Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Temporyacc t1_j7qrk1p wrote

Reply to comment by Unfocusedbrain in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

In a way I agree with you, lots of dumb people, but deciding what other people can and cannot handle is a dangerous slippery slope.

In my opinion, the most ethical answer is to let people decide for themselves where their own line is. This technology isn’t limited by the one-size-fits-all approach that we’re used to, each person can have their own tailored product that doesn’t impose on anybody else’s.

This technology has the most incredible potential to either be democratizing or tyrannizing. Who controls what it can and cannot do is where that that dichotomy hinges.

13

Unfocusedbrain t1_j7qvyof wrote

> In my opinion, the most ethical answer is to let people decide for themselves where their own line is. This technology isn’t limited by the one-size-fits-all approach that we’re used to, each person can have their own tailored product that doesn’t impose on anybody else’s.

That is a fine opinion and I agree, but that implies a world model with infinite resources and manpower. It implies that humanity has reached a state that is responsible enough and holds itself accountable enough to utilize this technology unfettered. We haven't proved ourselves, on any level, that we deserve this technology. Need? Yeah absolutely, too many problems that it will solve. But earned it from our moral and ethical actions? Absolutely not.

That's not to say we as humans need to be morally and ethically perfect. That's impossible, but we aren't even within striking distance of 'good enough'. Even if we want to let people use this technology unfettered, we don't even let people do that with their own lives. Good or bad.

"To each their own' is something I subscribe to, but holy hell can people get to some terrible things if left to their own devices. Too many bad faith actors and malicious agents around.

Ultimately we do need safeguards: as loathe as some people in the singularity community are willing to admit. The fact that most us are terrified of these corporations/and or powerful groups have control over this technology just backs up my whole point. We are discussing if they are ethical, morally, and intellectually fit enough to own this technology. How can we say that if they are only a reflection of us humans and the hierarchical systems we naturally created over time? What does that say about us as a species?

How can we say complete liberation-sque democratization of the this technology would be ANY better?

If we, as a species, were more or less ethical or moral then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

3

Mementoroid t1_j7r9wwk wrote

But muh unfiltered AI!!

There's already people trying to generate AI made underage porn. Sadly, the majority of people asking for uncensored AI tools are not as ethic and wholesome as they pretend to be. AI is awesome, humans are not.

−1

Erophysia t1_j7t2w8o wrote

Serious philosophical question here, if no "harm" is brought to any children, what objection is there to this sort of material? It may invoke disgust, but what action does it warrant?

5

Mementoroid t1_j7w4oyt wrote

The exploitation of children in any form, including through AI-generated imagery, is illegal and morally reprehensible - because it is illegal even when illustrated. Creating or distributing material that sexually exploits children, whether it's real or simulated, contributes to a harmful and dangerous environment for children. Instead, a society focused on improving exponentially should focus on more rational ways to solve what seems to be an actual epidemy of paraphilia that is now being wavered around as an actual sexual orientation.

Also, the argument that "if no harm is brought to any children, what objection is there to this sort of material?" overlooks the fact that even the mere creation and distribution of such material perpetuates a culture that dehumanizes and commodifies children. This can have a damaging effect on children's wellbeing, as well as on society as a whole. This has happened with the normalization of certain sexual media already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU5qEW-9MZk

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12D43.pdf

Pornography already causes negative behavioural patterns on people. AI imagery is already thrilling and exciting for many - even addictive. When it starts to become better, and more accesible and easier to customize - the access to that content will be highly more widespread inevitably.

What action does it warrant? That, I am not sure. But I am also not sure that the majority of people seek "unhinged unfiltered AI" for noble purposes towards a better society (And we're supposed to look forwards to AI that benefits humanity. A better society is part of that.)

1

Erophysia t1_j7wam1k wrote

>- because it is illegal even when illustrated.

I thought SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

As for your other arguments, they seem to be condemning pornography in general since any genre of porn can be argued to dehumanize and commodify any demographic in question, especially women, but any demographic really. So just so we are clear, are you arguing for the outright banning of pornographic material? For that matter, how is porn defined and measured? Current federal law classifies porn as being images of buttocks, genitalia, or a woman's breasts. Naked baby pictures could technically be qualified as porn by this definition, as can photographs taken for an anatomy textbook.

Where do we draw the line?

Edit: The device you're typing on was no-doubt produced, in part, by child slave labor overseas. It would seem this contributes far more to the exploitation of children than AI-generated images.

2

Waste_Rabbit3174 t1_j7rjbkh wrote

Are these people using CSAM images to train the model? If not, I don't see an ethical dilemma. Edit: or photos of real children in a non-sexual context, of course.

−1

Artanthos t1_j7ry3kv wrote

It would take very little effort to use merged photos of real children in the generation of images.

1

Waste_Rabbit3174 t1_j7s3skt wrote

Sounds unethical, then.

1

Agarikas t1_j7sotxq wrote

But is it illegal?

1

Waste_Rabbit3174 t1_j7sp56b wrote

It'll be very interesting to see how the legality is handled. Imo there are a lot of things about AI that our government (USA) is not ready to legislate.

1

Mementoroid t1_j7w86lz wrote

"In addition, visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexual activity and are obscene are also illegal under federal law." So, I think it should apply to AI generations as well.

I also am not sure what to think about how people tend to agree or disagree on legalities. I remember when, in non-AI related discourses, not sure which ones but it was pretty recent, there was backlash about "X" thing being legal. And a lot of redditors jumped in to say that "Legal does not equal ethical".

Now the same discourse is being used for many things AI: "It's not ethical, but it's legal so it's fine."

1

Agarikas t1_j7w90ys wrote

That's because ethics vary widely by culture and the individual. Laws are more focused.

1

Mementoroid t1_j7w9mfw wrote

Laws are also just as varied by culture. Gun control for a very clear example. Not by individual that's for sure.

I do cannot wait for an AI to be the judge and jury and lawmaker, unbiased by beliefs and ideologies.

1

Agarikas t1_j7wa9ze wrote

Yes, but ethics vary even more within the same culture. Me and my neighbor both pay taxes because it's the law, but we have very different sets of ethics. That's normal. Basing something on universal ethics is a fool's errand.

1

Mementoroid t1_j7wd5wi wrote

I stated the opposite. Not universal ethics, universal laws.

1

Mementoroid t1_j7s58rr wrote

Not that like I know their methods. But if society thinks there's not an ethical dilemma then I dunno what to say.

1

Howtobefreaky t1_j7rhvlh wrote

This is some libertarianism-ass stuff here. It doesn't work in practice. People are not rational or inherently moral creatures. A person who decides that they have no limit and it affects others in a negative way is inherently violating another's liberty. This doesn't pass the smell test.

−2

City_dave t1_j7roznw wrote

Many libertarians believe in the principle of harm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle#:~:text=8%20External%20links-,Definition,basic%20principles%20of%20libertarian%20politics.

You are labeling libertarians as anarchists.

4

Howtobefreaky t1_j7rsfmp wrote

Modern libertarians =/= John Stuart Mill

Also horseshoe theory

−2

City_dave t1_j7rsotv wrote

That's semantics. You are changing the definition to suit your opinion.

4

Howtobefreaky t1_j7s3cwo wrote

Let me put it to you this way: you know all those "conservatives" who believe Trump is also a conservative? Yeah. Thats analogous to what libertarianism has become. Are there true conservatives and/or libertarians? Definitely. Is the mainstream and prevalent "ideology" of those groups, in effect, actually grounded in and reflecting back the 19th century (or prior) philosophy that made for their political foundation? No.

0

Howtobefreaky t1_j7s1pt7 wrote

Not really, thats just the reality of mainstream modern libertarianism. If all libertarians really did adhere to Mill's philosophy, they wouldn't be nearly the laughing stock of political ideologies that they are today.

−1

Agarikas t1_j7sp70c wrote

There's a difference between people who identify as libertarian as a political ideology and there are real libertarians who just want to grill in peace.

1

Howtobefreaky t1_j7t5pa7 wrote

There is a difference, but the former shapes the latter over time, and its happening, as much as you want to stick to your definitions and political philosophy.

1

Agarikas t1_j7t870n wrote

Some, I'm sure, get enticed by the devil. But not all.

1

Agarikas t1_j7sp090 wrote

> People are not rational or inherently moral creatures

So why are we so hell bent on going against that?

2