upvote
Not to derail, but the optimist in me thinks if we suddenly gained the ability to converse with livestock, we'd stop eating so much of them since they could tell us how much they suffered.

The cynic in me says it wouldn't change a thing as plenty of people know the horrors factory farmed animals face and still continue to consume them anyways.

Hopefully GPT 8 will treat as a bit better than we treat the cows.

reply
How much do we care about refugees and other castaways of the modern world? They can tell us how much they suffer.

The answer is that humans are inherently only capable of local empathy, on average. We have enough empathy to cover the local tribal unit and that's about it.

reply
True, I was thinking about this rebuttal but decided not to include it in my comment. There's a difference between not choosing to take a refugee into your home vs actively making that refugee's life worse. Similarly, you can't fix factory farming on your own, but you could skip meat once a week to make the problem slightly less bad. There are so many issues though that we all have to pick and choose what's important to us.

My hope is that AI, while probably causing great societal turmoil in the short term, leads to such abundance that a) everyone can live a dignified existence, and b) we'll have such great alternatives to animal products that nobody will chose to consume animals anymore due to its replacement either tasting better, being cheaper, etc.

The cynic in me says we'll all just be rendered useless and disposable by AI, but I'm doing my best to look for silver linings for the sake of my own mental health.

reply
I'm trying to be optimistic about the animal thing too tbh :)
reply
Communication is not only about being able to make sense of what the utterer expressed. As tricky as it can be, that's still the easy surface level part of the issue. Gaining an intuitive and empathic equivalent representation is the nub of mutual understanding. It actually doesn't even need elaborate language to be operative.

The famous "how does it feel to be a bat" also comes to mind as a tangent consideration.

Two people can just exchange a sight, and both understand what the situation means and what each need to do to reach a common mutually beneficial ground.

Two people might exchange at length with highly technical vocabulary and still both feel deeply not understood.

reply
Cynical take is the correct one, and no, GPT 8 has zero reasons to spare us.
reply
> recent work in animal communication

Worth noting that this is an invisibly small part of the sum total of our global efforts, especially versus the much more tangible effort we put into enslaving and slaughtering them, then mangling their carcasses for our own uses as we drive more and more of them to extinction.

We simply don't care about anything beyond ourselves and even there it breaks down on closer analysis when we see how many within our species don't truly value the collective whole beyond themselves.

It's just atoms all the way down.

reply
> enslaving and slaughtering them, then mangling their carcasses for our own uses as we drive more and more of them to extinction.

I'm frankly offended by this mischaracterization of human-animal relationships. So called "slaves" like horses and dogs have been dearly beloved companions for centuries and actively seek our companionship too.

The animals we raise for slaughter are often mistreated, yes, but many humans treat them with respect; billions on billions are voluntarily spent to improve their condition. Despite our own needs, many people pay higher prices for animal products that involve better treatment of animals. And they are in no risk of extinction! Much to the contrary, their domestic variants would not exist if humans didn't raise and protect them.

> We simply don't care about anything beyond ourselves

Have you seen modern westerners with their dogs??

reply
I think you’re splitting hairs. The OP’s analogy works well.

If we end up in a future where AIs have as much concern for our welfare as we have for the welfare of the average animal (not the minuscule percentage of domesticated dogs, but the overwhelming majority of factory-farmed or simply driven to extinction), then I doubt you would consider it a “mischaracterization” to say that the whole AI thing did not work out to our advantage.

Bringing up “modern Westerners with their dogs” as a counterexample is almost self-parody.

reply
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for a "human zoo" future. I very much like being the dominant species on earth.

It would be absurd to claim that all animals live some sort of charmed life due to humans.

But saying that animals (especially those most similar to us like intelligent mammals) are nothing more than "atoms" to humans is equally absurd.

reply
I don't think the analogy worked. It contained giant axes, and a giant grinder, and the OP shoehorned both into an unrelated discussion about math.
reply
> The animals we raise for slaughter are often mistreated

"Often mistreated". Dude, they are held in tiny cages injected with hormones and what not till we kill them so we can have a big mac. It's very hard to argue we do any of this for nutrition reasons, we do it because we like the taste of burgers and roast.

reply
The problem is not that AIs will somehow treat people badly, it's that they'll be controlled by humans who will treat other people badly using AI as a tool.
reply
Atoms are a lie.
reply
So it's lies all the way down?

I had suspected...

reply