upvote

points

by lupire18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby nkrisc18 hours ago|
next
[-]
We can choose to draw the lines wherever we want. I firmly draw the line such that AI is never equal to a human.
reply
upvoteby solenoid093715 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Just because you can draw a line doesn't mean your line makes any sense, or follows any semblance of rationality.
reply
upvoteby nkrisc8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That’s the cool thing, the lines we, as a society, choose to draw need not follow any logical or rational system. This is something those who work a lot with computers tend to forget.

The pure rationalist loses something important.

reply
upvoteby computably18 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Presumably they meant that they'd sacrifice some material value for some animals, not that every animal on Earth has infinitely more value than inanimate goods.

> infinities cannot be compared

That's either a mathematically illiterate assumption or a very strange philosophical hill to die on.

> some tragedies cannot be averted

Sure. The question is what to do about the ones that can be averted.

> some decisions are impossible to make

> and "prioritization" is a distraction that forces choices when choices are not strictly necessary.

Again, the question is what choices to make when you can (arguably must) make them. Saying they're impossible is just refusing to take responsibility. You either do something, or you don't.

reply
upvoteby jvanderbot18 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I'm not. You're right. Some animals are property to be traded and used to support human life. I should separate companion animals and the rest.

If you believe sanctity of all life is a solution, then I'm curious what you believe the problem is that such a belief solves.

I bet it's circularly defined as justifying the preservation of sacred nonhuman life? I'm not trying to be provocative just curious.

reply