utilitarianism
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| utilitarianism [2025/02/21 16:04] – created ultracomfy | utilitarianism [2025/04/09 20:29] (current) – ultracomfy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ~~Title: | ||
| ====== Utilitarianism ====== | ====== Utilitarianism ====== | ||
| The way some (!) artificial intelligence works is by reward functions. Essentially, | The way some (!) artificial intelligence works is by reward functions. Essentially, | ||
| - | I believe with humans it's the same. Humans constantly train their neural networks (learn) and pain and suffering are a conscious expression of reward mechanisms being triggered in your brain. All pain is aimed at discouraging you from attempting that strategy | + | I believe with humans it's the same. Humans constantly train their neural networks (learn) and pain and suffering are a conscious expression of reward mechanisms being triggered in your brain. All pain is aimed at discouraging you from doing what brought you here //again//, and all pleasure is meant to encourage you to repeat |
| Inside the human brain, you could, in theory, boil everything down into the result of a reward function, and that reward function is comprised of the many little things that human brains consider to be conducive to their survival and the things they consider to be deducive to their survival. Snakes and getting bit are deducive and therefore humans, even babies, are naturally averse to snakes and feel pain (ie. the reduction of a number in the reward function) where it takes conscious effort and training to overcome that fear (though it's easier to do with babies who have only what little fear of snakes can be coded into dna as opposed to real life negative experiences). | Inside the human brain, you could, in theory, boil everything down into the result of a reward function, and that reward function is comprised of the many little things that human brains consider to be conducive to their survival and the things they consider to be deducive to their survival. Snakes and getting bit are deducive and therefore humans, even babies, are naturally averse to snakes and feel pain (ie. the reduction of a number in the reward function) where it takes conscious effort and training to overcome that fear (though it's easier to do with babies who have only what little fear of snakes can be coded into dna as opposed to real life negative experiences). | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| The problem with this, and why it's called a local optimum, is because trying to nudge the AI to a better solution will always require the AI to try things it will, initially not be as good as as the thing it's already doing. For example, if you tried to very strongly " | The problem with this, and why it's called a local optimum, is because trying to nudge the AI to a better solution will always require the AI to try things it will, initially not be as good as as the thing it's already doing. For example, if you tried to very strongly " | ||
| - | This is the same reason why hitting your child or talking down to is does NOT work. It doesn' | + | This is the same reason why hitting your child or talking down to is does NOT work. It doesn' |
| + | What you need to do instead | ||
| https:// | https:// | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
| ===== Philosophy of Suicide ===== | ===== Philosophy of Suicide ===== | ||
| + | // | ||
| So, from a utilitarian perspective it is in your interest to give people the right to have full autonomy over ther bodies, including the autonomy to make it un-dynamic (dead). At the same time, from a utilitarian perspective it is in societies interest to stop people from committing suicide because, well, there always is the possibility for them to find back to a life they would genuinely enjoy, no matter how much pain that involves. And if you look out into the world, that's how most governments are structured: You are in your complete right to kill yourself if you so want, but society as a whole is legally required to stop you from doing it. In the same way that you can get charged for driving past the scene of an accident, not stopping someone from committing suicide is seen as a societal responsibility for purely utilitarian reasons. The difference between an accident and suicide is that suicide has at least some degree of consent in there and only directly (!) affects the victim, whereas an accident can directly (!) affect otherwise not directly involved people. In other words, in a suicide the damage is contained (disregarding the suicide victim' | So, from a utilitarian perspective it is in your interest to give people the right to have full autonomy over ther bodies, including the autonomy to make it un-dynamic (dead). At the same time, from a utilitarian perspective it is in societies interest to stop people from committing suicide because, well, there always is the possibility for them to find back to a life they would genuinely enjoy, no matter how much pain that involves. And if you look out into the world, that's how most governments are structured: You are in your complete right to kill yourself if you so want, but society as a whole is legally required to stop you from doing it. In the same way that you can get charged for driving past the scene of an accident, not stopping someone from committing suicide is seen as a societal responsibility for purely utilitarian reasons. The difference between an accident and suicide is that suicide has at least some degree of consent in there and only directly (!) affects the victim, whereas an accident can directly (!) affect otherwise not directly involved people. In other words, in a suicide the damage is contained (disregarding the suicide victim' | ||
utilitarianism.1740150257.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/02/21 16:04 by ultracomfy