This is a sorites problem and you want to sort some pebbles into kinds. You’ve made clear that externalism about porn may be true (something may begin or stop being porn in virtue of properties outside it’s own inherent content, such as where it is and contextual features).
It seems to me that you have to prioritize your goals in this case. So the goal “ban porn” is much more important then the goal “leave eroticism alone”. My response would be to play safe and ban all footage including genitals, similar to what the Japanese already do with pubes etc…
This response is analogous to your Oracle AI paper suggestion, only mine is less sophisticated.
Now, I can steelman your request, you must ban all porn and with the exact same importance you must endorse that eroticism take place. Then I’d evoke the works of skeptical philosophers about the sorites problem, like Paul Unger, who doesn’t think people nor himself exist (while still thinking you should not “live high and let die”).
I’d argue that these theorists are right, and that thus there is no matter of fact as to where porn stops and erotism begins.
The goal is still there though, the goal is embedded in Nature, regardless of what we think about it? Ok. Now if we know there is no fact of the matter, and erring in both directions would be equally bad, we should make pools to find out the general opinion on the porn eroticism divide (seems safe to bet that porn is porn in virtue of its relation to human minds, since chimp porn is not attractive to us). Those pools would be compulsory, like voting is in some places, we’d have as good an idea about what the human mind considers porn as we can. Like hot or not, there would be worldwide porn or not websites.
This would go on (causing a lot of damage every time someone had to detect porn) for a while, until the best algorithms of the time could do the detecting indistinguishably from the average of all humans to some approximation. When that was done, anyone attempting to create eroticism would have their files automatically scanned for porn-ness by the narrow AI.
We would have the best system possible to avoid infractions in both directions of the sorites problem. For every doubling of the human population from then on, re-check to see if our senses have shifted drastically from the previous ones and adapt the algorithm.
Seems desirable to over the long run make sure cultural globalization of morals is very intense, so I’d ban immigration laws to make sure humanity clusters around a narrow subset of mindspace as it regards porn or not.
Depending on how that goal factors in with every single other goal we have ever had, it may be good to destroy lots of resources after the moral globalization process is done, so that people spend more resources on survival and have fewer chances of drifting morally apart. Following the same reasoning, it may be desirable to progressively eliminate males, since males are less biologically necessary, and porn judgement varies significantly by gender.
For every doubling of the human population from then on, re-check to see if our senses have shifted drastically from the previous ones and adapt the algorithm.
I feel this kind of idea could have some AI potential in some form or other. Let me think about it...
This is a sorites problem and you want to sort some pebbles into kinds. You’ve made clear that externalism about porn may be true (something may begin or stop being porn in virtue of properties outside it’s own inherent content, such as where it is and contextual features).
It seems to me that you have to prioritize your goals in this case. So the goal “ban porn” is much more important then the goal “leave eroticism alone”. My response would be to play safe and ban all footage including genitals, similar to what the Japanese already do with pubes etc…
This response is analogous to your Oracle AI paper suggestion, only mine is less sophisticated.
Now, I can steelman your request, you must ban all porn and with the exact same importance you must endorse that eroticism take place. Then I’d evoke the works of skeptical philosophers about the sorites problem, like Paul Unger, who doesn’t think people nor himself exist (while still thinking you should not “live high and let die”).
I’d argue that these theorists are right, and that thus there is no matter of fact as to where porn stops and erotism begins.
The goal is still there though, the goal is embedded in Nature, regardless of what we think about it? Ok. Now if we know there is no fact of the matter, and erring in both directions would be equally bad, we should make pools to find out the general opinion on the porn eroticism divide (seems safe to bet that porn is porn in virtue of its relation to human minds, since chimp porn is not attractive to us). Those pools would be compulsory, like voting is in some places, we’d have as good an idea about what the human mind considers porn as we can. Like hot or not, there would be worldwide porn or not websites.
This would go on (causing a lot of damage every time someone had to detect porn) for a while, until the best algorithms of the time could do the detecting indistinguishably from the average of all humans to some approximation. When that was done, anyone attempting to create eroticism would have their files automatically scanned for porn-ness by the narrow AI.
We would have the best system possible to avoid infractions in both directions of the sorites problem. For every doubling of the human population from then on, re-check to see if our senses have shifted drastically from the previous ones and adapt the algorithm.
Seems desirable to over the long run make sure cultural globalization of morals is very intense, so I’d ban immigration laws to make sure humanity clusters around a narrow subset of mindspace as it regards porn or not.
Depending on how that goal factors in with every single other goal we have ever had, it may be good to destroy lots of resources after the moral globalization process is done, so that people spend more resources on survival and have fewer chances of drifting morally apart. Following the same reasoning, it may be desirable to progressively eliminate males, since males are less biologically necessary, and porn judgement varies significantly by gender.
I feel this kind of idea could have some AI potential in some form or other. Let me think about it...