The right answers are the ones dictated by the weighing up of harm based on the available information (which includes the harm ratings in the database of knowledge of sentience).
I disagree. I reject your standard of correctness. (As do many other people.)
The question of whether there is an objective standard of correctness for moral judgments, is the domain of metaethics. If you have not encountered this field before now, I strongly suggest that you investigate it in detail; there is a great deal of material there, which is relevant to this discussion.
(I will avoid commenting on the reincarnation-related parts of your comment, even though they do form the bulk of what you’ve written. All of that is, of course, nonsense, but there’s no need whatever to rehash, in this thread, the arguments for why it is nonsense. I will only suggest that you read the sequences; much of the material therein is targeted at precisely this sort of topic, and this sort of viewpoint.)
“I disagree. I reject your standard of correctness. (As do many other people.)”
Shingles is worse than a cold. I haven’t had it, but those who have will tell you how bad the pain is. We can collect data on suffering by asking people how bad things feel in comparison to other things, and this is precisely what AGI will set about doing in order to build its database and make its judgements more and more accurate. If you have the money to alleviate the suffering of one person out of a group suffering from a variety of painful conditions and all you know about them is which condition they have just acquired, you can use the data in that database to work out which one you should help. That is morality being applied, and it’s the best way of doing it—any other answer is immoral. Of course, if we know more about these people, such as how good or bad they are, that might change the result, but again there would be data that can be crunched to work out how much suffering their past actions caused to undeserving others. There is a clear mechanism for doing this, and not doing it that way using the available information is immoral.
“The question of whether there is an objective standard of correctness for moral judgments, is the domain of metaethics.”
We already have what we need—a pragmatic system for getting as close to the ideal morality as possible based on collecting the data as to how harmful different experiences are. The data will never be complete, they will never be fully accurate, but they are the best that can be done and we have a moral duty to compile and use them.
“(I will avoid commenting on the reincarnation-related parts of your comment, even though they do form the bulk of what you’ve written. All of that is, of course, nonsense...”
If you reject that, you are doing so in favour of magical thinking, and AGI won’t be impressed with that. The idea that the sentience in you can’t go on to become a sentience in a maggot is based on the idea that after death that sentience magically becomes nothing. I am fully aware that most people are magical thinkers, so you will always feel that you are right on the basis that hordes of fellow magical thinkers back up your magical beliefs, but you are being irrational. AGI is not going to be programmed to be irrational in the same way most humans are. The job of AGI is to model reality in the least magical way it can, and having things pop into existence out of nothing and then return to being nothing is more magical than having things continue to exist in the normal way that things in physics behave. (All those virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in the vacuum, they emerge from a “nothing” that isn’t nothing—it has properties such as a rule that whatever’s taken from it must have the same amount handed back.) Religious people have magical beliefs too and they too make the mistake of thinking that numbers of supporters are evidence that their beliefs are right, but being right is not democratic. Being right depends squarely on being right. Again here, we don’t have absolute right answers in one sense, but we do have in terms of what is probably right, and an idea that depends on less magic (and more rational mechanism) is more likely to be right. You have made a fundamental mistake here by rejecting a sound idea on the basis of a bias in your model of reality that has led to you miscategorising it as nonsense, while your evidence for it being nonsense is support by a crowd of people who haven’t bothered to think it through.
I disagree. I reject your standard of correctness. (As do many other people.)
The question of whether there is an objective standard of correctness for moral judgments, is the domain of metaethics. If you have not encountered this field before now, I strongly suggest that you investigate it in detail; there is a great deal of material there, which is relevant to this discussion.
(I will avoid commenting on the reincarnation-related parts of your comment, even though they do form the bulk of what you’ve written. All of that is, of course, nonsense, but there’s no need whatever to rehash, in this thread, the arguments for why it is nonsense. I will only suggest that you read the sequences; much of the material therein is targeted at precisely this sort of topic, and this sort of viewpoint.)
“I disagree. I reject your standard of correctness. (As do many other people.)”
Shingles is worse than a cold. I haven’t had it, but those who have will tell you how bad the pain is. We can collect data on suffering by asking people how bad things feel in comparison to other things, and this is precisely what AGI will set about doing in order to build its database and make its judgements more and more accurate. If you have the money to alleviate the suffering of one person out of a group suffering from a variety of painful conditions and all you know about them is which condition they have just acquired, you can use the data in that database to work out which one you should help. That is morality being applied, and it’s the best way of doing it—any other answer is immoral. Of course, if we know more about these people, such as how good or bad they are, that might change the result, but again there would be data that can be crunched to work out how much suffering their past actions caused to undeserving others. There is a clear mechanism for doing this, and not doing it that way using the available information is immoral.
“The question of whether there is an objective standard of correctness for moral judgments, is the domain of metaethics.”
We already have what we need—a pragmatic system for getting as close to the ideal morality as possible based on collecting the data as to how harmful different experiences are. The data will never be complete, they will never be fully accurate, but they are the best that can be done and we have a moral duty to compile and use them.
“(I will avoid commenting on the reincarnation-related parts of your comment, even though they do form the bulk of what you’ve written. All of that is, of course, nonsense...”
If you reject that, you are doing so in favour of magical thinking, and AGI won’t be impressed with that. The idea that the sentience in you can’t go on to become a sentience in a maggot is based on the idea that after death that sentience magically becomes nothing. I am fully aware that most people are magical thinkers, so you will always feel that you are right on the basis that hordes of fellow magical thinkers back up your magical beliefs, but you are being irrational. AGI is not going to be programmed to be irrational in the same way most humans are. The job of AGI is to model reality in the least magical way it can, and having things pop into existence out of nothing and then return to being nothing is more magical than having things continue to exist in the normal way that things in physics behave. (All those virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in the vacuum, they emerge from a “nothing” that isn’t nothing—it has properties such as a rule that whatever’s taken from it must have the same amount handed back.) Religious people have magical beliefs too and they too make the mistake of thinking that numbers of supporters are evidence that their beliefs are right, but being right is not democratic. Being right depends squarely on being right. Again here, we don’t have absolute right answers in one sense, but we do have in terms of what is probably right, and an idea that depends on less magic (and more rational mechanism) is more likely to be right. You have made a fundamental mistake here by rejecting a sound idea on the basis of a bias in your model of reality that has led to you miscategorising it as nonsense, while your evidence for it being nonsense is support by a crowd of people who haven’t bothered to think it through.