Does it mean that moral facts are a term as obsolete as free will (or a useful approximation like temperature?),[1] and that they are to be dissolved in a combination of FDT and The Uncreated Theory Of Learning The Utility Function In Neural Nets?
P.S. I struggle to understand the point with weakly interacting moral particles.
Or an abstraction like temperature in LLMs. When the LLM sees a few lines of attack, it rules out idiotic approaches, then assigns close utility estimates to the best survivors and chooses randomly.
The “weakly interacting moral particles” thought experiment is offering a very easy goalpost, which moral realists fail to meet. It is an example—sufficient, but certainly not necessary—of something that would refute my position that moral claims are not truth-apt. If it were true, you could back up the claim “murder is wrong” with the physical observation that murderers lose their morality particles.
Suppose that we discovered that the WIMOPs obey most parts of traditional morality and have the quirk of having extremist views on interracial interactions: different races have different Lebensraums and living not in one’s Lebensraum or creating hybrids is prohibited, but ONLY by the WIMOPs, not because hybrids are prone to degeneration. Could one apply Yudkowsky’s case against morality being given to the WIMOP-derived morality?
Great question, though I will note that my stance is not that any particular moral theory is the right one, it is that none of them are truth-apt or have any evidence supporting them (other than people intuitively feeling that they’re true).
Suppose that we discovered that the WIMOPs obey most parts of traditional morality and have the quirk of having extremist views on interracial interactions: different races have different Lebensraums and living not in one’s Lebensraum or creating hybrids is prohibited, but ONLY by the WIMOPs, not because hybrids are prone to degeneration.
If you presented this discovery, I would admit that my position is wrong, because then there would be moral claims (e.g. “living outside of one’s Lebensraum is immoral”) that have evidence supporting them.
Does it mean that moral facts are a term as obsolete as free will (or a useful approximation like temperature?),[1] and that they are to be dissolved in a combination of FDT and The Uncreated Theory Of Learning The Utility Function In Neural Nets?
P.S. I struggle to understand the point with weakly interacting moral particles.
Or an abstraction like temperature in LLMs. When the LLM sees a few lines of attack, it rules out idiotic approaches, then assigns close utility estimates to the best survivors and chooses randomly.
The “weakly interacting moral particles” thought experiment is offering a very easy goalpost, which moral realists fail to meet. It is an example—sufficient, but certainly not necessary—of something that would refute my position that moral claims are not truth-apt. If it were true, you could back up the claim “murder is wrong” with the physical observation that murderers lose their morality particles.
Suppose that we discovered that the WIMOPs obey most parts of traditional morality and have the quirk of having extremist views on interracial interactions: different races have different Lebensraums and living not in one’s Lebensraum or creating hybrids is prohibited, but ONLY by the WIMOPs, not because hybrids are prone to degeneration. Could one apply Yudkowsky’s case against morality being given to the WIMOP-derived morality?
Great question, though I will note that my stance is not that any particular moral theory is the right one, it is that none of them are truth-apt or have any evidence supporting them (other than people intuitively feeling that they’re true).
If you presented this discovery, I would admit that my position is wrong, because then there would be moral claims (e.g. “living outside of one’s Lebensraum is immoral”) that have evidence supporting them.