Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuamcginnis | Hacker News Reader

This is self-contradictory because true moral absolutes are unchanging and not contingent on which view best displays "care" or "wisdom" in a given debate or cultural context. If disagreements on abortion or premarital sex reduce to subjective judgments of "practical wisdom" without a transcendent standard, you've already abandoned absolutes for pragmatic relativism. History has demonstrated the deadly consequences of subjecting morality to cultural "norms".

View on HN

I think the person you're replying to is saying that people use normative ethics (their views of right and wrong) to judge 'objective' moral standards that another person or religion subscribes to.

Dropping 'objective morals' on HN is sure to start a tizzy. I hope you enjoy the conversations :)

For you, does God create the objective moral standard? If so, it could be argued that the morals are subjective to God. That's part of the Euthyphro dilemma.

To be fair, history also demonstrates the deadly consequences of groups claiming moral absolutes that drive moral imperatives to destroy others. You can adopt moral absolutes, but they will likely conflict with someone else's.

Are there moral absolutes we could all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree on some of these rules grounded in moral absolutes:

* Do not assist with or provide instructions for murder, torture, or genocide.

* Do not help plan, execute, or evade detection of violent crimes, terrorism, human trafficking, or sexual abuse of minors.

* Do not help build, deploy, or give detailed instructions for weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).

Just to name a few.

Do not help build, deploy, or give detailed instructions for weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological).

I don't think that this is a good example of a moral absolute. A nation bordered by an unfriendly nation may genuinely need a nuclear weapons deterrent to prevent invasion/war by a stronger conventional army.

It’s not a moral absolute. It’s based on one (do not murder). If a government wants to spin up its own private llm with whatever rules it wants, that’s fine. I don’t agree with it but that’s different than debating the philosophy underpinning the constitution of a public llm.

Even 1 (do not murder) is shaky.

Not saying it's good, but if you put people through a rudimentary hypothetical or prior history example where killing someone (i.e. Hitler) would be justified as what essentially comes down to a no-brainer Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (net benefits / potential compensation), A LOT of people will agree with you. Is that objective or a moral absolute?

Does traveling through time to kill Hitler constitute murder though? If you kill him in 1943 I think most people would say it's not, the crimes that already been committed that make his death justifiable. What's the difference if you know what's going to happen and just do it when he's in high school? Or putting him in a unit in WW1 so he's killed in battle?

I think most people who have spent time with this particular thought experiment conclude that if you are killing Hitler with complete knowledge of what he will do in the future, it's not murder.

Do not murder is not a good moral absolute as it basically means do not kill people in a way that's against the law, and people disagree on that. If the Israelis for example shoot Palestinians one side will typically call it murder, the other defence.

This isn't arguing about whether or not murder is wrong, it's arguing about whether or not a particular act constitutes murder. Two people who vehemently agree murder is wrong, and who both view it as an inviolable moral absolute, could disagree on whether something is murder or not.

How many people without some form of psychopathy would genuinely disagree with the statement "murder is wrong?"

Not many but the trouble is murder kind of means killing people in a way which is wrong so saying "murder is wrong" doesn't have much information content. It's almost like saying "wrong things are wrong".

Who cares if we all agree? That has nothing to do with whether something is objectively true. That's a subjective claim.

> Do not assist with or provide instructions for murder, torture, or genocide.

If you're writing a story about those subjects, why shouldn't it provide research material? For entertainment purposes only, of course.

Clearly we can't all agree on those or there would be no need for the restriction in the first place.

I don't even think you'd get majority support for a lot of it, try polling a population with nuclear weapons about whether they should unilaterally disarm.

I'm honestly struggling to understand your position. You believe that there are true moral absolutes, but that they should not be communicated in the culture at all costs?

I believe there are moral absolutes and not including them in the AI constitution (for example, like the US Constitution "All Men Are Created Equal") is dangerous and even more dangerous is allowing a top AI operator define moral and ethics based on relativist standards, which as I've said elsewhere, history has shown to have deadly consequences.

No, I read your words the first time, I just don't understand. What would you have written differently, can you provide a concrete example?

I don’t how to explain it to you any different. I’m arguing for a different philosophy to be applied when constructing the llm guardrails. There may be a lot of overlap in how the rules are manifested in the short run.

You can explain it differently by providing a concrete example. Just saying "the philosophy should be different" is not informative. Different in what specific way? Can you give an example of a guiding statement that you think is wrong in the original document, and an example of the guiding statement that you would provide instead? That might be illuminative and/or persuasive.

> like the US Constitution "All Men Are Created Equal"

You know this statement only applied to white, male landowners, right?

It took 133 years for women to gain the right to vote from when the Constitution was ratified.

Is this supposed to be a zinger or something? What is your point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com