There’s no such thing as a concrete standard of morals.
My sociology professor used to say: "if you look far enough in human societies, you will find examples of just about everything imaginable being accepted, or restricted except for incest and cannibalism, those two have clearly observable problems and generally societies will shun them eventually - with notable exceptions such as the Hapsburgs of Europe and the odd cannibal tribe in the Pacific.
It’s an extremely complex question because each of those questions that arise also have a million questions to answer to get the answer to them. And all of them being “right” or “wrong” rely on large scale social acceptance of the answers to each other questions
For an AI to participate in such discussions, it - like a human - would need to learn the locally accepted social mores and synthesize any gaps from the available information. The final result for this and similar questions will depend heavily on the society it is learning from - uncontacted tribes in the Amazon will have different answers from tribes in equatorial West Africa, and of course different answers still from Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. etc. (each of those having dozens to hundreds of sects...) There is no global answer.
AI doesn’t have sentience. It can’t feel emotion and therefore can’t reason using emotion.
To the extent that emotion is expressed in lexical tokens it can process, AI can process those tokens in context and "feel" to the fidelity that writers can express what emotion is and how it should / should not, does / does not impact decisions.
...losing weight is simple... that can be extremely HARD for most people to actually do.
Knowing the physics doesn't make self-control any easier. Losing weight is a behavioral thing and many of the factors in the behavioral choices aren't under rational control - the decision to eat is strongly driven by all kinds of biological factors that don't care about your reason and philosophies. I wonder what similar problems AI may develop in the future as an emergent behavior of other things we are building into it.
that’s not really a philosophical question
Choose your field... two rabbis (dirty old men, of course) having agreed that abortion is a sin: debating whether it is a sin for a woman to perform feminine hygeine after rape to possibly prevent pregnancy from that rape. Where on the continuum from Monty Python's "every sin is sacred" up to late term does abortion become a sin? Do the circumstances of the insemination come into play or not, and if so... how? What considerations are given to alienating the woman and perhaps her family from the synagogue if too hard-line of an interpretation is taught? Should the considerations be drawn up mathematically with weights and formulas if possible? Like physics, if you have a formula you can check it for correctness by putting in test values and seeing if the results are reasonable.
“Easy” and “hard” are NOT the same thing as “simple” and “complex”.
No, but they rhyme - so to speak. Hard problems become easier when their apparent complexities are simplified.
Any person widely known to have a net worth over $100M typically has a security force of some kind, even if the body guards aren't visible, they're there working to ensure their target's safety.
I worked at a drone company in 2012, we were approached by the security team of a silicon valley wunderkind who liked to roller skate to work - drove them batty, they were interested in running aerial surveillance on his route.
Amodei is a particularly "hot topic" these days, not surprising they're working overtime.
complex questions
Yet another slippery fish to try to wrestle with bare hands. What constitutes complexity? Some relatively simple looking questions turn out to be highly complex: Are there any whole-number solutions to (a^n + b^n = c^n) if (n) is greater than 2?
Then, any number of complex looking questions turn out to be quite simple with a little insight: such as any large product which has a factor that reduces to 0.
What's simple for some people is hard for others, and I would posit that is greatly amplified when you stop comparing humans to humans and start comparing humans to animals or machines...
they can apply experience to new situations without the ability to use feeling as part of that.
We put unfeeling psychopaths in charge of our largest corporations, to maximize profits - a machine might be less scary in the long run.
Like a collection of nuclear warheads that can end the world, but if it's your collection of nukes you can threaten others with it.
Dunno, we've been making nukes like crazy even since the whole nuclear winter thing was figured out.
Are whales sentient? Apes? Dogs? Squid? Alligators? Spiders? Fleas? What's the test? (Yeah, the mirror test - how well do you think that really works?)
H. sapiens has more in common with fleas than LLMs - the LLMs only seem more familiar because they're trained on our text-based interactions. Whatever sentience LLMs do or do not develop, we will be debating how to define it probably until they start reproducing themselves and force us to a sit-down negotiation over how we will divide the Earth's resources - or maybe they won't bother with negotiation.
Ever hear of people investing in weapons manufacturers?
Immutable systems are... challenging.
They're good at resilliance, reboot and "important stuff" gets restored to its state when locked.
(Some of) the problems are: how to draw the line between "important stuff" that should never change and "configuration parameters" that need to be periodically modified, and storage like log files that change all the time. Then, occasionally you need to open up the "immutable" partition and make changes there as well, and during those openings you are basically as, perhaps a bit more, vulnerable to attack as traditional systems.
The fact that Ubuntu has been working on this for so many years and it's still not ready for release tells you something...
I have developed a few systems on RaspberryPi where the immutability protects the immutable microSD filesystem from corruption when power is lost without graceful shutdown, which is pretty much every shutdown in real-world deployments...
Everybody loved Win98 and loathed WinME - I thought ME wasn't bad, slight improvement over 98SE, after spending 2 solid nights on the internet looking up how to disable all the worthless ME crap they stuck in there that was a good laptop for several years.
The problem with rural connectivity is cable-miles per subscriber. When the US rolled out copper telephone lines to the boonies that was HEAVILY subsidized by urban customers.
Illich isn't an easy read, but when you get into it, his "second watershed" is basically "jumping the shark," when an institution - like medicine, or education, or many others, has outgrown its positive contributions to society and started to hurt as much or more than it helps.
Can you identify when the industry you work in crossed Illich's first and second watersheds?
https://arl.human.cornell.edu/linked%20docs/Illich_Tools_for_Conviviality.pdf
That's what you think about your cats. I've had a dozen cats over the past 60 years, about 4 of them "inside only." In my experience, they most definitely know. The persian who wasn't really possible to let outside most definitely responded to things like flea-dipping, us not being home on time to feed him, etc. Overall, I see much more happiness and friendly disposition in the outdoor cats, but you do you. Box trained dogs "don't know any better" either, but does that really make keeping your big dog in a box 90% of its life O.K.?
Is that any worse than passively choosing to support the abuse that takes place in chicken factories? I can't stand modern chicken meat because it's disgustingly bloated, flaccid and flavorless - then think about how that chicken was raised, bred for fast growth and pumped with hormones to grow faster. If you ever have the stones, go visit a chicken factory and look inside one of the sheds - but wear a respirator, I wouldn't want you hurt by the toxic air.
On the greater scale, the (very few) animals around me that are getting hurt by our cat are out there in the wild, getting eaten by all kinds of other wild creatures in their environment. Just tonight, I encountered a large skink in the yard - they're in the yard now, far from the house, because we have a cat that spends his time mostly in and near the house the skinks don't take up residence in the living room anymore (like they did when we first moved in). They're not all dead, they're just living in places more protected from our (and our neighbors') cats.
Your argument is basically you bending logic, facts, etc to suit your point of view. Don’t be so entrenched.
Anyway, this is my last reply because you are behaving irrationally. It’s not that you won, it’s that I don’t care about someone who is so callous to farm animals.