades, the Holocaust and Rhodesia. It rewards achievements of many generations past no matter what modern ethics might think about those achievements, and it allows monarchs to peacefully blend in with the peasants.
With this in mind, the only thing a strive for "ethics" gives you is a spot on the weekly kill list.
This is a times problem, not a selection problem. The unipolar world order is ending, and everyone responds by turning inward and looking for strong leaders who will protect them against the rest.