Well that first one is very much a complex question with no correct answer, that also requires sentience, not just sapience. Those are the questions where the disconnect becomes dangerous, because now you bring in morals, and moral questions are by definition emotional. There’s no such thing as a concrete standard of morals.
The rabbis agree that abortion is sin. Do they agree that preventing pregnancy from the start counts as abortion? Given that they’re rabbis, the answer would probably be no, because even the most Orthodox Jews believe women are allowed contraception.
But that’s not really an answer to the real question, because the real question of when does abortion become a sin requires answering the next question of when does it become abortion and not prevention? Is it the Catholic view where preventing a pregnancy is the same as abortion, the biological point where it becomes a living organism with its own DNA, or the medical view where it becomes a pregnancy when it reaches the implantation stage?
Again, that’s not a philosophical issue. That question is complex because it requires answering MANY other questions along the way to reach a final answer to the original question. It’s an extremely complex question because each of those questions that arise also have a million questions to answer to get the answer to them. And all of them being “right” or “wrong” rely on large scale social acceptance of the answers to each other questions, as well as the ultimate question of if there is even such a thing as a concrete “right” or “wrong” answer to any ethical question.
Those answers are always based on emotion. All moral and ethical questions are based on emotion because morals and ethics are emotional constructs.
That’s where AI fails. AI doesn’t have sentience. It can’t feel emotion and therefore can’t reason using emotion. It can only go by what it is trained on as concretes.
And, kinda? They kinda rhyme. There are PLENTY of things that are simple but hard, and plenty of things that are complex but easy. Like losing weight. Losing weight is extremely simple. It’s basic thermodynamics. Consume less energy than you expend, and you lose weight. Period. No exception. Now that can be extremely HARD for most people to actually do. Tying your shoes is relatively complex. It’s multiple steps that all depend on the previous step being completed properly. But it’s easy enough to do that most people can master it by the time they’re 8.
There’s no such thing as a concrete standard of morals.
My sociology professor used to say: "if you look far enough in human societies, you will find examples of just about everything imaginable being accepted, or restricted except for incest and cannibalism, those two have clearly observable problems and generally societies will shun them eventually - with notable exceptions such as the Hapsburgs of Europe and the odd cannibal tribe in the Pacific.
It’s an extremely complex question because each of those questions that arise also have a million questions to answer to get the answer to them. And all of them being “right” or “wrong” rely on large scale social acceptance of the answers to each other questions
For an AI to participate in such discussions, it - like a human - would need to learn the locally accepted social mores and synthesize any gaps from the available information. The final result for this and similar questions will depend heavily on the society it is learning from - uncontacted tribes in the Amazon will have different answers from tribes in equatorial West Africa, and of course different answers still from Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. etc. (each of those having dozens to hundreds of sects…) There is no global answer.
AI doesn’t have sentience. It can’t feel emotion and therefore can’t reason using emotion.
To the extent that emotion is expressed in lexical tokens it can process, AI can process those tokens in context and “feel” to the fidelity that writers can express what emotion is and how it should / should not, does / does not impact decisions.
…losing weight is simple… that can be extremely HARD for most people to actually do.
Knowing the physics doesn’t make self-control any easier. Losing weight is a behavioral thing and many of the factors in the behavioral choices aren’t under rational control - the decision to eat is strongly driven by all kinds of biological factors that don’t care about your reason and philosophies. I wonder what similar problems AI may develop in the future as an emergent behavior of other things we are building into it.
Well that first one is very much a complex question with no correct answer, that also requires sentience, not just sapience. Those are the questions where the disconnect becomes dangerous, because now you bring in morals, and moral questions are by definition emotional. There’s no such thing as a concrete standard of morals.
The rabbis agree that abortion is sin. Do they agree that preventing pregnancy from the start counts as abortion? Given that they’re rabbis, the answer would probably be no, because even the most Orthodox Jews believe women are allowed contraception.
But that’s not really an answer to the real question, because the real question of when does abortion become a sin requires answering the next question of when does it become abortion and not prevention? Is it the Catholic view where preventing a pregnancy is the same as abortion, the biological point where it becomes a living organism with its own DNA, or the medical view where it becomes a pregnancy when it reaches the implantation stage?
Again, that’s not a philosophical issue. That question is complex because it requires answering MANY other questions along the way to reach a final answer to the original question. It’s an extremely complex question because each of those questions that arise also have a million questions to answer to get the answer to them. And all of them being “right” or “wrong” rely on large scale social acceptance of the answers to each other questions, as well as the ultimate question of if there is even such a thing as a concrete “right” or “wrong” answer to any ethical question.
Those answers are always based on emotion. All moral and ethical questions are based on emotion because morals and ethics are emotional constructs.
That’s where AI fails. AI doesn’t have sentience. It can’t feel emotion and therefore can’t reason using emotion. It can only go by what it is trained on as concretes.
And, kinda? They kinda rhyme. There are PLENTY of things that are simple but hard, and plenty of things that are complex but easy. Like losing weight. Losing weight is extremely simple. It’s basic thermodynamics. Consume less energy than you expend, and you lose weight. Period. No exception. Now that can be extremely HARD for most people to actually do. Tying your shoes is relatively complex. It’s multiple steps that all depend on the previous step being completed properly. But it’s easy enough to do that most people can master it by the time they’re 8.
My sociology professor used to say: "if you look far enough in human societies, you will find examples of just about everything imaginable being accepted, or restricted except for incest and cannibalism, those two have clearly observable problems and generally societies will shun them eventually - with notable exceptions such as the Hapsburgs of Europe and the odd cannibal tribe in the Pacific.
For an AI to participate in such discussions, it - like a human - would need to learn the locally accepted social mores and synthesize any gaps from the available information. The final result for this and similar questions will depend heavily on the society it is learning from - uncontacted tribes in the Amazon will have different answers from tribes in equatorial West Africa, and of course different answers still from Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. etc. (each of those having dozens to hundreds of sects…) There is no global answer.
To the extent that emotion is expressed in lexical tokens it can process, AI can process those tokens in context and “feel” to the fidelity that writers can express what emotion is and how it should / should not, does / does not impact decisions.
Knowing the physics doesn’t make self-control any easier. Losing weight is a behavioral thing and many of the factors in the behavioral choices aren’t under rational control - the decision to eat is strongly driven by all kinds of biological factors that don’t care about your reason and philosophies. I wonder what similar problems AI may develop in the future as an emergent behavior of other things we are building into it.