undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaustinjp3y ago0 comments

Well.... no. It's only necessary to know whether suffering exists (it does). After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be).

That's enough to say "let's not do this until we have better data".

If it turns out the second step is unknowable, that's enough to say "let's never do this".

These are subjective decisions, and some may suggest that there are gains that outweigh the potential suffering. I am currently unconvinced.

0 comments

reuben3643y ago

But it's always unknowable. The only consciousness/suffering one truly knows is one's own. We just use heuristics like "this human/animal behaves like I do when suffering". Where we draw the line is completely arbitrary.

austinjpOP3y ago

My second step still stands :)

The unique data-point here is that we are creating these "mini brains". I'm not invoking a knee-jerk "sCiEnTiSTs pLaY g0d OMG!" reaction, but I will invoke Goldblum's Objection: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should".

Like several others in this thread, I'm bemused that this passed bio-ethics. Drawing the line isn't entirely arbitrary, ethics panels do it every day. We already have the tools, but it seems that in this case we don't know whether to apply them, or which to apply.

wruza3y ago

I agree and am unconvinced too. But currently we also agree to create suffering at the industrial scale in mice. Pretty strange choice of principles.

austinjpOP3y ago

Indeed. Although some of us try to opt out of that stuff too, as much as possible.

The ethical questions raised by anomalous situations like this indicate that our historical decisions may need revising.

cercatrova3y ago

> After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be).

That is a Kantian, deontological approach, an ethical framework not shared by all. The utilitarian would ask how much suffering would be caused as compared to how much good it would produce.

austinjpOP3y ago

Erm no. I'm not advocating morality driven by "duty". I'm pointing out the pragmatic issue that we don't know where we're heading, so perhaps we should pause and have a good hard think about the possibilities :)

Utilitarianism also comes with its own issues, of course. Exploitation of minorities and the disempowered, for example (including manufactured brains-in-vats, it seems).

mensetmanusman3y ago

Pong playing? Infinite good!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

reuben3643y ago

austinjpOP3y ago

My second step still stands :)

wruza3y ago

I agree and am unconvinced too. But currently we also agree to create suffering at the industrial scale in mice. Pretty strange choice of principles.

austinjpOP3y ago

Indeed. Although some of us try to opt out of that stuff too, as much as possible.

The ethical questions raised by anomalous situations like this indicate that our historical decisions may need revising.

cercatrova3y ago

> After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be).

That is a Kantian, deontological approach, an ethical framework not shared by all. The utilitarian would ask how much suffering would be caused as compared to how much good it would produce.

austinjpOP3y ago

Utilitarianism also comes with its own issues, of course. Exploitation of minorities and the disempowered, for example (including manufactured brains-in-vats, it seems).

mensetmanusman3y ago

Pong playing? Infinite good!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse