I agree the post is making some assumptions about moral progress. I didn’t argue for them because I wanted to control scope. If it helps you can read it as conditional, i.e. “If there is such a thing as moral progress then it can require intellectual progress...”
Regarding the last question: yes, I selected examples to highlight in the post that I thought were less likely to lead to distracting object-level debates. I thought that doing that would help to keep the focus on testing LLM moral reasoning. However, I certainly didn’t let my own feelings about odiousness affect scoring on the back end. People can see the full range of responses that this prompt tends to elicit by testing it for themselves.
I agree the post is making some assumptions about moral progress. I didn’t argue for them because I wanted to control scope. If it helps you can read it as conditional, i.e. “If there is such a thing as moral progress then it can require intellectual progress...”
Regarding the last question: yes, I selected examples to highlight in the post that I thought were less likely to lead to distracting object-level debates. I thought that doing that would help to keep the focus on testing LLM moral reasoning. However, I certainly didn’t let my own feelings about odiousness affect scoring on the back end. People can see the full range of responses that this prompt tends to elicit by testing it for themselves.