Could you please elaborate?
G Wood
Karma: 215
Sure, I don’t know the author’s grandmother, I just know she differs from EA standard.
I dont think you get to decide evil individually, its a culture thing, so a whole society comes to a general agreement of what is good and bad.
Like idk, if your younger sister says that you are evil for not sharing your sweets (she had the same as you, but has eaten them), does that make you evil?
I think you need at least 4 or 5 family’s worth of people in a society to start needing morality as a concept at all, let alone defining evil.
There’s no paradox in your grandmother’s actions, but there is a clash between your subculture and hers. Your subculture has adopted the meme that “Suffering of all sentient beings is Bad in proportion to their capacity for sentience”, her subculture still runs on “Suffering of my kin is Bad” or the more generous “Suffering of human beings is Bad”. In my case, bad simply means “To be discouraged”.
You are looking for “Evil”, assuming the moral realist’s stance. I would say that “Evil” is simply that which your culture disapproves of (though of course some things are more problematic than others). Forgive your grandmother, would you have done any better by your current moral ruleset if you were raised with hers?
I would add to your Vigilant section, your wrath is not simply a defence for yourself, it is also an offense against the meme that caused the dead babies.
You are proactively fighting against that outcome by writing about it, thank you.
Thank you Oligo, good comment :). I’ve got a bit of editing to do as a result. My apologies for the slow reply, I needed to think about things.
Good point, yes, my article does fit better as a sociology of morality rather than a metaethical idea, I’m actually still not quite sure what field the idea sits under, anthropology is good but still doesn’t quite fit, it’s not about humans precisely.
I would say that the idea still has bearing on metaethics, specifically that if our moral intuitions are fully explainable by a simple selection algorithm then a moral realist has some explaining to do. In your example I would also argue that contradictory rules argue against moral realism, just purely that realism implies design, and you’d think something that’s designing a universe would do a good job.“Discreteness of organisms, genetype-phenotype distinction, non-intentionality of mutation”
You are treating the features of the genetic substrate as requirements for the selection algorithm. The algorithm for selection only needs variation, heritable transmission and differential success. Your examples are just how genes do it rather than requirements for all selection processes.
How to cash the “goal” out? Its just “Variants of a culture that cause their own transmission get commoner” same as genes, a frequency argument. Goal is just a way of indicating the gradient in a way that would explain it if it were an agent, making it easier for my human mind (evolved to understand agents) to reason with the idea.
“bilaterally and intentionally”
You are sneaking in that parties are equal enough that fighting is mutually expensive and so bargaining for a “no taking” or “no killing” rule works. The real issue is when one person or group is strong and the other weak. The BATNA for the strong group is simply to costlessly get what they want.
The claim isn’t really “wrongful taking is wrong” which you would be right to call a tautology, it’s something like “Unilateral taking by the strong is Bad” and “Third party punishment of acts deemed “Bad” is Good”.
It’s pretty hard to get to “no taking” rules without cultural selection, you have free rider problems, who pays the cost of pushing the strong who took?
The norm feels obvious and trivial because we’re inside a culture that already mostly solved third party enforcement, indeed most of the cultures in the world have this feature. Step outside our time and what do you find? The strong taking as they please, conquest, slavery, feudal extraction, eminent domain.
“would involve differential success for societies”
On the Xhosa, people noticing and deciding to change is literally the death of a particular cultural variant, though you did minimise the harm there, many many people died. I’m talking about the culture, not the people. Nobody systematically kills their cows and burns their grain now, that cultural variant has evolved away. Also Potlatch doesn’t destroy food, just distributes in exchange for social status?
On the shakers, nobody in their society reproduced. In Buddhism and Christianity it was a small fraction of the overall population that didn’t. The Shaker culture was an obligate recruiter which died when its supply of hosts failed. “Being celibate is good” Is still a loading meme even if it can be compensated for with other memes.
If you gave me the option to kill 1000s of people easily, say at the push of a button and I would get away Scott free, I wouldn’t. I mean you can have any ethics you’d like, but I get nothing from killing them.
However, games give you somthing different. Domination, displaying skill, winning. There is simulated killing sure, but its incidental to the main point.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
I think it does, you just used them? I use all of those and am still married. I mean maybe you could workshop the language a little.
I think it would help to know the root of the word sorry is to be sad. When you say sorry you are indicating you are sad about the situation.
Nah, I think its mostly in the invisible status ledger in your heads. You sometimes find an apology to be physically painful? That’s a good apology.
You pay them back by reducing your relative status, even a little.
I do think that people want to be mass murderers – but this desire is suppressed very well.
May i present to you:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example
It is not my internal experience to want to be a mass murderer.
Yes absolutely, im not trying to propose an idealized way to run a culture. Simply trying to describe what is.
I would absolutely prefer a culture with some flexibility and ability to pick up and drop memes that prove themselves stupid. It’s just that to be a viable culture in the first place your host society must belive you to be somthing to encourage.
Honey is Good
Whoa! Talk about flogging a dead horse!
Sure, your right that religion is a trade of sanity for community, but there’s juicyier targets if your going to start tilting at meme complexes.
How about you mention the devout followers of Marxism or capitalism or the American democratic party or the Republicans. All make the same trade.
Kinda part of being human?
Well I suppose the lesswrong community of voluntary mostly amateur writers has much to apologize to you for. Perhaps you could be the change you want to see and write an interesting one?
Yes, it has stripped my illusion of free will. How nice. Greetings to my fellow one boxer ;)
Horror. Somthing literally called Authority comes in and flattens everything and everyone into one punch man’s situation. In a way that means you cant even trust your own memory’s or emotions, where your choice is now irrelevant.
A stake you can revoke was never staked.
Yeah that is true. Makes sense. I suppose I haven’t read enough of it knowingly to develop a taste aversion for it yet.
G Wood’s Shortform
Why is LLM use in writing even bad? You still own the words you write? Is this just a status thing?
If i run into someone who refuses a hypothetical in that way, I assume they are not a serious person and stop trying to convince them. They are either playing to win the argument as opposed to being right or cannot imagine non real things. Both cases are hopeless.
Its entirely possible that you are in fact meeting different journalists, people interested in writing about AI/tech will often share a similar culture with you. That predicts lower adversarial risk independent of your demeanour.
Were your bad experiences from more tech outsider journalists?